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

Seeking political correctness...


Recommended Posts

AMC is to TCM in cable movie channels, what a MacDonalds is to the Parthenon...in architecture.

 

To each his own though, even if he'd rather eat hamburgers than filet mignon!

 

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on silents though, as always.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if a station only played westerns from the Golden Age of Films, that had real Native Americans playing Native Americans, then there would not really be many such western movies shown.

 

Thankfully there were some people like Jay Silverheels in films, who were authentic, but there are many who think X Brands was authentic, even though he was not.

 

I will say he was much more believable though, than the worst acting as a Native American I have ever seen, which had Buddy Hackett in costume in some show! Naturally it was a comedy, but still...Buddy Hackett is pretty far out in such a role.

 

I own "Triumph of the Will" and think just like the film "Night and Fog" by Resnais, that it has its place historically and needs to be shown, and not banned. "Night and Fog" has some rather unsettling documentary footage also, but nevertheless it is worth viewing.

 

I'm glad that TCM is a channel for adults, and does not bow to childish demands to censor everything that is of a serious subject matter, for fear of offending.

 

Thanks, TCM!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith & the 1 or 2 others: C'mon lighten up. Yes, I rnjoy some of the things they show but own up people; there are far too many repeat of same film shown less than 10 days earlier AND, I tune in ALWAYS to any picture I deem worthy. Not only because commercial free but again for that film. There are other channel like mystery, fox, etc that also have no commercials. NOW, whose going to argue all I stated above? I really think you just pick on me. That's ok...now relax. Same for all you fans of silents > be silent. Ooh forgive me, I just had to sneak that one in....Come now, where's your whimsy hiding???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's our "whimsy" hiding, Leo? What the @#&% does that mean?? The topic was political-correctness and you barged in with a comment that had nothing to do with that. It's ridiculous that you need to bash TCM for their programming and put down silent film fans in a message thread that has nothing to do with that. Remember the thread that was created just for your ranting a few months back? In the future, direct all of your insane and petty ranting there, where we can all ignore it, OK? It's not that we are picking on you, buddy. We just want you to leave. Now if you could just do that.....on a whim, of course.

 

Jeez, and now back to the topic at hand..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say up front that I'm a 41 yr. old hetero black male and I more or less consider myself PC.

 

I'm always irked by people who go on about how bad "political correctness" is. I personally have no problem with political correctness. Sure, I hate the term for its clumsiness, but it seems to be the exact box where America dumps its discourse on bias and especially race. And therein I generally agree with the arguments, if not the tactics associated with it the PC camp (if there really is one. I don't think anyone on my side of the fence side really uses the term. It's mostly on the lips of anti-PC types), meanwhile the anti-PC folks usually come off as racist and/or myopic prigs. I've always felt that way. Even now, that it's 'hip' to be "politically incorrect" (read:crass), the anti-PC mindset has never been attractive to me. I'll always side with kindness. Thing is, I have no blood on my hands and nothing to hide or protect.

 

Before talking movies, two quick questions: If PC is so bad, should the entertainment industry just go back to "All Blackface, All the Time!"? Is it ok to demean people on the basis of race and gender, etc (the 'isms'), but not ok for the demeaned to say they don't like it?

 

Now about movies, TCM is primarily geared towards old movies. The past is past. What's done is done. When negative messages appear they have to be read as thoroughly as possible. Knee jerk disavowal is just as bad as knee jerk acceptance. Say, for example, a movie features a cavalier or unsavory approach regarding violence against women (which, IMHO, is no better or worse than violence against men), I wouldn't say that the film is inherently bad for that reason alone, but I'd rate it lower than the same film if it didn't have the scene insofar as the scene didn't enhance the story. And so it goes.

 

When I evaluate seemingly racist, sexist junk, I ask,"What if someone from the dominant culture (guess who?) had been in that role?" Like the Louise Beavers scene mentioned elsewhere. Could a white person have had the same effect in that role? Probably not, I'm guessing. Per the account, it seems that this could only be funny because it was large black woman. To take the tack that a type of person is innately funny is a wretched way to look at humanity. People are not innately funny to me. I don't have a high enough perch to feel that way. Take Chris Farley, for example, I never understood people who thought the simple fact of a fat guy taking off his shirt was funny.

