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

Not Politically correct


Recommended Posts

Fred--just watched *Bells Are Ringing* with Judy Holliday. In the NYC scene where Judy and Dean Martin are crossing the street, there are Black people standing next to them. Minnelli also used Black people in *The Bandwagon* which, supposedly took place in NYC.

 

I think your statement is generally valid--but some directors were cut from a different cloth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"I can't find your photo in the Life Magazine files, but I found it on the cover of a modern book..."* - FCD

 

The attribution I gave the photo came from the catalogue description for the photo when it was sold by a reputable Auction House. (i.e. Not EBAY.) It was also noted as being "vintage" and "famous."

 

The photograph (11"x14") was sold in 2008 for over $500.00.

 

Any chance the photo/photographer is given a credit for its use on the cover of the book?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I searched the book on Google books, and I found this at the end: Thomas Doherty: Pre-Code Hollywood, page 432:

 

"Cover Illustration: In 1940 Paramount photographer Whitey Schafer staged a sinful still life entitled 'Thou Shalt Not', a sly depiction of what the Production Code Administration censored out of Hollywood's official publicity shots. The forbidden images include: (1) the law defeated; (2) the inside of a thigh; (3) lace lingerie; (4) a dead man; (5) narcotics; (6) drinking; (7) an exposed bosom; (8) gambling; (9) pointing a gun; and (10) a Tommy Gun. (Courtesy of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.)

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=tyZx10XsSbIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ThomasDoherty:Pre-Code+Hollywood&cd=1#v=onepage&q=cover&f=false

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Doherty book credit says 1940, but an article in Reason magazine by Charles Paul Freund says that the photo was used by LIFE in 1946. While it's tough to find the picture in the LIFE archives, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if it had been published there, given LIFE's fondness for clever photographic images to illustrate a point. But in any event, it's one great picture, and it's nice to see it again in all of its decadent splendor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that it was published by Life, but might not have a Life logo on it since it might not have been shot specifically for Life.

 

I think we should make it the official photo of TCM pre-code film festivals, since it contains everything we want to see in pre-code movies. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"I found this - "Cover Illustration: In 1940 Paramount photographer Whitey Schafer staged a sinful still life entitled 'Thou Shalt Not', a sly depiction of what the Production Code Administration censored out of Hollywood's official publicity shots."* - FCD

 

Nice work at tracking down that info FCD.

A. L. "Whitey" Schaefer was a very prominent and respected studio-era photographer. Many of his star portraits are as glamourous as anything taken by Hurrell or Sinclair Bull during that same time period.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/iconista/sets/72157607283058166/detail/

 

*"...an article in Reason magazine by Charles Paul Freund says that the photo was used by LIFE in 1946. While it's tough to find the picture in the LIFE archives, it wouldn't greatly surprise me if it had been published there."* AndyM108

 

Is it possible it would not be in the LIFE archives because the picture/negative was "leased" by LIFE from Schaefer (or Paramount) for publication and not from a photo shoot commissioned by LIFE Magazine? Just a thought.

 

And are the two of you referring to the LIFE Magazine Photo Archives at Google?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me:

 

It's possible that it was published by Life, but might not have a Life logo on it since it might not have been shot specifically for Life.

 

You:

 

Is it possible it would not be in the LIFE archives because the picture/negative was "leased" by LIFE from Schaefer (or Paramount) for publication and not from a photo shoot commissioned by LIFE Magazine? Just a thought.

 

 

LOL, either there is an echo in this place or great minds think alike. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"LOL, either there is an echo in this place or great minds think alike."* - FCD

 

Yep. That and I was searching, composing and watching TV all at the same time so I hadn't seen your posted reply beforehand.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Are there actually still people out there who are silly enough to believe that papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post politically approve each article before it is published?

 

Yes and they have stylebooks that list words and phrases that can and can't be used. For example, the NYT won't use the word "cameraman" for a TV photographer of the 1960s. They will use the non-gender word "photographer" instead, and that is an incorrect term to use.

 

I could tell you more first hand experiences with both newspapers, but that would dift too far from the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Whthpnd2hllywd wrote:}{quote}Regardless of context, why cant we all just view these things as examples of how far we've come? I could hardly breathe when I read about the Mark Twain reissue with the ommitance of the n-word. I understand its offensive, and i understand why. But in great literary works or in classic movies, why cant we just use it as an educational portal in to "then vs now", instead of trying to erase it /censor it and pretend it never happened? Thats more offensive, in my opinion.

Excellent point there. The *Huckleberry Finn* "controvery" continues to brew to this very day, doesn't it?!

