Jump to content

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

Should offensive dialogue be removed to satisfy political correctness?

Recommended Posts

"Lynched" is likely not the best word to use in regard to Paula Deen's

recent troubles. BTW, Martha Stewart was found guilty by a jury of her

peers (not that she would think she has any). :)The Ox-Bow Incident,

compare and contrast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}At least there's one of Mizoguchi's films on later tonite.

 

It's an excellent one, too. I saw it, at least ten years ago. It's said to be his best film, prior to his post-war films. Some say it is the best Japanese film ever made. I wouldn't go quite that far, but don't miss it!

 

Mizoguchi's body of work has caused many to realize that he was a feminist, long before that term was popular. That doesn't mean his work is preachy, but it is very demonstrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to turn this into a Mizogushi thread, but I agree. A lot of his films I've seen (Life of Oharu, Sisters of the Gion, Osaka Elegy, Street of Shame, A Geisha) deal with the sturggles of women, particularly, prostitutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:

> }{quote}

> Who appointed all these people to police the nation?

I think Gordon Sumner aka "Sting" appointed himself to "police" the nation, Fred. ;)

 

As a sage once said, "I know, they can't all be gems." LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK. Let's get BACK to films.

 

 

In another thread, one mentioned that movies from the 30's and '40's ruined movies for them, or words to that effect.

 

 

Many people followed by claiming what it was ABOUT movies from that period that makes them LIKE them.

 

 

The overall spirit revolved around these movies showing what life may have been like back then, as far as cars, fashions and city life goes.

 

 

But if those old flicks reflect a way of life that may have been, or really have been, then the language used in those times are a large part of it. Even IF, by today's standards, it might NOT have been "politically correct".

 

 

You can't rewrite history, nor should anyone be allowed to TRY.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sepiatone posted: You can't rewrite history, nor should anyone be allowed to TRY.

 

Well tell that to the vast majority of movie producers and directors; Most historical movies rewrite history. e.g. the vast majority of those Wyatt Earp movies.

 

I tend to side with the other posters here that said do NOT get one's history from movies.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I tend to side with the other posters here that said do NOT get one's history from movies

 

I think Sepiatone was talking about not rewriting history by not censoring the racist terms from the old films.

 

Rewriting historical events in movie scripts is a different matter.

 

I say we leave in the old words and place a warning caption at the start of the films so that young people and modern audiences (who are not familiar with these old films) will be prepared and will not be shocked or insulted or mad at the TV network that airs the films.

 

That way we have a warning but no censorship.

 

Audiences are used to all sorts of warnings today, such as about language, nudity, violence, and a change in image format and film length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I say we let each person decide what works for them. i.e. if others wish to censor material so be it (as long as they follow the law).

 

I would only be concerned if the original unedited version wasn't available.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Sepiatone posted: You can't rewrite history, nor should anyone be allowed to TRY.

 

> jamesjazzguitar posted: Well tell that to the vast majority of movie producers and directors; Most historical movies rewrite history. e.g. the vast majority of those Wyatt Earp movies.

> I tend to side with the other posters here that said do NOT get one's history from movies.

 

Well yes, I would agree with you. No one should take what they see on the big screen and apply what they have seen to any historical accuracy litmus test. I know that you were just using the Wyatt Earp films as an example, but in reality the way historical events are treated on the big screen, the films hardly ever match what actually happened.

 

Case in point: The 1993 release of Gettysburg, which Ted Turner was going to release on the ABC television network as a mini-series, but when ABC's other mini-series, Son of Morning Star (the story of General George Armstrong Custer) failed to get good ratings, ABC pulled their support for Gettysburg. Turner then decided to release the film on cable channel TNT. But after Turner had seen how good a production Gettysburg had become, he decided to release the film in a limited theatrical run instead.

 

Well anyway, the uninitiated would not be able to discern all of the glaring errors that appeared in the film. However most of the key parts of the battle did make it to the screen. There were excellent portrayals of the actual military leaders, and the way the forces on both sides handled the battle scenes. There will always be detractors of any historical film, but in this case the film has been very successful in the home video market as well as becoming a staple of viewing in school history classrooms across the country. But overall the film was an excellent portrayal of one of the Civil War's most bloodiest battles.

 

No film has ever been able to produce the most accurate account of the story that it is trying to tell. For whatever reasons, most producers and screenwriters, and directors, gloss over some of not all of the actual events so that they can put their own thumbprint on the material. And unfortunately for those of us who enjoy history, the lesson is that you go see these supposedly historical dramas and epics and just leave your logic out in the car in the parking lot of the theater.

