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

Feminist censorship


jasonstowers
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, sorry, but I was always of the mind that those two Menendez boys were probably just fulfilling the almost inevitable conclusion to a life where their parents MUST have screwed up big time THEMSELVES somewhere along the line! Their father during the trial was sure made out to be one clueless and remote parent, anyway.

 

(...yep, ya see, call me "insensitive" here and "blaming the victim", BUT I'm thinkin' as the old sayin' goes: "Things DON'T happen for no reason!")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Gene Wilder donned blackface in Silver Streak, but that was ok, because Richar Pryor had him do it."

Actually he applied shoe polish to his face to create a disguise at Richard Pryor's direction.

As for "blackface," I can remember when a nationally affiliated white charitable organization had a show every year in my home town to raise money. It was intentionally demeaning to African Americans.

As for censorship, I seriously doubt the movies mentioned earlier had anything to do with a perceived increase in violence among our youth. Watching them sure didn't cause me to become more violent or rude or anything else. My parents and other adults and school officials made sure of that.

Doubt there is any censorship at TCM for any reason. Problem is that many of the movies are antiquated in the manner in which they presented the topics and they weren't very good to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have hit on a new way to kill trolls. Instead of not feeding them, starving them to death, overfeed them, to make them obese, leading to thier death from diabetes, or heart failure.

 

My comment about Gene Wilder was meant as a humorous reference to the previous posts about blackface. And shoe polish or grease paint, blackface is blackface. And as I see the scene played, it was intended as a comic send-up of that most reprehensible practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're greatly overestimating the effect movie violence has on the

average filmgoer. Surely kids were rude to teachers and carried switch-

blades before those 1950s movies. And after peaking about twenty or so

years ago, the homicide rate has been gradually falling. If all the killing

in modern movies actually did influence those who saw the films, the

homidice rate would be way up there. Can you imagine the carnage if

folks who saw Saw starting imitating it? Do a few loose screws try things

they have seen in the movies or on TV? Sure, but the great majority of

people don't. Copycat movie killers are few and far between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're saying. I only have a problem with violent rape scenes and how upsetting it is for young girls to watch. I remember when I was young and seeing violent rape pop up in movies always upset me and it upset me that some men enjoyed watching it! In France women turned the tables on the men and made a movie where women were sexually torturing men. It was banned because men found it upsetting. Makes you think right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slaytonf:

Sorry that you consider yourself a troll (whatever that is). That's my interpretation of your response to my post.

Always found it interesting that if someone posts something others disagree with, some insult you rather than just giving a different opinion.

BTW, if you don't like my posts, just click on the ignore button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

HMMMmmm...

 

 

"Personal responsibility"? You mean like "accountablity"? What a concept.

 

 

Won't fly here in modern day U.S.A.

 

 

I think I've mentioned this before. My Mom used to crack wise about how "Parents today have it made." She'd go on;

 

 

"Back when I was raising my boys, in the early '50's, whenever one of them, or anyone ELSE'S kids let out a blue streak of language, or got into some serious mischief, we didn't HAVE cable TV, rap music or R-rated movies to blame it on. WE had to shoulder the responsibility!"

 

 

But in all seriousness, the parents can't shoulder ALL the blame. Sometimes( read that almost ALL of the time), I would do the most stupid, trouble causing, outrageous displays of bad behavior in SPITE of what my parents warned me about the consequences. That is to say, it was all MY idea, not THEIRS. I'M the one that deserved the punishment. This tendency lately to bring legal troubles to the PARENTS in many cases is misdirected, and only serves to let the miscreant young brat feel he's been let "off the hook".

 

 

So, yeah, Dargo. "Personal responsibility" is correct. If the kid holds up a liquor store, DON'T arrest his PARENTS, unless THEY drove the "getaway car".

 

 

It's also why the whole stupid idea of teaching sexual abstinence instead of comprehensive sex education will never work as a solution to teen sex. Fact is, parents have been preaching abstinence since way before OUR time, and just look at the results!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>So, yeah, Dargo. "Personal responsibility" is correct. If the kid holds up a liquor store, DON'T arrest his PARENTS, unless THEY drove the "getaway car".

 

Yeah, I suppose ya have a point there, alright.

 

Uh huh...'cause if the parents are thrown in jail TOO, then the Media can't go the homes of the clueless parents where Mommy(and SOMETIMES Daddy, but more seldom now it seems) can stand before the news cameras and tearfully state the typical, "I don't know what happened! He was always such a good boy!"

 

Yep, 'cause I always get a good laugh wherever I see Mommy(and as I said, Daddy occasionally but seldom now) standing there sayin' stuff like that on my TV!

 

(...and I think you probably know by now how much I enjoy a good laugh, RIGHT?!...and I sure wouldn't want THAT taken away from me!)

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ya GOTTA know, Darg ol' buddy, that in the case you put in the quote box, some parents would blame "those hoodlum friends".

