Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
hlywdkjk

Arab Images On Film Evenings- [i]Politics-free[/i]

Recommended Posts

>mavfan4life wrote:

>Isn't the determination of whether someone is an Arab or not reflective of their language, not their ethnicity?

 

Iranians, aka Persians don't speak Arabic, they speak Farsi. So, about the only thing Iranians share with Arabs is that the majority of both are Islamic. Historically, they have been enemies.

 

I quite agree with you that it was odd that Prof. Shaheen (not Sheehan) didn't mention the absurd depiction of Iraqis in *Adventure in Iraq* as devil worshipers, who worshiped the snake and the peacock.

 

I think we should remember that the Prof. was brought on to express opinions from a different point of view, so naturally most of us will disagree with some of them. Also, I think that if you spoke to Arabs living in the Mideast, you would get quite a different picture of what happened before, and during, the Six Day War, than the one we accept here. As this thread is non-political, I don't want to belabor that point. I just mention it as a reminder that not everyone accepts our common view of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"I just mention it as a reminder that not everyone accepts our common view of that."* - VX

 

Yep. What's the name the Southerners gave to the Civil War?

The War Against Northern Aggression, I think?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

 

Edited by: hlywdkjk on Jul 12, 2011 5:52 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I quite agree with you that it was odd that Prof. Shaheen (not Sheehan) didn't mention the absurd depiction of Iraqis in *Adventure in Iraq* as devil worshipers, who worshiped the snake and the peacock.

 

I could swear he did mention the "devil worshiper" part in his remarks before the movie, although I don't recall if he mentioned the snake and peacock parts. Prof. Shaheen also mentioned that you had a king who was being portrayed as so barbaric that he was perfectly happy to have his brothers get killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Prof. Shaheen also mentioned that you had a king who was being portrayed as so barbaric that he was perfectly happy to have his brothers get killed.

 

That was a common theme in movies about old England and France. "The Man in the Iron Mask" for example, also "The Corsican Brothers", and plenty others. He neglected to say that this film was a re-make of the fantasy/comedy "The Green Goddess".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could swear he did mention the "devil worshiper" part in his remarks before the movie, although I don't recall if he mentioned the snake and peacock parts.

 

Yes he did mention it, someone had to have mentioned it as I was on the lookout for it. The snake and the peacock - well, I'm not so sure about that. When you're worshipping the devil, does it really matter if you kiss his asp or not? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > I think we should remember that the Prof. was brought on to express opinions from a different point of view, so naturally most of us will disagree with some of them. Also, I think that if you spoke to Arabs living in the Mideast, you would get quite a different picture of what happened before, and during, the Six Day War, than the one we accept here. As this thread is non-political, I don't want to belabor that point. I just mention it as a reminder that not everyone accepts our common view of that.

Valentine,

 

I don't believe Dr. Shaheen was brought in for a different point of view. I believe he was brought in to discuss the treatment of Arabs in American film. Where he's run into problems with me is his veering from that task to reinvent history through propaganda. Propaganda is certainly not fact, and, as a well-known progressive talk show host has stated, "You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts."

 

As far as speaking to Arabs in the Middle East, the overwhelming majority of opinions in that part of the world is that the Holocaust never happened; that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the CIA, Israel, or both; and that all of the various Arab countries existed for millennia and Israel only since 1948 (almost every Arab country and Israel all began as the nations we recognize today between 1920 and 1950).

 

As to fact, as I stated in my earlier post, Dr. Shaheen stated that the 1967 War started when Israel attacked Egypt. By stating that, he is correct only to the extent that one doesn't consider a blockade an act of war. Egypt massed 100,000 troops on the Israeli border, including heavy artillery and tanks. Egypt kicked out the UN peacekeeping force. Jordan and Syria also massed the bulk of their troops on Israel's eastern and northeastern borders. Then, Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, a move most in the world consider an act of war, but is open for debate in some quarters. The question revolves around whether one considers one or several countries attempting to prevent another from trade activities essential to the survival of its' people as an act of war. Most experts do, including Arab experts, who are making that same argument in the case of Israel's current blockade against Gaza.

 

Those are facts, detailed in history. It's not a label on the war, or an opinion of what occurred, and a distinction must be made. If Dr. Shaheen was really interested in making his case to those like me (people who think the book *Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload* was one of the most important books of the last several years), he's failing because he working this series with the intent, which he's stated openly on multiple occasions, to influence peoples' thinking about Arabs in general. On Turner *Classic Movies*, people generally watch because of their love of classic films, and their devotion to the understanding of and appreciation for them. His intention should be to illuminate us on that topic. He's an adult with an area of expertise and a skill for public speaking. He is fully aware of the things he's doing that stir the pot, and thus is open to any legitimate criticism of his efficacy in fulfilling the aims of the series.

 

Finally, I'm not sure why the reference to Sheehan. If I wrote Sheehan somewhere, I apologize for my typo. I'm clearly a semi-literate idiot.

 

 

David in Seattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"He is fully aware of the things he's doing that stir the pot, and thus is open to any legitimate criticism of his efficacy in fulfilling the aims of the series."* - David In Seattle

 

If you believe that, fine. I don't see it.