 

Ya know, in the same vein, the other night's TCM showing of *No Way Out* reminded me of a little incident that I recall happening back in the late 1960s.....

 

I was a teenager living in Los Angeles, and in L.A. at that time was one of those daily afternoon television "matinee movies" shown on a local channel and which was hosted by a gentleman named Tom Hansen or Tom Fransen or somethin' like that anyway. Well, this one afternoon they were about halfway through showing that movie where Richard Widmark's character calls Sidney Poitier's character just about every name in the book, when suddenly the host came on and explained that because their station had received a flood of telephone calls telling them how outraged the callers were about the showing of this film, the station management had decided to end showing it and would instead start another movie in its place.

 

And so, I guess the "moral" of this story is that there will always be people out there who because of their sensibilities "just won't get it" or will never seem to understand the "bigger picture" and the point which an author or filmmaker is attempting to make with their work.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Fred, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, based on first-hand experience working at seven newspapers in two states over 30 years. Any of the people I worked with would be deeply insulted at the suggestion they made news decisions based on political positions. They didn't base decisions on whether it would sell advertising, either.

 

Opinion pages were prepared separately, by separate staffs, with no input and little interaction with the news staff. And stylebooks were created in an effort simply to maintain consistency of the written product from one day to the next.

 

I do have to admit that thanks to the rise of cable and Internet "news," all this has now been rendered obsolete, as quaint and outdated as the newsroom in "Deadline USA." (How's that for getting back on topic?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that would be insulted is just posturing. Take the L.A. Times. It is clear that paper has a liberal slant. The Times is very pro illegal immigration. This is clear by their lead stories every week or so about how mean some government policy is. One doesn't see these stories in OC Register (a more conservative paper here in So Cal). For example, the Register will tell their reporter to write a story related to gangs knowing that many are latino lead gangs. The Times will tell their reporter to find some illegal immigrant college kids so they can report about the need for the Dream Act. Each paper is pushing their agenda. Each paper is reproting on the large latino community in So Cal but in very different ways.

 

Editors are human beings and all human beings are bias. What stories a paper or TV station decides to report or NOT report is based on bias - on pushing an agenda. Now bias isn't evil it is just human nature but anyone that claims they are objective and really mean it are just deceiving themselves.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Aug 30, 2011 1:46 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven newspapers in 30 years?

 

I was specifically talking about Fox, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. And I might add the Washington Times, which has a conservative editorial policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've read a few editorials over the years, and as already stated, the

editorial side is different from the news side. Of course many papers have

a liberal or conservative editorial voice, but that doesn't mean it is reflected

in their news articles. I used to read the WSJ on a fairly regular basis and

their editorials were very obviously on the conservative side, but their news

articles were objective and didn't reflect the opinions in their editorials. The

same likely goes for the Times and the Post. You're really talking about two

different parts of a newspaper, and to think that the editors have some political

test that a news article must pass is simply ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SoCalGal says: Obviously Ascot, you don't understand or have never read the history as to why we dropped the atomic bomb. We needed to end the war, the American people were demanding an end to the war. Germany had already been defeated and Hitler was dead.

--

All the arguments following upon this are to the point, as it concerns a Japanese commitment to honor and victory at all costs, a refusal to surrender, even at cost of committing national hara-kiri, whether by action of kamikaze fighter pilots and manned torpedo, or fighting on despite Le Mays' firebombing of Tokyo--it all goes back to SoCalGal's first statement about the war weariness of the American people by July and August of 1945.

 

It may seem trite to say it, but there does come a time when a people have had enough, when they have absorbed all the suffering, deprivation and loss they are willing to put up with--and at that point if they have the means to put it to an end, they will so do. It makes me think of the excellent new film we watched last night about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, from Robert Redford and the American Film Company, The Conspirator.

 

One could hardly point to a more grinding and miserable case of war weariness than was had here in the United States by the end of the War Between the States. And the analogy is just about perfect: in the same way that the fighting was yet to drag on in the Pacific even after the surrender of Germany, all the bombs over Toyko, likewise, on the very eve of victory for the Union, in a Samurai style refusal to face the dishonor of defeat, a small band of Southern rebels determined to 'save face' by robbing the American people of perhaps the finest President we will ever have. John Wilkes Booth met his hara-kiri, kamikaze style death refusing surrender in a burning barn.

 

The movie explores the possibility that Mary Surratt, owner of the boarding house where the conspirators met was "innocent". The government argued that as the mother of one of the conspirators "she made the nest in which the rotten egg was hatched." Could not the same be said of every Japanese housewife in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had a husband, brother, son off committing atrocities all over the South Asian mainland and the Pacific? And the children, the babies of those mothers--but surely they were innocent?

