Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Nor Ken Berry (at least until they divorced).  And Ms. Joseph is still with us, at 87.

Yep, and I seem to remember when this happened, it wasn't exactly amicable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

And yet they always seemed so happy on Tattletales!

Sebastian Cabot Lodge on Twitter: "Ken Berry & wife Jackie Joseph on  TATTLETALES @BUZZRplay #buzzr channel on cable https://t.co/ltBNw9Pq0F"

Yep and as I recall, so did Patty Duke and John Astin, Brett Somers and Jack Klugman, George Hamilton and the future Alana (Rod) Stewart, and well...a number of other married (at the time) celebs on that program.

(...although I did always have the feeling that the cute as hell Elaine Joyce would've been married forever to Bobby Van if he hadn't died so damn young)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I watched a DVR recording of The Crimson Kimono from about a month or so ago on TCM and must say Malone's comments at the end of the film actually ruined part of the film experience for me.  She claimed the film's story was great and progressive up until the end when it decided to show reverse-racism.  For her racism is about power (her words), but i hate to break it to her, racism is racism, hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry.  There's no such thing as 'reverse-racism'.  Don't know what she's actually trying to describe, but it isn't a theme that is at play in this plot.  I liked this story and liked how it showed how Japanese Americans viewed Caucasians and their struggles they deal within their Japanese culture to be able to marry a caucasian partner.  Malone's views honestly took me completely out of the film once it was over and could only think 'Huh?  Why would she even say that?'

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shank Asu, while I agree absolutely, positively and UNEQUIVOCALLY agree with the thought you expressed in this first part of your above posting...

1 hour ago, Shank Asu said:

Yesterday I watched a DVR recording of The Crimson Kimono from about a month or so ago on TCM and must say Malone's comments at the end of the film actually ruined part of the film experience for me.  She claimed the film's story was great and progressive up until the end when it decided to show reverse-racism.  For her racism is about power (her words), but i hate to break it to her, racism is racism, hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry.  There's no such thing as 'reverse-racism'. 

...AND which was a point that I actually brought up a few months back when our "woke" TCM hosts presented their opinions on the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and when THEY failed to mention ANYTHING at all about the out-and-out racist views which were expressed in THAT film by Sidney Poitier's father character.

However, what I can NOT understand is the thought you THEN expressed within the SECOND half of your above posting here...

1 hour ago, Shank Asu said:

Don't know what she's actually trying to describe, but it isn't a theme that is at play in this plot.  I liked this story and liked how it showed how Japanese Americans viewed Caucasians and their struggles they deal within their Japanese culture to be able to marry a caucasian partner.  Malone's views honestly took me completely out of the film once it was over and could only think 'Huh?  Why would she even say that?'

...as I have to THEN wonder, and as I do every time someone comes these boards (and who usually turn out to be as I call then "One Post Wonders") states their displeasure and disgust with something they've considered as "woke" which one of the TCM host have said about some film.

And so MY question here is: Why would you allow ANYTHING that the cute Aussie lass with the nice smile and an overall pleasant appearance(but who once again, does tend to talk through her nose at bit) OR for that matter ANYTHING that ANY of the TCM hosts say while they're expressing an OPINION about the film you've just watched, AFFECT you to ANY degree at all, and ESPECIALLY to the degree to which and as you YOURSELF here have just stated in which it "took (you) completely out of the film once it was over"???

You see, I don't and never have allowed ANYTHING that ANY of the TCM hosts have ever said after THEY have given us THEIR opinion about a film affect ME in the damn LEAST, well, at least NOT to the degree to which it would affect ME and take ME "completely out of film once it was over", anyway.

(...see my point here?...so what is it?...are you worried that whatever the TCM hosts say and when they offer up their OPINIONS about a certain film's content or "message", that this might go on to heavily influence too many people with as yet unformed opinions of their own out while they're listening to them, and say such as the younger viewers out there?...well, at least this has always been MY guess as to why I occasionally read posts submitted to these boards with these sorts of laments, anyway)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dargo said:

Ah HA! So THIS explains that "confused" emoji response you just gave me today in that earlier post of mine and where I went on that tear about how I'm sick and tired of people comin' on here and grippin'  about the hosts supplying what is in REALITY is more a case of historical context, EH Shank?! ;) 

So then I take it comments about their VOICES is still alright then, RIGHT?! 