 

"I Love Ya, Man", but dragging "Holocaust Deniers" or the origins of the Six-Day War into the discussion here is derailing the aims of this thread.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Kyle wrote:

>

"I Love Ya, Man", but dragging "Holocaust Deniers" or the origins of the Six-Day War into the discussion here is *derailing the aims of this thread.*

 

Point taken, which is why I will not reply to the post below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Lawrence of Arabia.* I love this film so much. I took a friend to see it at the Cinerama here in Seattle about three years ago. Paul Allen dropped some of his Microsoft money on the theater restoring it, and the sound system and screen are amazing. Score, cinematography, acting, direction. It has it all. In my Top 5.

 

David in Seattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor Shaheen lamented that Lion of the Desert was judged by the critics not on its content, but because of the source of its funding. Well, I will judge it on its merits. The only difference between this film and a conventional Hollywood historical/adventure film with the likes of Victor Mature or Brian Donlevy--and not a very good one at that--is that in this one, the Arabs are the good guys and the Europeans are the bad guys. I won't compare Mr. Akkad's work with David Lean, no one should be expected to live up to that almost impossible standard, but in spite of the fact that he seems to have some kind of an eye for composition, the movie drags, and has an ordinary appearance to it. I'll say this for the movie, if you are ever in any doubt at any moment in the film as to what you are to think and feel, the director lets you know. That saves a lot of trouble and effort on the part of the viewer.

 

The goodies are too good, and the baddies are too bad. If there is a uniformly evil adversary, then they must be impersonal abstracts, as in Lawrence of Arabia. If the adversary is to be presented as more than an abstract, then they have to be made human for there to be interest. I hate to use Three Came Back as an example, because I like it only a little, but the Japanese are not presented as just evil. The dialogue is artificial, and even in the scenes of personal and family intimacy conveys the sense of an illustration or point being made. In short, the movie suffers from the same things almost all Movies-With-A-Message do. Everything is subjugated in service of the Message; the story telling becomes didactic, characterizations become two-dimensional and mechanically voice the viewpoints of the different sides.

 

I give a lot of credit to Anthony Quinn, who does much with his role, but I am afraid it is beyond even his considerable acting ability to energize this picture.

 

It is easy to see why people would be inclined to dismiss this picture as a propaganda exercise, but I would not call it that. Mr. Akkad felt strongly about the subject matter. But his means of telling the story works against his credibility. The events alone are powerful enough to convey a sense of horror and outrage. In the end it is more powerful to allow them to speak for themselves, rather than to make a powerful statement.

 

Edited by: slaytonf on Jul 13, 2011 1:56 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slayton,

 

Just got a chance to watch the film. You're on target with your criticism. That's one of the consistencies in Dr. Shaheen's commentary. Anything that paints Arabs as evil-doers is bad!!! On the other hand, paint them as magical or heroic or saintly - good!!!!

 

It is very possible, and much more credible when filmmakers create realistic characters. Let's examine Hitler, for instance. The two most memorable depictions of him, for my money, were Bruno Ganz in *Downfall* and Charlie Chaplin in *The Great Dictator*.

 

What makes the Ganz portrayal stand out is that Hitler is depicted as a warm and thoughtful man to those in his immediate circle charged with non-political duties. Juxtapose that with the raving lunatic we see in documentary footage. Although the real footage is just that, it is clearly taken out of context to create an image of a bunch of idiots following a bigger idiot. (Thus, Chaplin's success with Adenoid Hynkel.) We, as the viewers of such footage, are left to wonder why anyone would follow this guy. (Inject quirky commentary on Sarah Palin here).

 

Ganz' performance sheds light on the humanity of Hitler, and that is what makes it so frightening. As long as people can be portrayed as one-dimensional monsters, it is easy to separate ourselves from them. Well, of course, he's a monster! Make that image more murky, and we are forced to deal with the truth that good and evil are potentially part of anyone and everyone.

 

David in Seattle

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this isn't political, but instead of running

Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves after Ali Baba Goes to Town, (they were talking it up) they ran one of those dreadful Dog shorts. Did they have some rights issues from Paramount???

 

Edited by: ziggyelman on Jul 14, 2011 9:56 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While watching this Dogville short, it occurred to me that TCM is long overdue to run a "Canine Images on Film" series. Perhaps they can get the Dog Whisperer to co-host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that Popeye short introduction was odd. No graceful way they could have edited that out, I guess? Bob and Jack made quite a point that it was offensive and Bob finally said, as he does, "Well, let's take a look" or "Well, let's see it." And then -- cut to the three films coming up later.

 

I thought Turner had the rights to all old Popeye shorts since they run regularly on Cartoon Network and/or Boomerang, but maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"thought Turner had the rights to all old Popeye shorts since they run regularly on Cartoon Network and/or Boomerang, but maybe not."* - NewYorkGuy

 

I think the very earliest Popeye cartoons produced by the Fleischer Studios for Paramount in the 1930s are owned differently than the later, "Famous Studios" produced cartoons. But that is just a guess.

