Films and TV shows which will be banned

Started by Milltown Row2, June 10, 2020, 10:29:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

macdanger2

Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I don't quite get the commotion about GWTW.  Isn't blatantly obvious that GWTW distorts the experience of slavery, that this is how black Americans were depicted by Hollywood in the 1940s and GWTW is just one of many films which are evidence to that depiction. It's a historical film and the film's making is of its time.
Have we not had a tv series called Roots and many others which offered more realistic alternative perceptions of that piece of slave history and from a black perspective.


Once Mel Brooks claimed that Blazing Saddles wouldn't be made in today's PC environment, eg. that you just wouldn't have an elderly white woman return a greeting to the new town sheriff with a "get lost n*gger" 
I think he's wrong, Tarantino has done it to excess and many others as well.

Is it not moreso that it romanticises the confederacy and what it stood for?

Main Street

Quote from: macdanger2 on June 10, 2020, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2020, 03:54:26 PM
I don't quite get the commotion about GWTW.  Isn't blatantly obvious that GWTW distorts the experience of slavery, that this is how black Americans were depicted by Hollywood in the 1940s and GWTW is just one of many films which are evidence to that depiction. It's a historical film and the film's making is of its time.
Have we not had a tv series called Roots and many others which offered more realistic alternative perceptions of that piece of slave history and from a black perspective.


Once Mel Brooks claimed that Blazing Saddles wouldn't be made in today's PC environment, eg. that you just wouldn't have an elderly white woman return a greeting to the new town sheriff with a "get lost n*gger" 
I think he's wrong, Tarantino has done it to excess and many others as well.

Is it not moreso that it romanticises the confederacy and what it stood for?
Afaia the fuss is about the depiction of slaves in the South, Hattie McDaniels role in particular where she won the academy award for best supporting actress but due to segregation she was not even allowed to attend the ceremony. This was covered a bit in the recent tv drama Hollywood, along with talented Chinese American actress Anna May Wong who was fed up with her stereotypical roles.

Baile Brigín 2

The whole thing is a minefield.

As someone said, Birth of a Nation is one of the most important films ever made. But its a pro KKK propaganda piece.

Where do you draw the line? There are huge amounts of important work that haven't aged well. Do we bin it all? Even friends was lashed out of it when it was put up on Netflix.

I think the warning approach is better.


Capt Pat

Quote from: hardstation on June 10, 2020, 08:17:36 PM
I assume this (now) woman is being sought for a public flogging?

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyDixonDJ/status/1129472007932919814

I love the way instead of depicting Paul McGraths egg shell tanned skin she goes for black as coal face paint because he is black. That comes across as a bit racist.

sid waddell

Quote from: BennyCake on June 10, 2020, 07:36:14 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 10, 2020, 05:54:34 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 10, 2020, 03:46:38 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 10, 2020, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 10, 2020, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 10, 2020, 10:44:51 AM
He ruined Craig David. Ruined him.

Yeah but he was doing a skit of Craig David. He wore a black mask because Craig David is black. Was he supposed to portray him with a white mask?

Does this mean all the white characters he portrayed were all fine, but the black ones weren't? Like ffs!

So are you suggesting that Conor Moore, the Irishman who has recently had a lot of success in the US doing impressions of golfers, should wear blackface if he's doing an impression of Tiger Woods?

That would seem to be a logical follow on from what you say.

Moore's act isn't about wearing masks though.

I've heard it said the Craig David mask, people complained because it ruined CD's career. Never heard anyone say, oh that's racist. Now suddenly it is racist?

Could you answer the question?

Should Moore wear blackface when doing an impression of Tiger Woods?

I answered your question.
You completely avoided it.

I'll ask it again.

Should Conor Moore wear blackface when doing an impression of Tiger Woods?

Eamonnca1


Eamonnca1

Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2020, 05:14:07 PM
Isn't there a point where we know and acccept  GWTW has its stereotypical distortions about slavery and move on?
What stone would a person have crawled out from under, in order to believe that's how slavery actually was in those days?
The film itself is a testament to the prejudice and lies Hollywood propogated about the reality of slavery.

Check out  Leni Riefenstahl: Olympia - Festival of Nations (1936) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LOPhRq3Es
Can it not be appreciated that it's a document of its time, possibly the most perfect piece of propoganda of all time, albeit for the fallacy that was Nazi doctrine.

You overestimate the intelligence of American conservatives. They watched Birth of a Nation that portrayed blacks as deviant sexual predators and thought it was a documentary.

Eamonnca1

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on June 10, 2020, 11:22:10 PM
The whole thing is a minefield.

As someone said, Birth of a Nation is one of the most important films ever made. But its a pro KKK propaganda piece.

Where do you draw the line? There are huge amounts of important work that haven't aged well. Do we bin it all? Even friends was lashed out of it when it was put up on Netflix.

I think the warning approach is better.



I'd agree with that. I believe HBO is taking that approach with GWTW, it'll be back up with a warning placed in front of it. For the benefit of any conservatives who might think that slavery was all right.

lurganblue



Ethan Tremblay

I agree the warning approach is the most logical way to go forward as opposed to removing films/ tv shows that are dated.

In twenty years time what will people be getting offended about that we didn't realise was offensive now at the moment?
I tend to think of myself as a one man wolfpack...

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: Ethan Tremblay on June 11, 2020, 11:13:38 AM
I agree the warning approach is the most logical way to go forward as opposed to removing films/ tv shows that are dated.

In twenty years time what will people be getting offended about that we didn't realise was offensive now at the moment?


Ah it'll be the old man was really a woman thing, or vice versa. Or the whole gender neutral area. Might take me awhile to get PC on the area of the latter

armaghniac

Roots has slavery in it, so it has to be banned.
Likewise Schindler's List has clear anti semitism.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Taylor

I think it is madness to go down banning films.
Where does it stop?

If there are fat people in the movie and they arent 'good' does it portray fat people in a bad light?
If the 'baddie' in a movie is white/black/asian etc does it paint all of that race in a bad light?
Do we ban superhero films because the main lead isnt white/black/asian etc - do these films mean only white/black people can be heroes?

Everyone can be offended by different things

sid waddell

Quote from: armaghniac on June 11, 2020, 11:44:50 AM
Roots has slavery in it, so it has to be banned.
Likewise Schindler's List has clear anti semitism.
Are you just being performative stupid here for the sake of it, or is this really your view?

Because what you just wrote is very stupid.