(...and 'cause ya know, both Ben AND Alicia DO kind'a talk through their noses, don't YA?!!!)

LOL

I still disagree with that.  Alicia sounds so "stopped up" her voice sounds like she's smoked a "fatty" before camera time( but I say that because smoking rope always had that nose clogging effect on me.  ;) )

And had you been listening(if you watched it yesterday)  during the trial segment of NOTORIOUS LANDLADY you'd have noticed ALL them Brits sounded in need of  

Sepiatone

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Shank Asu, while I agree absolutely, positively and UNEQUIVOCALLY agree with the thought you expressed in this first part of your above posting...

...AND which was a point that I actually brought up a few months back when our "woke" TCM hosts presented their opinions on the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and when THEY failed to mention ANYTHING at all about the out-and-out racist views which were expressed in THAT film by Sidney Poitier's father charcter.

However, what I can NOT understand is the thought you THEN expressed within the SECOND half of your above posting here...

...as I have to THEN wonder, and as I do every time someone comes these boards (and who usually turn out to be as I call then "One Post Wonders") states their displeasure and disgust with something they've considered as "woke" which one of the TCM host have said about some film.

And so MY question here is: Why would you allow ANYTHING that the cute Aussie lass with the nice smile and an overall pleasant appearance(but who once again, does tend to talk through her nose at bit) OR for that matter ANYTHING that ANY of the TCM hosts say while they're expressing an OPINION about the film you've just watched, AFFECT you to ANY degree at all, and ESPECIALLY to the degree to which and as you YOURSELF here have just stated in which it "took (you) completely out of the film once it was over"???

You see, I don't and never have allowed ANYTHING that ANY of the TCM hosts have ever said after THEY have givien us THEIR opinion about a film affect ME in the damn LEAST, well, at least NOT to the degree to which it would affect ME and take ME "completely out of film once it was over", anyway.

(...see my point here?...so what is it?...are you worried that whatever the TCM hosts say and when they offer up their opinion about a certain film's content or "message", that this might go on to influence too many people with as yet unformed opinion of their own out there listening to them, and say such as the younger viewers out there?...well, at least this has always been MY guess as to why I occasionally read posts submitted to these boards with these sorts of laments, anyway)

I guess it was because i just finished a film that i enjoyed and immediately i hear what i thought was a ridiculous take on it that didn't really have anything to do with the film at all but more about what agenda the host has.  and that is something i don't think really belongs on TCM- regardless how many viewers may believe it.  that really isn't the purpose of the channel.

but yeah, i try not to let things like that affect me.  just get a bit sick of politics and social agenda taking over everything.  guess i can't help it how i react sometimes just wanting to stay out of it when i want to just enjoy a film.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Shank Asu, while I agree absolutely, positively and UNEQUIVOCALLY agree with the thought you expressed in this first part of your above posting...

...AND which was a point that I actually brought up a few months back when our "woke" TCM hosts presented their opinions on the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and when THEY failed to mention ANYTHING at all about the out-and-out racist views which were expressed in THAT film by Sidney Poitier's father charcter.

 

:rolleyes: Silly Dargo.....   ANY black activist will tell you....

There's NO SUCH THING as a "black racist".  :rolleyes:  Try telling them otherwise and they'll argue semantics with you.  I myself distinguish a difference between a "racist" and a "bigot".  And by my reckoning, I understand what you're saying, but to me it would be more fitting to claim  Roy Glenn's character as making BIGOTED views.  ;)  Which I've long felt he clearly was doing.

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

:rolleyes: Silly Dargo.....   ANY black activist will tell you....