I don't really like humor that has a 'butt' to it, but if I'm gonna laugh at someone, I will laugh at the mindset that a person chooses to have (anorexics/bulimics, soccer moms, Wal-Mart conservatives, etc.) not the original physical material. I'm not a religious man, but it would seem to me that only "God" has the right to make fun of people based on appearance.

 

Do I think films with offensive material be banned? Of course not. Does that mean that prgrammers should be showing tons of it just appease nostalgia for "the good ol' days" (yeah, right. Whose good ol' days?)? No. I agree with TCMprogrammer, that there should be a block of time devoted to the handling of race (and, perhaps, the attendant 'isms'). The danger is that traditionally (in racial discourse, not just related to TCM, or even cinema, for that matter), no one from on high has ever just come out and said, "Y'know, we were just a bunch of stupid, mean spirited, money grubbing jerks." Instead, you'll usually see some apologist historians explain that all that junk was ok back then followed by the segments that show the mainstream American (white) power bloc improving and ultimately patting itself on the back. "Sure we had Sleep n' Eat, but we finally got around to Sidney Poitier". Such a thing is useless. Let's hope for better from TCM.

 

Final thought: Someone mentioned that it would be hard to run a night of westerns without showing white actors as Native Americans. I had to laugh because I HATE westerns. To me, the "cowboy and Indians" westerns are Hollywood at its ABSOLUTE worst. Even cheap porno has more positive cultural value--does more good--than westerns. The western represents a whole BORING narrative convention centered around stealing America from the people who already lived here and worse yet it makes heroes out of marauders and makes the indigenous inhabitants look like the bad guys. Triumph of the Will? Pshaw, that's nothing. You wanna see an oppressive regime strut its stuff on celluloid? Get a bunch of westerns. If you have a heart and a brain, it will make you sick. Think about it. The folks who settled America had no legitimate claim to this land that the native population was necessarily bound to honor. Of course, the natives would retaliate against the American Occupation. (Why do you think the Palestinians hate the Israeli Occupation?) From that point of view, what westerns are nostalgia for the good old days of Americans having a license to kill and plunder. Similarly, much of the anti-PC rhetoric I see here and about strikes me as a lazy man's desire to put the genie back in the bottle; bring back segregation, the N-word, cigar store Indians, anti-**** laws, and slavery out of nostalgia for the Golden Age of Insensitivity, that halcyon age when it was ok to screw people over--before the victims started getting uppity. Why not bring back lobotomies, too?

And yet, while it would please me to no end if no one ever had to sit through another "cowboys and Indians" movie, my way of handling this is in accord with most of you here, I turn away. My $0.02.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, admonistrator23....that was alot to ponder and I agree and disagree with some of your points. Though, to dismiss those who are anti-PC as "racist/myopic prigs" is a bit myopic in it's own right, don't you think?. My objection to political-correctness is the fact that someone feels the need to protect me from viewing material deemed offensive. I don't need nor want that protection. I can discern for myself what to make of such material. I don't believe anybody here is saying it's OK to "demean people based on race or gender." At least I hope not. But demeaning someone and offending their sensibilities are two different animals altogether.

 

I also don't agree that anyone who is anti-PC wants to bring back "the N-word, slavery, segregation", etc. That's preposterous and just plain wrong. Political-correctness has just gotten out of hand. People have gotten so thin-skinned these days that little things have people going through the roofs. If someone does something on film that reeks of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., I am just as appalled as anyone. I think these things need to be addressed, but it just seems that today, EVERYTHING is offensive and there is this need to protect us from ourselves. That's when censorship begins and that is where I personally draw the line.

 

Interesting post, admonistrator23..........

