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

Recommended Posts

I hate to drag politics into something I enjoy so much as I do TCM. However, now I see Mr Baldwin marching with the Wall St. Protesters and I am compelled to write this. When I see him with Mr Osborne, I cringe at his " coked up " comments, but out of respect for Mr Osborne I look the other way.

Now....seeing him Marching, I sure hope TCM considers dropping him. He really puts a blemish on the face of TCM. I try to live by the philosophy that TCM is appreciated by everyone and I should relish in that.....however, I also think someone like Baldwin has a responsibility to TCM to not put himself in controversially situations that may offend viewers..........

 

Edited by: atlantic101 on Oct 13, 2011 1:05 PM

 

Edited by: atlantic101 on Oct 13, 2011 1:07 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

atlantic,

 

After three turns as Robert O's co-host of *The Essentials*, it sounds like there will be a new co-host when the show kicks off a new season next spring.

 

It probably has less to do with Baldwin's politics and more to do with wanting a new face sitting across from Robert O.

 

As Alec B is part of the TCM family, he may continue to do the occasional documentary (his doc/conversation with Gene Wilder a few years back was quite good) for TCM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=atlantic101 wrote:}{quote}I hate to drag politics into something

So don't.

 

I don't think about what repugnant things Robert taylor, Adolphe Menjou, Elia Kazan said and did in real life when I watch their movies.

 

Crisis solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An artist's participation in a popular, mainstream demonstration has nothing to do with his ability to contribute to a conversation on TCM. I tend to like country music and occasionally get upset when I see one of the country performers participating in a tea-party rally, which I consider far more radical than the Wall Street demonstrations, but if one of them was on TCM introducing a relevant movie, I would deal with it. And I find Baldwin quite eloquent in describing his love for classic movies.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

*" I cringe at his "coked up" comments..."*

 

So, did you mis-spell "cooked" or are you asserting something that you likely have no knowledge of? That's very ugly of you.

 

Why don't you write PBS and get him removed from the "Live From Lincoln Center" broadcasts too? Or don't you get PBS in the trailer park?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=atlantic101 wrote:}{quote}I do! Even when I watch Arbuckle I think about what he did.

"what he did."

 

Thank you for putting your lack of information in a flashing neon sign on not one but TWO posts.

 

As demonstrated in your OP, you don't actually research the things you get worked up about.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=atlantic101 wrote:}{quote}I do! Even when I watch Arbuckle I think about what he did. As someone who watches and enjoys Turner your right, there are rotten players for sure.I believe hosting Turner is a pretty credible position,

> and I hate to see it demeaned.

With this way of thinking, we'd be lucky if anyone could be the face of anything. It really isn't fair to judge his credibility as a co-host talking about his love for classics based on his political opinions. Imagine if your political opinions were the deciding factor of you gaining employment, or housing, etc?? Some public figures are way more careful about what they divulge and what they don't in regards to their personal opinions. We have only been exposed to Robert O's life in terms of films - he talks about them, writes about them etc. Now imagine if he popped up on Real Time With Bill Maher, The Lawrence O'Donnell Show or Hannity? I'm sure these boards would be going wild.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=atlantic101 wrote:}{quote}.....however, I also think someone like Baldwin has a responsibility to TCM to not put himself in controversially situations that may offend viewers..........

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Edited by: atlantic101 on Oct 13, 2011 1:05 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Edited by: atlantic101 on Oct 13, 2011 1:07 PM

Is that the criteria for what's offensive? "I don't agree with somebody therefore they offend me." If that's the crieteria, then stay off these messageboards cause you offend me (otherwise you're a hypocrite).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> > {quote:title=atlantic101 wrote:}{quote}I hate to drag politics into something

> So don't.

>

> I don't think about what repugnant things Robert taylor, Adolphe Menjou, Elia Kazan said and did in real life when I watch their movies.

>

>

> Crisis solved.

>

EXCELLENT reply there, ChorusGirl!!! ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT!!! I could not have stated it any better than you just did!!!!

 

However, to possibly expand upon your counterpoint to atlantic's post(and not to put any word into your mouth here) BUT, I have to say that I am REALLY sick and tired of people in this country of ours who can NOT seem to differentiate other people's "politics" from the other aspects of their lives, INCLUDING celebs!!!! They TOO are citizens of this country and thus have every RIGHT to voice their opinions about how they feel this country is being run.

 

YEAH! I understand the celebs get more press than does the "average citizen", but JUST because they do, suuuuuure DOESN'T mean they "should keep their opinions to themselves"!

 

Personally, I never cared for John Wayne's politics, but I STILL respected his WORK in the many many films in which he starred!!!!

 

(...sooooo, do ya GET what I'm talkin' about here, atlantic???????????????)

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see a comment like 'I hate to drag politics into something' and then they do, I find it very hard to believe. Why the need to make such a comment and then get into politics.

 

Anyhow, I guess you want the host to NOT be involved in any type of politics. IF that includes all and any type than I can understand that position (i.e. there is logic behind a consistant position). But most of the time people with this POV only are against those from the other 'team'.

 

How about Hank Williams Jr and Monday Night Football getting rid of him because of his Obama Hitler comment.

 

Anyone that support Baldwin being removed must ALSO support Williams. i.e. both were involved in politics.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Oct 13, 2011 2:07 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Dargo. Freedom of speech is everybody's right, even celebrities. And if you don't agree with them or feel they are misinformed, then feel free to disregard anything they have to say. Problem solved. And if that solution doesn't work for you, then the truth is what you really want to do is control people's thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*"1. You know what I meant!"*

No. I don't know for certain what you meant. You editted your post twice and it still has grammatical errors. A spelling error in your post would would not be unexpected even after three attempts to get it right.