There's NO SUCH THING as a "black racist".  :rolleyes:  Try telling them otherwise and they'll argue semantics with you.  I myself distinguish a difference between a "racist" and a "bigot".  And by my reckoning, I understand what you're saying, but to me it would be more fitting to claim  Roy Glenn's character as making BIGOTED views.  ;)  Which I've long felt he clearly was doing.

Sepiatone

Like your post here Sepia, and in return I understand what you're saying, too.

(...but it also sounds to me as if you were/are splitting as many semantic hairs as were your aforementioned black activists)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Like your post here Sepia, and in return I understand what you're saying, too.

(...but it also sounds to me as if you were/are splitting as many semantic hairs as were your aforementioned black activists)

 

Could be, but dig----

Most will say blacks can't be racist because they don't have  the leverage of "power"  which as a Detroiter I find a useless argument for these parts as for the last forty years Detroit had had black mayors, black DAs  and an 80% black municipal employee rate and an 80% black police and fire department.   And an almost 100% black city council.  How anyone who's black here can make the claim that they're suffering from  "systemic racism"  at the city's hand is ridiculous.  

Sepiatone

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Could be, but dig----

Most will say blacks can't be racist because they don't have  the leverage of "power"  which as a Detroiter I find a useless argument for these parts as for the last forty years Detroit had had black mayors, black DAs  and an 80% black municipal employee rate and an 80% black police and fire department.   And an almost 100% black city council.  How anyone who's black here can make the claim that they're suffering from  "systemic racism"  at the city's hand is ridiculous.  

And which it seems, according to Shank Asu anyway(didn't see this myself), was the basic premise that Alicia expressed after a recent showing of The Crimson Kimono, but with the example in this case of the Japanese-American community of the Los Angeles area substituting for that of the African-American community of Detriot.

(...gotta say here though that this conversation is now gettin' a bit heavy...can't we just go back to the subject of what a terrific voice I have???!!!)  ;)

LOL

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

I wouldn't call it reverse racism as much as giving whitey a well-deserved dose of his/her own medicine. :)

Yes, but DO "two wrongs make a right", Vautrin???

(...and now of course, this is where YOU say, "No, but three rights do make a left")

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Yes, but DO "two wrongs make a right", Vautrin???

(...and now of course, this is where YOU say, "No, but three rights do make a left")

In an ideal world they wouldn't, but in the real world it's hard to blame a group of people who have

been mistreated for generations feeling various degrees of negativity toward the group of folks who

mistreated them. Hopefully those feelings will continue to lessen. Three rights might make a left or

another right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vautrin said:

 it's hard to blame a group of people who have

been mistreated for generations feeling various degrees of negativity toward the group of folks who

mistreated them

Everyone mistreats everyone. It's the human condition.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2021 at 8:22 PM, Katie_G said:

I don't think any host should be off-limits to criticize, but so far I haven't found Alicia to be any worse than the others as far as preachiness.  I will say those blue stretch pants she's wearing today are not flattering, however.

 

 

 

YES!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I wouldn't  either since there's only ONE race involved in any of this.  The HUMAN RACE!!  B)

Sepiatone

The problem is that some members of the human race don't seem to realize that. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 37kitties said:

Everyone mistreats everyone. It's the human condition.

Maybe Goering should have used that line at Nuremberg. Some people have been more

mistreated than others. In the history of the U.S. that would be blacks and American Indians. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Vautrin said:

In an ideal world they wouldn't, but in the real world it's hard to blame a group of people who have

been mistreated for generations feeling various degrees of negativity toward the group of folks who

mistreated them. Hopefully those feelings will continue to lessen. Three rights might make a left or

another right. 

What I recommend one does is not group people into such a wide group,  especially grouping people who have died years,  if not centuries,  ago,   with those alive today.

I.e. these are artificial group classifications designed to create strawman debates.    

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What I recommend one does is not group people into such a wide group,  especially grouping people who have died years,  if not centuries,  ago,   with those alive today.

I.e. these are artificial group classifications designed to create strawman debates.    

 

These group classifications began long ago at the hands of white people in America who used them as

a convenient way to oppress people of other colors. That has lessened to a great extant, but it still

exists to some degree. It's easier to begin these categorizations than it is to end them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What I recommend one does is not group people into such a wide group,  especially grouping people who have died years,  if not centuries,  ago,   with those alive today.