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood how some people become hysterical over movies they've never seen. "Birth of a Nation" is a movie so rarely shown and so savagely attacked by people who've never seen it, I'd be amazed to see it telecastsanywhere. I know bright college kids who swear they'll never watch "Birth of a Nation" because it's "Racist." When I ask them how can they say that if they haven't seen it, they shrug and reply: "That's what I was told in class." And these panel discussions before and after the showing are hysterical. They're usually composed of very solemn and self-important people who have nothing to say. Why such a panel would be contemplated for a movie that's nearly l00 years old and came out in l914 is beyond me. I watched such a panel discussion after the debacle at the Fox Movie Channel over their decision to cancel its much heralded Charlie Chan Movie Festival two years ago. The panel was composed entirely of shrill, smug Asian activists who never even mentioned the Charlie Chan movies that they had succeeded in removing from the airwaves. Fox Movie Channel had restored nearly 30 Chan movies and filmed numerous interviews with surviving crew and cast members. But on the eve of the first movie, a statement appeared on the TV screen: "Fox Movie Channel has been made aware that the Charlie Chan movies contain situations and depictions that are sensitive to some viewers...as a result we're canceling the series." The panel of protestors talked about perceived racism against Asians and their progress in forcing Hollywood moguls to show future Asians in a "positive light." When asked if they had seen any of the Charlie Chan movies, not one of them had. One of the activists, Eddie Wong said he had to grow up with the specter hanging over him of a "shuffling, buck-toothed Charlie, muttering in fortune cookie accents." Wong admitted he had never seen this hideous creature known as Charlie Chan. Yet, it was Wong and his fellow protestors who stirred up a frenzy of letter writing and media events to cancel the Chan films. Please TCM Programmer, don't let this happen to TCM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I debated responding to this or not, given the good advice that one shouldn't discuss politics (or religion) with friends. However, I feel strongly about the subject, and though I've avoided (like the plague) participating in these discussions in the past, I'll ask your indulgence (and forgiveness, in advance, if I've offended) just this once:

 

-----

 

Wow, thank you admonistrator23 for such an articulate posting of your thoughts and views about this subject. It certainly gives one something to think about, and allows one (such as myself) who?s against political correctness to see your side of things. Now, please bear with me as I attempt to provide the opposing viewpoint in a way which (hopefully) won?t make me sound like ?a racist and/or myopic prig?.

 

I found it interesting that you felt the need to identify yourself by age, race, and sexual orientation (though I do commend you for not using the term ?African American?). This is a root cause of political correctness, btw, the need to put people in boxes by age, race, gender, origin, sexual orientation, etc. ... and it?s wrong! In fact, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the PC crowd, which on the one hand rails against prejudice while at the same time it groups people who purport to feel (sometimes even think) the same way about an issue to accomplish some political end or consolidate power. Those against political correctness typically celebrate (the power of?) individual thought, and hence are more open to discuss or debate ideas fully (e.g. we don?t assume that, just because you?re Black, you?re for affirmative action). The political correct crowd is actually anti-diversity, in that they refuse to accept the validity of opposing viewpoints. In other words, if you aren?t with us, you?re a racist, a homophobe, etc.. For example, I submit to you that there ARE valid reasons to be against (hot button issues) even though the activists, who want to use the Judicial branch of our government to circumvent some laws to ram their secular agenda down our throats, refuse to acknowledge it.

 

While it may be true that people who favor political correctness do not use the term, as you say, it is really those who would take away our basic freedoms & rights - speech, the 2nd amendment (btw, I personally have no desire to own a gun, but I support this Constitutional right), property through progressive taxation for their social programs, etc. - of whom I am speaking. And, of course, there are crass people on both sides of the aisle, though if you?re an ideologue, you won?t recognize this as fact.

 

When you say ?I'll always side with kindness?, I don?t think ANYONE would disagree with you. However, when you say ?Thing is, I have no blood on my hands and nothing to hide or protect?, you seem to assert that ?we? do - prejudicial again, as you?ve attempted to group all of ?white? (?) folks into a guilty-by-proxy box. When you go on to say ?if PC is so bad, should the entertainment industry just go back to "All Blackface, All the Time!"??, your use of hyperbole fails to make a valid point given the entertainment industry?s profit motive (e.g. I don?t think there is a marketplace for it). When you ask ?is it ok to demean people on the basis of race and gender, etc (the 'isms'), but not ok for the demeaned to say they don't like it??, let me answer that of course it isn?t, but then ask you to realize that the world IS insensitive! Not realizing this can be catastrophic, and often serves as fodder for the excuse (not to try) crowd.

 

I do agree with most of what you?ve expressed wrt ?old movies?. However, I think you?ve given short shrift to the Western genre, and I challenge you to prove your statement that ?even cheap porno has more positive cultural value - does more good - than westerns?. Perhaps you were just engaging in hyperbole again. While there are some (O.K., a lot of) Westerns whose themes are ?centered around stealing America from the people who already lived here and worse yet it makes heroes out of marauders and makes the indigenous inhabitants look like the bad guys?, there are also plenty of Westerns whose themes are based on good (American?) values. The best ones have heroes that stand up against the marauders or rally for what?s right - good vs. evil (yes, it does exist), or brave persons who went West and had to learn to live without the comforts of urban life, grew strong and tough enough to fight the elements (which sometimes included, unfortunately, killing ?innocent? natives) to survive ... many are just good adventures that don?t include ?Indians? at all. I suggest you investigate "Shane, High Noon, Red River, The Ox-Bow Incident, The Outlaw Josey Wales (sensitive to ?Indians? before Dances With Wolves, which I also recommend), Once Upon a Time in the West & ?The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly?, Destry Rides Again, Stagecoach, The Westerner, My Darling Clementine, Winchester '73, The Naked Spur, The Big Country, The Magnificent Seven, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Unforgiven" to name several.

