HBO Max pulls 'Gone with the Wind' over racist portrayals

[explorerzip]

But that's not the point. These guys don't want people take away their right to watch a movie they heard about once but never actually watched on a channel they don't actually subscribe to. At the same time, these generally right wing people think that companies shouldn't have the right to show the movies they want and the owner of the movie's rights shouldn't have a say in it who the lease rights to.


p.s. Blazing saddles was meant to be a provocative comment against racism in the US. In case you missed it, the black Sheriff and the black railroad workers are among the heroes and the overtly racist gang are the bad guys who lose.

Yes, I get the irony of people complaining about a movie they likely haven't or seen or even would see if available on a service that isn't even available in Canada unless they do some technical trickery. You also have people complaining about TV censorship yet that's been going on for decades by editing or bleeping out adult content, coarse language, violence, etc.

I have the DVD of Blazing Saddles and it's also a classic. I think I recently came across it on TV, but it was heavily edited. Again, if it's important that people see the unedited version of a film then just buy the disc.

 

[WyattEarp]

Yes, I get the irony of people complaining about a movie they likely haven't or seen or even would see if available on a service that isn't even available in Canada unless they do some technical trickery. You also have people complaining about TV censorship yet that's been going on for decades by editing or bleeping out adult content, coarse language, violence, etc.

Many Americans have seen it many times. When it was first aired on television in the 1970s, families would watch the movie together. Many of our grandparents and parents read the book before we read it. The book and movie was, and is, a phenomenon all over the country.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on comparative censoring. Censoring for adult content, language and violence is generally done to meet regulatory requirements for public air waves.

 

[WyattEarp]

Doctor Zhivago

The movie Doctor Zhivago comes to mind. Like Gone With The Wind, it is a romance placed in a long, sweeping epic film. Not everyone was happy with its lacking depiction of the violence and suffering during the Russian Revolution and the ensuing Civil War.

Upon its initial release, Doctor Zhivago was criticized for its romanticization of the revolution. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times felt that the film's focus on the love story between Zhivago and Lara trivialized the events of the Russian Revolution and the resulting Russian Civil War, but was impressed by the film's visuals.

 

[Insidious Von]

It was doctrine in its time if you were a rich, white woman living in the South during a period and locale in which young black men were beaten to death, burned alive or hanged in front of a crowd of jeering onlookers for even speaking to a white woman. That's pretty much the point of banning it, no?

Thanks for proving my point oagre, but ugliness should not be banned. It needs to be confronted not avoided, the only way future generations will learn to defend human rights.

Do I need to go into the gory details of Nat Turner's execution? Suffice to say it fueled the abolitionist movement,the Confederacy's barbarism was exposed.

One company has never fessed up to its racism.

 

[mandrill]

I never exactly got that from the movie. I seem to remember Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) believing the war was a stupid endeavor. Even Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard) doesn't think much of the war, but believes his duty is to Georgia.

If don't think a Northern screenwriter Sidney Howard was trying to glorify the Confederacy in the annals of American history. Any focus on the errant "Lost Cause" revisionism has to juxtapose that with the veneration of Abraham Lincoln throughout American history.

There's plenty of moaning about the glorious antebellum South in the movie. The Civil War is presented as a "mistake", but that's part of the Lost Cause Myth - the South could never have beaten the North, due to the latter's greater resources, but fought anyway. It's standard Lost Cause bullshit. Back in the day, I watched the movie several times, being a history buff and being too young to realize that the movie presented a distorted pitcure.

And unlike the Confederacy, Lincoln actually achieved something positive. Or is that now being disputed by you?

 

[mandrill]

Thanks for proving my point oagre, but ugliness should not be banned. It needs to be confronted not avoided, the only way future generations will learn to defend human rights.

Do I need to go into the gory details of Nat Turner's execution? Suffice to say it fueled the abolitionist movement,the Confederacy's barbarism was exposed.

One company has never fessed up to its racism.

I had the same chat w someone on Twitter and my response was - teach the movie in film school for its cutting edge cinematography and in cultural history courses for its now-outdated ideology. It's simply no longer living room family entertainment.

Are you suggesting that Ma and Pa and the kids sit down after dinner and watch "Triumph of the Will" and other Nazi propaganda?.... Of course not. But they should be taught in history class and film school.

And tell Uncle Remus that I said so!

 

[jerimander]

Why not ban "Shaft" since it perpetuates the idea that black men are pimps with big cocks?

 

[gibarian]

Thanks for proving my point oagre, but ugliness should not be banned. It needs to be confronted not avoided, the only way future generations will learn to defend human rights.

Do I need to go into the gory details of Nat Turner's execution? Suffice to say it fueled the abolitionist movement,the Confederacy's barbarism was exposed.

One company has never fessed up to its racism.

It wasn't banned.

 

[Darts]

I saw the film (all 4 hours) when it was re-released years ago. I thought that it simply portrayed life in the south during the Civil War. The invasion by federal troops, the destruction of plantations and the burning of Atlanta.

Lincoln started an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 Americans and destroyed the southern economy. Slavery was already on its way out.

Question: Will libraries now ban the book as well?

 

[gibarian]

I saw the film (all 4 hours) when it was re-released years ago. I thought that it simply portrayed life in the south during the Civil War. The invasion by federal troops, the destruction of plantations and the burning of Atlanta.

Lincoln started an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 Americans and destroyed the southern economy. Slavery was already on its way out.

Question: Will libraries now ban the book as well?

Psychotic, racist lies.

The South went to war to preserve the institution of slavery, which was essential to its economy. That was the only reason.