 

 

But in some seriousness, it still sounds as if you blame "clueless" parents, when indeed in many cases, the parents do everything RIGHT. But it's the KID who does the wrong.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw Ray...I LOVE the Stan and Ollie animated post there! AND, so perfectly apropros to this discussion TO BOOT!

 

(...no pun intended there with the "to boot" thing, btw...well, okay, maybe a little anyway!) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI, is it against the rules of conduct to 'overfeed them' (trolls), if that means replying back to them with an insult. Instead as Cid instructed just put them on ignore or if one feels it is necessary use the 'abuse' option.

 

As for 'blackface is blackface'; Well I don't agree with that as it relates to the Wilder scene. The issue with blackface isn't about how the blackface was applied but instead the intent of the use. e.g. if a white person was trying to hide out in a community made up mostly of blacks and they used make-up to disguise themselves so they wouldn't stand out, that would NOT be blackface as I define it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Sepia, whenever this sort of discussion about "blaming parents" comes about now days, I'm reminded of the two clueless ones in Tucson, who's 20 y/o "boy" that still lived with them was the culprit in the mass shootings at the Safeway Supermarket down there a few years ago now. You know, the one where he killed 6 people including that little girl who was born on 9-11, and Rep. Gabby Gilffords who will never live a normal life since that horrific day.

 

It seems a few weeks before that dark day, the local LEOs delivered IN THE PRESENCE of the "boy"'s FATHER(I might emphasize here), the Restraining Order, which stated due to his ongoing aberrant behavior at the college he was attending, he was no longer to go within 100 yards of said college.

 

Now, wouldn't ya think a RESPONSIBLE father would have thought at that very moment somethin' like, "Ya know, I think my son might need to see a shrink right away. I think I'll go see who I can find to help him right now. And MAYBE in the meantime, I should relieve him of those guns he has stashed in his room, too!"

 

Uh huh. Now wouldn't ya think a RESPONSIBLE parent would have have said somethn' just like that to himself???

 

Aah, but no. Evidently his father didn't have brains enough to think of somethin' like that, and most likely just thought it was just a "passing phase".

 

(...and now we know how that whole thing turned out, don't we?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand, at least to some extent, that violent rape scenes would

be disturbing to young girls (and to women in general and to men also).

I'm sure there is also a double standard about men being the victims. The

only good thing is that there is lots of information about movies today, so

that folks can avoid most violent films if they are careful, though it's hard to

do so completely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the first question I would have to ask Carole Lombard, oh, I mean crazyblonde, is if she would want to government to censor such scenes. I assume NOT.

 

So yea there are things that are upsetting (e.g. my wife cannot watch a movie that involves the Nazi treatment of Jews or major mistreatment of blacks (Roots) because she is very empathic. But as you say one has to try to find out if a movie has scenes that one just doesn't wish to experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ignore no one, and I insult no one. You can read through all my posts for the last several years, and you will never find one instance in which I was insulting or belittling. I participate in these threads for fun, which means I never take anything seriously enough to bother becoming abusive. I ridicule trolls when they impose themselves on these boards, as puncturing these gasbags that way is the most effective means of defeating them. I did not refer to you as a troll. If you had read the posts in this thread, you would know the troll I was referring to is the original poster, who posted an absurd comment obviously designed to be provocative.

 

The comment I made about overfeeding trolls was a play on the recommended practice of not feeding trolls, that is, not taking an offensive posters ridiculously extreme post seriously and trying to engage them in rational debate. That is not what they are out for. Their purpose is to be provocative, and to engender heated and abusive debate that degenerates into argument and insults. This is what they feed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a similar reaction to Sonja Henie flicks, especially after the sun

sets. The horror. With all today's info, it's a lot easier to avoid films

which may be offensive for whatever reason, though nothing is ever

100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I could see what you mean about a "clueless" Father in that case, Darg, but if not privy to all the background info, we'll never know WHY all that wasn't considered. Hindsight IS 20/20 after all, and I refuse to play "armchair" analyst in these cases. In any other family, that Father might have been considered doing the right thing.

 

 

Also, you could call any psychiatrist you want, but if the person you think might need one doesn't see him WILLFULLY, it's a waste of time. Court ordered psycriactric and psycological treatments NEVER work, as these treatments are more successful when they are voluntary. Citing one case out of a possible thousand really isn't a valid arguement, and also, unless any of us are ever put in that situation, we'll never really know what we would essentially do. You can talk all you want about what you would do if it were YOU in these cases, but talk is cheap. And besides, early indicators can be decieving.

 

 

For instance, I had two friends who had the WORST behaving sons when they were little. I used to mentally make bets as to which one would wind up in prison first.

 

 

But the joke was on ME. One grew up to join the priesthood, and the other became an Air Force officer and fighter pilot in Iraq!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, you're right, Sepia. To use just one example as proof that a phenomenon exits is anecdotal and doesn't come close to supplying enough empirical data in support of its premise.

 

(...but STILL......!!!)

 

;)

Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...