 

I sincerely hope you read this, and think about it, such that you can appreciate that we ?anti-PC? folks are not (to paraphrase) lazy men who desire to put the genie back in the bottle by bringing back segregation, the N-word, cigar store Indians, anti-**** laws, and slavery out of nostalgia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Ali, I'm light as a feather.

 

And being so light minded, I found it interesting that you seem to prefer dramas probably, over frothy Ernst Lubitsch type fare, or silents or action flicks, as you said in the following quote:

 

"Well thanks programmer for at least acknowledging if silents weren't ever on ratings would be up BUT don't assume I'm talking that I'd like action flicks--actually I prefer drama's..."

 

So I'm curious now, Leo...what are your favorite screen dramas, that you like to see again and again?

 

Thanks Leo...ten or twelve of your favorite dramas would be enlightening, as I might have never seen them and hence would then be able to seek them out on your recommendation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, this is a great thread

 

I have very strong feelings about all of this, but hesitate to share them because I don't want to represent TCM (as opposed to my own opinions)

 

but I do want to say I really appreciate reading the opinions expressed - thank you everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the one to mention the "westerns" without Native Americans, then let me say though I do agree with your contention that a country was "stolen away" from its natives, my remarks were based on the contention and belief, that it is only Politically Correct for a Native American to play on film, a Native American.

 

Though I would rather see Jay Silverheels, as I said just because he usually does a better job equitting himself in such a role, I think the PC attitude is a bit obtuse and short sighted. Acting is...well acting. I don't remember anyone faulting Meryl Streep for playing Sophie, in "Sophie's Choice" and effecting an accent. We don't hire murderers to play murderers, just because they are the ones who can best relate to the role. I can see that some may find it offensive monetarily wise to have people of other nationalities playing a certain nationality and with that I agree, but I find the whole argument a bit spurious, except in a financial way.

 

Men played women in Shakespearean times, and still do in some Monty Python sketches.

 

But your contention concerning the glorification of the West is well taken, and I can accept that.

 

As for only groups which are in a minority role being ridiculed on film, as some might contend...I beg to differ. Though it may not be on the scale of African American or other stereotypes on film, there were frequently personages on film that to my mind, were dastardly foolish caricatures of white men, as in the Ale and Quail Club in "The Palm Beach Story". Amiable white men, but rather doddy brained, drunken sod types, who abound in comedies of the time. During the Depression years, the image of the addled brain white male rich man was a sure fire winner in many screwball comedies. Sure they weren't the norm or did they predominate, but they were there in films in the background perhaps. One could say that these caricatures were based on circumstances and not the race, but still, a foolish white man who is a boss, does ring a bell in many people's minds, as a white man only.

 

And...it may be that this is a caricature, that works because well, there were such men in existence.

 

I don't think, as you say, that everyone who is Politically Incorrect today is "crass", as I think some very conscientious people have the common sense to act on things on an individual basis judgment, without having to rely on a predetermined scale of PC-ness, which is not really that accurate in assigning prejudicial behaviour patterns.

 

I agree with you that violence against men is just as offensive as violence against women, but one has to be careful and not consider banning films like "Kiss Me Kate" just because both parties seem to want to throw a lamp at their gender opposite. I also agree with you that mere physical appearance is not that funny to me, if not accompanied by an inherent comedic appeal, by the instigator of the humor.

 

For the record, just because I like westerns, I do not want to bring back slavery, unless it be white slavery and I am the head madam of the interstate line transportation squad, or lobotomies unless it be for Pauly Shore or Jessica Simpson.

 

I'm kidding...just kidding!

 

I did enjoy reading your thoughts, Admonistrator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this tread for a while but not saying anything until now. I suppose I take the middle ground to some extent.