 

Surely as it might be argued they were the innocent victims of their own fathers and mothers who had, by their blind allegiance to the Empire of the Rising Sun, brought this disaster upon their own children, same as the actions of Mary's son, John Surratt had for all intents and purposes slipped the noose around his own mother's neck.

 

Clemency for Mary Surratt, or clemency for the people of Hiroshima--when it comes to the point where the aggrieved nation has had "all it's going to put up with" is a point where things have gone beyond reason--to a kind of justice that is felt, not thought. When that end is being demanded, it will be had at all costs. There does come a point, as we say. There comes a time when the heartbreak and weariness of a people goes abroad like an epidemic, when the weariness becomes a sickness, to become in its virulence quite like what is commonly called "an act of God", something in the nature of a natural calamity, a force of nature that simply will have its end met. All thought of mercy is cast aside to serve that end, the demand to have it known: "Enough is enough." Mothers and fathers in a thousand different tongues say it to their children every day by the flat of their hands on cheeks and bottoms all over the world.

 

There's nothing rational about it. It's the way people are, at the end of our patience, despite our loftiest ideals. Maybe Mary Surratt should have been spared, maybe the babies of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as well--but then there is no end, not to the war, and not to the fact, thus established, that you can't be in the least way implicated in putting an end to the life of an Abe Lincoln without meeting that same end, yourself. And so it goes with the Rape of Nanking.

 

There is every reason to believe that Mary Surratt knew all about the plot as initially conceived (and foiled, for a kidnapping of Lincoln), and did her part in furthering it, but even if it were otherwise, her guilt in sight of the Government would then arise from not making it her business to find out what was going on in her own house. The implication is that she had every means by which to find out, as would have been her responsibility and duty as a householder.

 

So it goes with people in the 'house' of every nation on earth. The outcome of the trials at Nuremberg went directly to that: responsibility cannot be passed off to the government, to what one's rulers are doing. Every man and woman has a duty to find out, and do something about what is going on in their own house.

--

JM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back in the '80s when I worked for an NBC affiliate. NBC network news didn't like President Reagan, and whenever they reported a story about some new government welfare project, they said "the government" had started the new project. But whenever some project was cut back in funding, by Congress, they said "the Regan Administration" was responsible for the cutback.

 

I pointed this out to several of my fellow local news reporters and they agreed. If it was good, NBC reported it as something done by "the government"? but if it was bad, NBC said it was something done by "the Reagan Administration".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a very good example of what I call 'low level' bias. I see this on Fox when someone like Laura will say 'the Obama economy' (but this was on a talking heads show and not a news program).

 

I'm fairly sure that if the economy was going great she wouldn't put 'Obama' in front of it! In fact she wouldn't mention the economy at all. Like you I want as many stations as possible. I really like the BBC one. It's slant on American news and politics is unique compared to American outlets.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the trail of Mary Surratt and the other conspirators, they were tried by a military court NOT the standard civilian court by which the rules of law applies differently. Back then, hanging a woman was unheard of, as well as unthinkable to most in society. They must had compelling evidence to hang her. I have not yet watch "The Conspirator", hoping to this Labor Day weekend (got 3 days off :) ).

 

I've watched the film "The Hunt for John Wilkes Booth" and is very informative. That knock on her door sealed her fate. There is one great mystery which are the missing pages from John Wilkes Booth diary. What was on them? Could they had help the defense? Implicated high level officials or officers? Who knows, we may never know.

 

There were people killed by angry mobs during the hunt for Mr Booth and the atmosphere was simple *rage* and there were people who simply wanted vengance instead of justice. One could get lynch for the "crime" of simply looking like John Wilkes Booth.

 

If you haven't seen "The Hunt for John Wilkes Booth", I strongly recommend it.

 

The thing I've learned is that President Lincoln would had been dead within a year or two due to complications from Spinocerebellar Ataxia type 5 (SCA5) if not assasinated. Who knows how history would had played out. No one is exactly sure if he had Marfan's Syndrome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think that is a very good example of what I call 'low level' bias. I see this on Fox when someone like Laura will say 'the Obama economy'

 

Yes, that's correct.

 

I also can't stand it when Fox promotes Sarah Palin so much. Some days they do a pro-Palin story every half hour.

 

I am constantly switching news channels all day long, whenever I'm not watching TCM movies. :)

 

I was very disappointed last weekend to see all the cable news channels hyping the "Hurricane Armageddon in Manhattan" 24 hours a day, while we could plainly see that there never was much rain in Manhattan or high winds. In the meantime, they completely ignored warning Vermont residents, and that state seems to have been the worst hit by all the rainfall and flooding.

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...