 

[explorerzip]

Many Americans have seen it many times. When it was first aired on television in the 1970s, families would watch the movie together. Many of our grandparents and parents read the book before we read it. The book and movie was, and is, a phenomenon all over the country.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on comparative censoring. Censoring for adult content, language and violence is generally done to meet regulatory requirements for public air waves.

If those people have supposedly seen it many times then they're not missing anything. It is still available on other channels and again get the disc version if you must watch it on a regular basis. Channels are not obligated to keep every movie just because it was a phenomenon, highest grossing, etc.

Censoring for adult content, language, etc. for regulatory requirements is still censorship. If you're opposed to it then again, buy the disc version so you can watch it completely uncensored and whenever you like. It's unreasonable to expect any broadcaster to make available all movies ever made and leave them uncensored. That isn't practical.

 

[Darts]

Re-fighting the American Civil War and its aftermath is probably outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say to quote the famous last words of General George Armstrong Custer "this is a total fuck-up".

Firstly, Lincoln was a warmonger. He sent federal troops to invade and destroy the south. The south never wanted war and offered peace many times through negotiations both before and during the war.

Secondly, the war was not about slavery.

"Lincoln confided to James W. Singleton that his primary concern was the Union. In Singleton's words: "that he never has and never will present any other ultimatum—that he is misunderstood on the subject of slavery—that it shall not stand in the way of peace".[18][19] Lincoln's reassurance earned him Singleton's support in the 1864 election.[20]"

 

[mandrill]

Re-fighting the American Civil War and its aftermath is probably outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say to quote the famous last words of General George Armstrong Custer "this is a total fuck-up".

Firstly, Lincoln was a warmonger. He sent federal troops to invade and destroy the south. The south never wanted war and offered peace many times through negotiations both before and during the war.

Secondly, the war was not about slavery.

"Lincoln confided to James W. Singleton that his primary concern was the Union. In Singleton's words: "that he never has and never will present any other ultimatum—that he is misunderstood on the subject of slavery—that it shall not stand in the way of peace".[18][19] Lincoln's reassurance earned him Singleton's support in the 1864 election.[20]"

Didn't the South start the War by unilaterally firing on Fort Sumter, Darts?

 

[derrick76]

Secondly, the war was not about slavery.

lol lol

 

[Darts]

Didn't the South start the War by unilaterally firing on Fort Sumter, Darts?

Actually no, the feds were supposed to remove all federal installations from Confederate lands after their declaration of independence. Let's use a current example. Say Quebec were to declare its independence from Canada would PM Trudeau still maintain federal troops in Quebec? Or, let say Northern Ireland were to declare its independence from the U.K. would PM Johnson still maintain British troops (especially the SAS) in Northern Ireland?

======================================================================================

The problems after the Civil War were mostly northern white and freed slave carpetbaggers who plundered the defeated south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

 

[WyattEarp]

There's plenty of moaning about the glorious antebellum South in the movie. The Civil War is presented as a "mistake", but that's part of the Lost Cause Myth - the South could never have beaten the North, due to the latter's greater resources, but fought anyway. It's standard Lost Cause bullshit. Back in the day, I watched the movie several times, being a history buff and being too young to realize that the movie presented a distorted pitcure.

All the things you mentioned and criticized are definitely in the movie. The movie certainly glosses over the plight of the African-Americans. I can't recall off the top of my head any movies in the first half of the 20th century that portrayed slavery accurately.

Gone With the Wind was actually about a romance and a strong-willed, feisty woman set during the Civil War. It's not a war movie or a movie about slavery. The historical events are just backdrops for the drama and tragedy to prevail. An epic like Lawrence of Arabia is a history lesson. GWTW is an epic about a young woman (fictional at that) during one of the country's darkest and tragic periods.

I don't think it's trying to convey a political or redemptive message for the Antebellum South. You can find one with modern perspective for sure, but that's heaping a lot on this movie. As far as the war being a mistake, it was a mistake. As far as the Confederate soldiers being courageous, they were courageous. Heroic? I don't think the movie plays Ashley and the others as heroic. Foolish was more like it. And it's all tragic nonetheless.

 

[WyattEarp]

And unlike the Confederacy, Lincoln actually achieved something positive. Or is that now being disputed by you?

I'm not quite sure what your takeaway was about my original comment about Lincoln. While Southern historians created a revisionist view of the Civil War, this "Lost Cause" mythology really didn't take hold in the rest of the country. History venerated Lincoln everywhere else North and West for fighting to preserve the Union and end slavery.

Of course, we know in modern review that Lincoln did not take up the war to end slavery, but came to that thinking during the course of the war. The idea that he fought the South to abolish slavery was part of Lincoln's veneration through our history. This last point doesn't jive with the "Lost Cause".

So why did I reference Lincoln? The comment was in context of the Northern screenwriter. The "Lost Cause" was not part of the thinking of the rest of the country. I don't think the "Lost Cause" mythology is the story of GWTW. Any historical inaccuracies were common for that era.

 

[Insidious Von]

And tell Uncle Remus that I said so!

I think Frank Zappa already did that...biggest loss ever, we could use him today.

The crux of the biscuit....one of the few songs where Frankie didn't write the music, written by pianist George Duke.

 

[Insidious Von]

Frank Zappa allowing you to write one of his songs - that's respect.

 

[Insidious Von]

I saw the film (all 4 hours) when it was re-released years ago. I thought that it simply portrayed life in the south during the Civil War. The invasion by federal troops, the destruction of plantations and the burning of Atlanta. Lincoln started an unnecessary war that killed 700,000 Americans and destroyed the southern economy. Slavery was already on its way out.

Question: Will libraries now ban the book as well?

Dartsy types dumb shit to get attention. He wants me to bankroll his film project : Black Farts Matter. Dartsy, what song are you using?