 

I understand people's frustration with political correctness. It stems from what was mentioned earlier. People's need to categorize and group others. But it is really impossible to do that adequately because language is a restricting tool. You have African American for example. Which in itself says a lot. We say AFRICAN americans but we rarely say EUROPEAN americans. If anything we say IRISH or GERMAN americans but i digress. Well not everyone labeled under that has African roots. You have the term Black which has numerous designation issues and historical implications, and now you have people of color. People of color seems to be the most exceptable term right now and yet it still puts us in a dichotomous situation where White is the normalized and everyone else is labeled as basically other than white. In the end all race designations are arbitrary and contrived. Despite the fact that I think it is important to know this it is incredibly frustrating because it make communication more difficult. When people get to hung up on language (aside from some terms which are obviously meant to be inflammatory) then political correctness, a term I dislike itself, goes to far and is counter productive.

 

I don't think that racism, sexism, etc should be ignored in films, even classics. Its important to be aware of the images represented in any media form. The negative images in these movies are just as much a part of our history as the films like To Kill a Mocking Bird and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. If we are going to praise movies like those then we should also criticize the negative images. That said, this does not mean that I believe that just because an older movie has racist or sexist scenes that it is not a worth while movie, in the same way that I am not going to like a movie just because it presents positive images. There are of course many reasons for this many of which have already been mentioned. But one thing that was not mentioned is that within these movies there are multiple messages. Take for example the movie Bordertown. The end of that movie says it all when Paul Munni (I think) says he is going back where he belongs, with is own people. It tells the viewer, that it will bring trouble if a minority steps out of their place. However at the same time it shows a minority succeeding through honest means, it highlights the way in which Mexican American's are treated differently because they are Mexican Americans, etc. It is the viewer that is left to wrestle with these issues and it is silly to assume just because there was a certain intended meaning in an image that the viewer will automatically except that interpretation. Secondly as was said before, the past is the past. I can't change the history of the United States, and I also can't help but like certain movies despite the fact that I don't like every image. I acknowledge the racism in the scene at the bus stop in the movie It Happen One Night (the guy selling coffee) and I will even criticize such images but the over all movie is still one of my favorites. What generally happens is that I tend not to like movies where racist or sexist themes are the crux of the film, just because I don't really connect to them.

 

Because one of my majors is Sociology I have a lot of discussions about issues like this so I have a lot of information and ideas in my head and I apologize if this post doesn't make sense. It is very hard to articulate what I think into a comparatively short message board post (as opposed to a full length paper).

Link to post
Share on other sites

After all is said and done I will continue to watch and enjoy movies of the Golden Age as they were intended at those times in film history.

I will laugh at those two delightful imps Laurel and Hardy making fools of themselves, Al Jolson and Mickey Rooney in black face in those dazzling musicals, Charlie Chan solving a case as only he knows how with his wise quotes, the great westerns with the cowboys and Indians, Speedy Gonzolez cartoons, the fabulous comics Willie Best, Stepin Fetchit, Hattie McDaniel, Mantan Moreland, etc., those outrageous knuckleheads the 3 Stooges, the great gangster pics where most cold-blooded mobsters are Italian (of which I am), Disney's "Song of the South", the incomparable W.C. Fields, putting rude kids in their places with hilarious results, etc. etc.

Good stuff.

 

Mongo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great serious discussion goin' on here, I congratulate everyone who so knowledgeably has expressed her/his opinions.

 

I cannot add anything else to what's been opinionated here, in fact, although I'm familiar with the subject, I've never thought about myself being pro or anti PC. What I can say is that I enjoy watching old films and toons, in their own era-context.

 

For example, some weeks ago I posted sth. concerning the film "Wonder Bar", which I had just watched for the first time and which has a lot of "Political incorrect" issues, like Jolson "goin' to heaven on a mule", a Rude-Argentinian-Gaucho stereotype (Ricardo Cortez whipping Dolore del R?o, while dancing a Tango), homosexual stereotype, etc., and while I didn't feel particularly bothered by any of it...objectively, they were on different levels of bad-taste, especially the "Going to Heaven on Mule" sequence (with Jolson and a host of others in "blackface") and I can understand why black people may feel offended by the aforementioned sequence.

 

As for myself, I enjoyed the film with its good and bad things and I watched it regarding its 1930's, Pre-Code nature. It's a very interesting film to watch, regarding this PC discussion, on a socio-historical point of view.