 

But there have been some fairly accurate historical films. Amongst those are All Quiet on the Western Front, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Apollo 13, Blackhawk Down, All the President's Men, Thirteen Days, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Zulu, and cable's Band of Brothers, John Adams, and From the Earth to the Moon. Now most of these films and mini-series I have mentioned here are all fairly accurate in their portrayals of actual events. Are they completely accurate? No. But they are pretty darn close.

 

One thing most people fail to realize is that most historical events do not take place in less than three, let alone two hours. That is where the filmmakers get into trouble. They must feel like they have to cram everything that happened on D-Day into a four or three hour block of time, and be able to try and tell the whole story. That is why when you have certain historical films, that are dealing with time periods covering days, sometimes certain figures from history are combined into one movie character and given a made up name. There is just no way to tell a historical event in a movie unless the movie is three to four hours long, but still most if not all war films and westerns or any historical drama are going to be inaccurate.

 

The really only way to tell a really good and mostly accurate historical event is in the form of a mini series. HBO has done remarkably well in telling four now famous stories. The first being, From the Earth to the Moon, the story of the Apollo space program; Band of Brothers, the excellent book by the late Stephan Ambrose about "Easy" Company, part of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during WWII. As far as accuracy is concerned this is what producer Tom Hanks had to say:

 

He (Hanks) admitted that they could not provide complete accuracy: "We've made history fit onto our screens. We had to condense down a vast number of characters, fold other people's experiences into 10 or 15 people, have people saying and doing things others said or did. We had people take off their helmets to identify them, when they would never have done so in combat. But I still think it is three or four times more accurate than most films like this." As a final accuracy check, the remaining veterans of Easy Company saw previews of the series and approved the episodes before they were aired.

 

The other two great stories being made into mini series on HBO were John Adams and The Pacific. Most if not all of these stories had to be condensed to fit into their time slots. And there are errors in each episode. It is just nearly impossible to tell a story just the way it happened.

 

As far as words or phrases being edited out of films, well I understand why in some cases this was allowed to happened, but on the whole I am of the firm belief that every word, phrase and sentence should be left untouched by any and all filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Gossing over" of some historical facts can be acceptable in some cases, as stated due to time constraints. As long as the GIST of an historical event is factually intact. No matter what historical innaccuracies there are in a civil war film, as long as the south still loses, it should be OK. But changing a story to make someone or something other than what it was is unacceptable to me.

 

 

I would point out the case of *The Birdman of Alcatraz* . Robert Stroud kept no birds in Alcatraz, and true, the movie shows that. But it also makes Stroud out to look like, in spite of his conviction, a decent man of basically good character, and that is pure folly. Shakedown after shakedown turned up several notebooks in which he wrote pornographic stories which had him the dominating paramour in scenes depicting him having sexual encounters with young boys. But the movie left people feeling he was treated unfairly by the authorities, and felt he should have been released. There's no telling, in light of the facts, what might have happened.

 

 

THAT'S when the fiddling around with historical facts annoys me. I can only now watch "BIRDMAN" if I take it as a fictional story, not an attempt at a biopic.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough question.

 

On the one hand, I don't approve of editing history, because if people don't know the painfully stupid things we used to do/say/laugh at, we may repeat it. And you can't change the past anyway.

 

But on the other hand, certain things make me cringe like no tomorrow. And I'm so glad the taped-off-TV version of HOLIDAY INN I grew up with cut out the horrible "Abraham" number.

 

So it seems like there should be an option to skip things that make you cringe without actually deleting them-- some kind of program. That would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. Try the fast forward button. Also, on my dvd player I can make chapters in the movies I record, and then either skip them or block them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a time long ago and in pages far back in this thread I extrapolated how social change might one day make scenes depicting people killing animals on a par with current attitudes towards scenes depicting racism.

 

I have learned that yet another step in that direction has been taken: Oregon has declared: Saccharomyces Cerevisia as the official state microbe.

http://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013R1/Measures/Text/HCR12/Enrolled

 

I thought this to be simply a bit of whimsy on the part of legislators but I have been told that such an act grants special rights to the honoree. An "Official State" thing in many states has the right to be a plaintiff in civil cases. I have been told there was a case many years ago wherein a state tree was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against a logging company because no other plaintiffs had standing to file a lawsuit. I am told also that it won the case and the decision was upheld upon appeal.

 

It is seeming less far-fetched that there will come a day when a bacterium will demand to have scenes of hand-washing removed from movies as they are blatant speciesism and portrayals of senseless slaughter of its ancestors. I doubt science will have progressed to the point where the thoughts and desires of bacteria could be positively known or that they could appear on talk shows and relate how appalled they are at such scenes but I am sure there will be many humans eager to take up the cause of protecting an innocent being who is unable to fight for their own rights.

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...