 

Here's the poster for "Popeye Meets Ali Baba,,,"

popeye_meets_ali_baba_s_forty_thieves1937

 

And one for "Popeye Meets Sinbad The Sailor" -

popeye_the_sailor_meets_sindbad_the_sailor1936

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>While watching this Dogville short, it occurred to me that TCM is long overdue to run a "Canine Images on Film" series. Perhaps they can get the Dog Whisperer to co-host.

 

If they do, I'll want equal time for cats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Instead of running Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves after Ali Baba Goes to Town, (they were talking it up) they ran one of those dreadful Dog shorts. Did they have some rights issues from Paramount???

 

I'm not sure where, but I recall hearing or reading something several weeks ago that TCM would be running some cartoons (Warner Bros. and perhaps others) during the Arab-theme movies tonight (a night of all comedies). And I think I also heard they'd be running one of The Three Stooges' Columbia shorts that has an Arabian or Egyptian setting (which was hard to believe as TCM has never yet run any of The Three Stooges' Columbia shorts).

But none of these proposed cartoons or shorts ever appeared on the TCM schedules for tonight. Then a couple of days ago the shorts that we are seeing tonight appeared in the online TCM schedule. I can only guess that either they had some problem acquiring the cartoons (after the introductions were already taped) and didn't feel they could smoothly edit out those references in the introductions) or possibly when it was noticed that some shorts would be needed as fillers between tonight's movies whoever was in charge of selecting them forgot that certain cartoons and shorts were already planned as part of the schedule.

 

And, just as I expected, it has happened again: after ROAD TO MOROCCO the Bugs Bunny cartoon that Robert O. and his guest introduced did not come on, but the short that's listed on the TCM schedule did. So I expect that will be the routine for the rest of the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*"I'm not sure where, but I recall hearing or reading something several weeks ago that TCM would be running some cartoons (Warner Bros. and perhaps others) during the Arab-theme movies tonight (a night of all comedies)."* - MN

 

You're quite right. The press releases for this year's "Race And Hollywood" included the cartoons as part of the series.

 

I have no idea why they weren't shown but I am guessing that who ever promised to deliver them, in the end, didn't or couldn't.

Perhaps the distributor had second thoughts. There may have been a preliminary OK to lease these 'toons' but it subsequently was overruled by a higher up.

 

I don't think TCM could ever get permission to show certain WB cartoons that have offensive African-American stereotypes in them - even in the context of a series like "Race In Hollywood". And showing these cartoons can be controversial. There are persons sitting in prison today for threatening --Cartoon Network-- Comedy Central over an episode of South Park,

 

Kyle In Hollywood

 

Edited by: hlywdkjk on Jul 15, 2011 7:36 AM

To name the correct TV network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I was right!

They're introducing a Three Stooges short to follow A & C MEET THE MUMMY. I'll bet it won't be on. Instead they'll run THE FLAME SONG (1934) - Vitaphone short, as listed on the online schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've loved the movies tonight.

 

I'm very anoyed by the lack of shorts, even though they're introducing them. I wonder what happened that dropped them, some mistake in programming I guess.

 

Either way, I've really enjoyed this years Race in Hollywood series, as I always do. I wonder what the focus will be next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the issues with the potential Popeye cartoon playing or no many have commented on; quite frankly I found the politicization of classic slap-stick quite revolting. Isn't there enough dihimmi behavior going on in the MSM to account for the oh so maligned "Arab" portrayals in these admittedly vintage movies. I dare say that you could pick any culture and find a movie or a dozen where the "culture" is portrayed in some manor other than what todays PC movie police find acceptable... BUT because it is an Arab or more appropriately as the good doctor pointed out "muslim" portrayal that it "Deserves" special consideration, further should be condemned and cast into the seemingly never ending list of that which offends muslims.

 

IF "Everything" that offends muslims in Western Society were subject to their antiquated beliefs and so called sense of propriety, the entirety of the western cultural experience would be subject to this sort of offensive action. Where did the idea of free speech America was founded on go awry? To a point where a harmless slap-stick comedy show from the 20's & 30's needs to be analyzed with the so called moral critique of a religion that keeps their women locked in their homes, and casts young girls as property to be bought and sold for the advancement of the families position in the community. I found the entire scene last night disturbing to say the least. Can't we just enjoy these vintage movies as they were intended; as good natured humor of the period while not allowing one or another "Political" group special privileges to demean us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only recorded tonight in order to carch the rare Popeye, Porky & Bugs cartoons that were described, discussed and then NOT shown!!

 

I noticed that someone attempted to start another thread on the subject and it was locked down with no reference that the subject bacame a side issue in this thread. Yes

I know, they don't like duplicate threads on a subject - except when the subject is Robert Osborne's absence.

 

Not that I'm complaining about the latter but I think the point of someone bringing up a subject such as the missing shorts in a separate thread was to hopefully get an answer. It really isn't fair to tease the sudience, not once but three separate times that I saw, and then provide something other than what was promised. This series is your big highlight of the month TCM and to "bait and switch" is beneath you. It's not unreasonable for someone to expect an explanation.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...