 

Talking about PC, something that doesn't really bothers me but which makes me wonder, living in a South American country, is why to create some artificial "categories", for example, some forms you must fill in the United States contain such. You must "categorize" yourself as white or "caucasian", african american, latino, etc. What does latino mean? Latin American countries comprehend lots of different races, mostly mixed, like most of us-nobody CAN be 100% pure of whatever race-, like in the United States.

 

In the rest of America (Central, Caribbean & South) there are people of African, European descent, of course of Native descent (meaning the people who lived in the Latin American Countries originally), etc. and most of us are mixed, although there are some "primary" racial characteristics on all of us, which can lead to "further" categorizations.

 

So what do they want to mean by "Latino"? That lousy stereotype of the "cheerful" Latin guy always wanting to dance salsa and have fun? The Gaucho?...there are many countries in Latin America, with different people, some speak spanish others portuguese, others native languages, some like Jazz others hard rock....we have punkies, trashers,...some are old, others very young...some are heterosexual, others bisexual... some like chocolate ice cream , others don't, etc...the same as in most countries...so , IMHO, we must get rid-off of this arbitrary categorizations, don't you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The drama's I like- here are a few: 'The Big Knife' Most of all Hitchcock films like "Rope', etc. I also liked sci-fy flicks as 'Day Earth Stood Still' & even 'Them' What I don't care for are remakes of great films as War Of The World' I mean why? Do again things that were not done right because of they do is tarnish the makes of these enjoyable pictures and dilute the original story into a video game & too trendy rendention of a no talent imput. Where the hell are creative story tellers hiding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fernando--I think mostly when Americans refer to Latino they mean Mexican/Central American. I get the impression that Cubans would prefer not to be lumped in with that distinction. But if I refer to anyone at all that come from other countries, I would refer to their country of origin and not lump everyone into one category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last two cents:

Most of what I had to say was about life in general and the internet in specific. TCM is hardly a serious offender in this. I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for being reasonable about this. I've seen way worse elsewhere in cyberspace.

But now here's the hammer.

 

Re: path40a

>>The political correct crowd is actually anti-diversity, in that they refuse to accept the validity of opposing viewpoints. In other words, if you aren?t with us, you?re a racist, a homophobe, etc.

 

That statement has merit, but I find that once someone tries to assert that injustice based on bias occurs, the anti-PC "Oh God, they taking away our freedoms" argument squelches dialog just about as fast. And I agree that these arguments have as regards the media, don't belong in the courts.

 

>>However, when you say ?Thing is, I have no blood on my hands and nothing to hide or protect?, you seem to assert that ?we? do - prejudicial again, as you?ve attempted to group all of ?white? (?) folks into a guilty-by-proxy box.

 

Wrong. I'm just trying to figure out why people outside of a particular group get upset about people of another group getting upset about something. I don't respond that way, but what I encounter is usually venomous ("political correctness is getting out of hand"). Who draws those lines and why? I'm not trying to lump anybody together except, for sake of argument, those who feel victimized or angered by PC. They could be black, white, striped or anything. This is the internet, I can't see you. When I say there's no blood on my hands, I mean that I don't see much under the PC banner that offends me. I'm not worried that I will lose any freedoms by remembering that most Japanese people prefer to be called 'Asian' than 'Chinese', because my actions are close to that baseline. If I should lose valuable freedoms any time soon, I'd be willing to bet that they'll be lost in the interest of national security or to prevent identity theft. And so it goes.). I've been trying to go through life in that fashion (respectful of one's stated allegiances, inoffensive, accommodating) before the PC label came along. Most of what PC means to me stems from what I call "being a nice guy".

 

>>realize that the world IS insensitive!

That's really sad, but most people think this way. The earth itself is indifferent, sure, but human society can be anything it damn well pleases, and the distasteful part that seems to underlie anti-PC talk: it always allows that the world is going adhere to big fat chunk of insensitivity and misery--"we'll always have nazi skinheads and corporate thieves, and pedophilic priests, that's just human nature; nothing we can do about it." Again, I think is just the result of laziness and shortsightedness. Unwillingness to change. Fear of vulnerability.

 

(Funny, I remember someone saying the world will end in 800 years. I laughed, and said, we probably won't have our sh*t together by then).

 

Re: thefreafuster

>>As for only groups which are in a minority role being ridiculed on film, as some might contend...I beg to differ.