 

*"2. Your assuming I didn't write to the Lincoln Center...... and assuming I live in a trailer... talk about ugly.......lol"*

 

Ooh. You caught the irony of asserting something one has no knowledge of. Bravo!

 

But what is "ugly" about living in a trailer park?

 

Kyle (Gated communities? Now they're "ugly.") In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The issue is NOT freedom of speech. This is very common misunderstanding when topics like this (i.e. should a private company fire someone for activities performed OUTSIDE their job), are discussed.

 

One does NOT enjoy freedom of speech, even outside the workplace. e.g. If I made racist comments outside the workplace and I'm hosting a radio or TV show, the network can fire me. While I have freedom to SAY these racist comments the network has the freedom to fire me for them.

 

To me freedom of speech means there are NO negative ramifications for one's actions (speech in this case). In employment one does NOT enjoy freedom of speech and I believe this is correct. (i.e. the network should have a legal right to fire someone for speech or conduct they deem isn't correct).

 

Now I don't agree Baldwin should be fired but I believe the TCM should have the right to. Only TCM management gets to decide NOT viewers. But if enough viewer complained than I would understand and even support TCM for letting someone go.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, james...the whole issue of "Business interests and what affect someone associated with a particular business might have with their 'bottom line', that is.

 

However, tell ya what here! My view is that whatever Alec Baldwin OR Hank Williams Jr. wants to say on their "off hours" is fine by me. However, ONCE I ever catch Baldwin, lets say, making a negative comment about, say, Sarah Palin(who I don't particular care for) while he's discussing the finer points of, say, *Casablanca* , during his "The Essentials" intro, THEN I'll know he's gone too far, and THEN I will believe TCM would have every right to fire him.

 

And re Hank Williams Jr. and HIS getting fired, in my view that "good ol' boy" on his "off hours" was actually attempting to make a very valid point about how polarized this country now seems to be, what will his "Those two will never agree about anything, so why are they playing golf together" line. BUT, it's just a shame in HIS case said "good ol' boy" broke "Godwin's Law" by using the extreme example of Nazism to make his case about one of the two gents of which he was referring, and thus even FURTHER adding to the polarization of thought in this country. AND thus because of this whole "Godwin's Law" aspect, I'm guessing that ESPN felt he was way over the line, especially considering the person which he was referring to was the POTUS.

 

 

(...and for the record, I'm NOT fully behind ESPN's decision to fire him, either...because he TOO is a citizen of this country, and EVEN with his being "less than articulate" about his opinions, his being fired OR retained as the lead-in to MNF would NOT effect MY decision to watch MNF or not!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> To me freedom of speech means there are NO negative ramifications for one's actions (speech in this case). In employment one does NOT enjoy freedom of speech and I believe this is correct. (i.e. the network should have a legal right to fire someone for speech or conduct they deem isn't correct).

James, I agree that we really don't have freedom of speech. The more negative & public your speech, the more negative the consequences you'll receive. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. You could make a legal argument that it's not a good thing unless it could be proved that a negative or racist comment adversely & specifically affects one's job performance. But of course, in this politically correct era, most companies are going to err on the side of punishing anything that can even be construed as being offesnsive in an attempt to assure the uninterrupted flow of their profits. I think Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider pretty much articulated why we don't really have free speech: "It's hard to be free when you're bought & sold in the marketplace."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being too picky but you said this "and THEN I will believe TCM would have every right to fire him". In this context the term 'right' means legal ability in my view. Again, TCM would have 'every right' regardless of your or the general public's opinion. i.e. our opinion doesn't impact TCM's right to fire him or not.

 

Thus instead I would of said; "I would support TCM decision to fire him".

 

The main reason for my reply is you also say " ,,,because he TOO is a citizen of this country,..". What does being a citizen have to do with any of this? To me your are implying that by being a citizen he has certain LEGAL rights as it relates to speech and employment. So while you say 'very true, james' that comment implies you either don't understand my POV here or don't agree with it.

 

Being a citizen doesn't give one the right to say what they wish, even outside the work place, as it relates to employment. Well unless there is a contact that says otherwise and most of the time the contact favors the coporation and not the employee. Note that in many cases (Charlie Sheen, Imus, etc..), the network station had a legal obligation to pay off the employee. i.e. they could fire them but not without a monetary consideration.

 

I assume with Williams, ESPN will pay him for use of his song, as defined by the contact terms, but just not play the song.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences. The concept has always meant (read the founders) that a citizen would be free to express any political point of view they wanted without any repercussions from their government. That is the concept.

 

People, in general, seem to think that freedom of speech means that they are free to say anything they wish -- no matter how obnoxious or even libelous -- and be free from any consequences (being fired, suspended, sued, etc.). There is NO SUCH CONCEPT anywhere, anyplace, ever. It's a fantasy.

 

In the USA, we are free to pretty much say anything we wish (we can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater) as long we understand and realize that what we say could have a consequence.

 

As for me, Baldwin should have been fired for thinking that the Brando Mutiny on the Bounty was an "Essential." ?:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Or don't you get PBS in your trailer park." Kyle in Hollywood

 

Wow. How offensive. I suppose that trailer park is a lot cleaner than the disgusting park that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are fouling up every day. Talk about the great unwashed. Literally ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

>

> As for me, Baldwin should have been fired for thinking that the Brando Mutiny on the Bounty was an "Essential." ?:|

:^0

 

Yeah, well, you know how these Method actors are today, don't ya Filmgoddess?!

 

They just can't fathom that the naturalistic acting style of people like Gable could be superior and less "affected" than those who traveled the "hallowed halls" of The Actors Studio!!!

 

;)

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...