I.e. these are artificial group classifications designed to create strawman debates.    

 

The problem is the generalization of the people in those groups.  To whit;

Not all black people are lazy, shiftless and prone to committing crimes.  Nor are all black men obsessed with wanting to rape white women, or black women predisposed to being prostitutes.  nor are black people inherently less intelligent than white people and resistant to learning and being educated.

And too, not all white people are bigoted towards black people.  Not all white people feel they are somehow superior to blacks(or any other ethnicity of color) regardless of how poor, ignorant they actually are.  

Black people aren't better than whites because they're black, anymore than white people are better than blacks because they're white.  Or too....

The black man down the street shouldn't be hated because some black kid years ago beat up my father and stole his car.  That man down the street had nothing to do with it, and I'm not interested in any apology that man offers for that black kid's actions.  Unless of course, that man is a relative of that black kid.

Which is why, as despicable I feel the enslavement of black people more than two hundred years ago was, and who were released from that enslavement years before any of my family set foot in this country  is why I don't feel an obligation to apologize for the actions of white people Me or my ancestors had no part in, just because I'm white.  All that water went under the bridge more than a century ago.  Let it run and let's not burn that bridge behind us.

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

The problem is the generalization of the people in those groups.  To whit;

Not all black people are lazy, shiftless and prone to committing crimes.  Nor are all black men obsessed with wanting to rape white women, or black women predisposed to being prostitutes.  nor are black people inherently less intelligent than white people and resistant to learning and being educated.

And too, not all white people are bigoted towards black people.  Not all white people feel they are somehow superior to blacks(or any other ethnicity of color) regardless of how poor, ignorant they actually are.  

Black people aren't better than whites because they're black, anymore than white people are better than blacks because they're white.  Or too....

The black man down the street shouldn't be hated because some black kid years ago beat up my father and stole his car.  That man down the street had nothing to do with it, and I'm not interested in any apology that man offers for that black kid's actions.  Unless of course, that man is a relative of that black kid.

Which is why, as despicable I feel the enslavement of black people more than two hundred years ago was, and who were released from that enslavement years before any of my family set foot in this country  is why I don't feel an obligation to apologize for the actions of white people Me or my ancestors had no part in, just because I'm white.  All that water went under the bridge more than a century ago.  Let it run and let's not burn that bridge behind us.

Sepiatone

(Emphasis added.)  I don't disagree with most of what you say.  The concept of "collective guilt" is problematic.  But in response to your last paragraph, I think it's worth noting that the living experience of slavery -- and its concrete after-effects -- isn't quite so long ago.

When I was born in the late 1950s, there were still at least a few people living who were born into slavery.  There were also many children and grandchildren of formerly enslaved people living in our world then, which continues today.  The effects of slavery on our society as a whole -- and especially on those people who had direct connections to slavery --  didn't simply disappear when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or when the 13th Amendment, prohibiting slavery, was added to the Constitution right after the Civil War.  

Former slaves and their descendants  in the southern US lived through a Jim Crow era that began immediately after the Civil War and stretched into the 1960s.  Laws effectively stopped them from voting and prohibited them from living in the same neighborhoods and going to the same schools with white people, among other things.  Several states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage into the 1960s.  In the northern US, there were fewer Jim Crow laws, but discrimination was still rampant.  Things like restrictive covenants kept white homeowners from selling their houses to black people.  De facto segregation made many neighborhoods and schools either all white or all black.  I experienced this myself -- I didn't live near or go to school with a single black person until I left the northern city I grew up in and went off to a more integrated college.

This kind of segregation and discrimination began immediately after slavery was abolished, to keep the races separate and to maintain one race's control over the other.  The situation didn't start to get better until the 1960s, and that process of improvement is still ongoing.

I agree that it's problematic to hold someone personally responsible for things that happened long before they were born.  But I do think we have a responsibility as a society to correct the lasting effects of slavery.  We all benefit from improving our society.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...