 

Most cinematic villains and buffoons have been white, because most actors are white and so on, but the whiteness is not assumed to be the essence of the character (at least I don't think so). This is more problematic nowadays, though, as black comics are inclined to ridicule whites and that's seen as "settling the score", which it doesn't, it just keeps the same song and dance going on. Of course, it's damn near impossible for any minority group to demean white folks to the extent that a person of complete ignorance might mistake the stereotype for the essential character of all white folks, or for that matter it would be impossible to do as much damage to anybody as the mainstream white media has already done to people outside the norm, but I must say, I don't hear very much flak whites about this new trend. Personally, I don't much care for that kind of entertainment.

 

I could go on but this is way off the topic of movies. And yeah, there's a handful of decent westerns, mostly the ones that play against the formula, but still, it's just not my cup of tea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

admonistrator23,

 

As I was the one who said "political-correctness is out of hand," I just want to know why you found that "venomous." I am just stating an opinion and I assure you that there is no venom behind it. It's an annoyance to me, for sure, but I don't as you state, feel "victimized or angered" by anything PC. I just don't like it's overreaching grasp on entertainment these days. I don't want to see anything overtly racist, sexist, or homophobic in any avenue of the Arts. I think most people would be put off by such entertainment. But when art becomes watered down, due to the threat of offending even one person's beliefs or lifestyle, then that bothers me. I'm talking about extreme cases, in which PC attitudes feel the need to protect me from anything that most thinking people would not find even remotely offensive. If that smacks of "laziness and shortsightedness" to you, well, that's your opinion. I totally disagree with it, though. It's peculiar to me that you claim to be this "nice guy," but then make generalized judgments on people here based on their opinions. Hmmmm...........I do respect your opinions here, Admonistrator23, but if you can't see that some of what you say is a bit myopic in it's own right, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding PC --I just never bought into that one like I remember few years ago there was such a fuss re Charlie Chan flicks and how they were played by non oriental actors. BUT, their redition was better than good--so what? Of all the nonsense going on in this world why oh why do we distract ourselves with inconsequential POV'S

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"The Big Knife" is that noir flick written by Clifford Odets, right? I own a video of it, and did enjoy seeing it but it's been awhile.

 

I like all of your choices, "Rope" being interesting as relates to the Leopold and Loeb murder case, and particularly I admire "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Day of the Triffids" both of which are top notch sci-fi.

 

Remakes of classics can be attributed to a dearth of creative storytellers, so one can only hope that this prognostication proves false.

 

Does anyone here have any great ideas for a movie, that they think would do better than some of the current films around?

 

Again..thanks Leo for letting us in on some of your favorites.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

to watch "Grand Illusion" over the weekend?

 

I've seen it quite a few times, but this thread on political correctness, made one scene a bit more interesting. Close to the end, Gabin and Dalio are burnt out in their escape efforts and almost come to blows. Gabin gets a bit, shall we say...politically incorrect and so does Dalio. After they both recover, there are recriminations and Gabin reuses his epithets toward Dalio, but now in a friendly way, which reveals more about the characters than if they had been aboveboard the whole time.

 

I found it to be an interesting scene as staged by Renoir. I don't think a lot of directors would have had the guts to have Gabin speak in the manner he did.

 

Anyone else notice this? Any thoughts on if some would now want the scene excised for being Politically Incorrect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fernando: My understanding is that "Hispanic" refers to anyone who speaks Spanish as a primary tongue. "Spanish refers to those from that one European country.(Spain) I have no problem refering to a person's nationality ie Venezulan, but if I refer to ALL New World Hispanics as Latin American. Is this proper? BTW the ONLY group that can be savagely attacked is men, regardless of ethnicity. The kids are always smarter than the dad and so is the wife. I often wonder how the smart boy grows up to be the dumb dad... a lobotomy perhaps. I saw this commercial recently. Super Mom was doling out the milk and cereal bars with some fancy tosses to the family members. Dad didn't get one because one of the kids snagged his enroute. It was a big joke that Dad didn't get anything to eat as he is stupid and unworthy of daily sustenance. I saw one for Dorney Park (Theme Park in Pa.) where the kids and Mom want to go but old bumbling Dad is too clumsy and cowardly to go on the roller coaster and doesn't want to take them. Being a moron, he trips over the garden hose on the walkway to the house and gets tangled up and falls in a heap. The daughter then squirts him in the face with the hose (Lots of water force) and says, "Well are ya gonna take us NOW?" Oh yeah, I want to take my kids to THAT place!!!! Try any of these kind of ads with a woman and she the HOWLS of outrage!

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...