Gone With The Wind Temporally Removed From HBO MAX (Or How To Look Back On Controversial Media) (1 Viewer)

Mixed feelings. I never DVR it because I've seen it so many times. Also, I really don't want to see the ending with the little girl. It's interesting that folks haven't seen it because it is considered such a classic.

It's probably almost completely misleading in regard to master/slave relationships. The accounts written by slaves are most likely more realistic. No doubt there were situations like in GWTW where the slaves were well treated, as well treated as could be under the awful and inhumane circumstances. I think DeToqueville foresaw that enslavement would eventually haunt the US. Goodness, he was right about that.

Ironically, Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for her brilliant performance in the movie.

On one hand, it's considered a classic. On the other hand, it implies that slaves were well treated, which is obviously ********. Are we going overboard with sanitizing our heritage? I don't know, but films like this that portray master/slave relationships as somehow benign ignore the whole odious process of enslavement, the trafficking of actual human beings. Maybe it's time we turned the page on GWTW.
 
Mixed feelings. I never DVR it because I've seen it so many times. Also, I really don't want to see the ending with the little girl. It's interesting that folks haven't seen it because it is considered such a classic.

It's probably almost completely misleading in regard to master/slave relationships. The accounts written by slaves are most likely more realistic. No doubt there were situations like in GWTW where the slaves were well treated, as well treated as could be under the awful and inhumane circumstances. I think DeToqueville foresaw that enslavement would eventually haunt the US. Goodness, he was right about that.

Ironically, Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for her brilliant performance in the movie.

On one hand, it's considered a classic. On the other hand, it implies that slaves were well treated, which is obviously ********. Are we going overboard with sanitizing our heritage? I don't know, but films like this that portray master/slave relationships as somehow benign ignore the whole odious process of enslavement, the trafficking of actual human beings. Maybe it's time we turned the page on GWTW.
Well you point out the essential problem
GWTW is the sanitized version
It is not heritage
It could easily be argued that it’s propaganda - maybe not as blatant as birth of a nation, but in the ballpark BECAUSE it’s more subtle and thus more insidious

Now it’s definitely not a clean argument
Shakespeare’s history plays were unbridled propaganda, should we get rid of them...?these are difficult conversations but ones that are important to have
 
Mixed feelings. I never DVR it because I've seen it so many times. Also, I really don't want to see the ending with the little girl. It's interesting that folks haven't seen it because it is considered such a classic.

It's probably almost completely misleading in regard to master/slave relationships. The accounts written by slaves are most likely more realistic. No doubt there were situations like in GWTW where the slaves were well treated, as well treated as could be under the awful and inhumane circumstances. I think DeToqueville foresaw that enslavement would eventually haunt the US. Goodness, he was right about that.

Ironically, Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for her brilliant performance in the movie.

On one hand, it's considered a classic. On the other hand, it implies that slaves were well treated, which is obviously ********. Are we going overboard with sanitizing our heritage? I don't know, but films like this that portray master/slave relationships as somehow benign ignore the whole odious process of enslavement, the trafficking of actual human beings. Maybe it's time we turned the page on GWTW.
Such a great classic film!!!

My first thought was, “but, Mammy won an OSCAR!!!” Hattie McDaniel was like the first black lady EVER to get an Oscar.

That horrible scene where wounded soldiers are everywhere, screaming in pain, & there are hundreds of them......will not miss that.
 
Well you point out the essential problem
GWTW is the sanitized version
It is not heritage
It could easily be argued that it’s propaganda - maybe not as blatant as birth of a nation, but in the ballpark BECAUSE it’s more subtle and thus more insidious

Now it’s definitely not a clean argument
Shakespeare’s history plays were unbridled propaganda, should we get rid of them...?these are difficult conversations but ones that are important to have
I have neither read nor seen "The Merchant of Venice," but I think it's pretty antisemitic. Maybe now is the time for me to read it, especially since there's not a lot to do right now.

You are probably thinking more of Henry V and the like. I would say that propagandistic literature is dated, and that we have to understand artworks in the context in which they are written. We don't know artists' intentions, absent actual statements by them (the intentional fallacy).

Some artists were aware, but others were not. I think of the well known and authentic story of Beethoven intending to dedicate his Third Symphony to Napoleon and then disgustedly erasing the dedication on title page when he realized that Napoleon was a tyrant. His erasure made a hole in the title page. He was a volatile guy. :hihi:

I am trying to think of an example of inadvertent propaganda in an artwork, something more subliminal. The Shakespeare history plays are probably consciously jingoistic.

We have an unfortunate example with the Brees/flag controversy. It's not likely that he meant to make a racist statement, but it came out that way because of his misinterpretation what of the kneelers' intentions were. Intentions are tricky things unless there's a clear statement of what they are. I suppose that's why intentions are so hard to prove in court.
 
Well you point out the essential problem
GWTW is the sanitized version
It is not heritage
It could easily be argued that it’s propaganda - maybe not as blatant as birth of a nation, but in the ballpark BECAUSE it’s more subtle and thus more insidious

Now it’s definitely not a clean argument
Shakespeare’s history plays were unbridled propaganda, should we get rid of them...?these are difficult conversations but ones that are important to have


It's also a fictional drama adapted from a fictional book.

I understand the sensitivities but we are not talking about a school textbook.
 
It's also a fictional drama adapted from a fictional book.

I understand the sensitivities but we are not talking about a school textbook.
which is a good point. It can be studied as a dated and fictional account that idealizes certain things but glosses over the realities that can be found in nonfictional, historical accounts.
 
I am trying to think of an example of inadvertent propaganda in an artwork, something more subliminal. The Shakespeare history plays are probably consciously jingoistic.

Star Wars Episode 1 was an eyebrow raiser.
 
which is a good point. It can be studied as a dated and fictional account that idealizes certain things but glosses over the realities that can be found in nonfictional, historical accounts.
and this would not be an issue if other perspectives (writing, art work, historical fiction, actual historical text) were not drawn from such a narrow pool -- and, by extension, it did not have such a restricted audience pool
 
One of these days I should watch it.

If they're just doing this to put a primer on it, then meh. Lots of fuss over nothing.

At the same token, many movies have issues with them, old books have issues with them when it comes to racial sensitivity and language. These are moments in time and who they were then. I think it's on us to be aware of them and the subject matter. I don't expect a "primer" for every old movie, book, etc out there. But, I also understand why they are doing it.
 
It's also a fictional drama adapted from a fictional book.

I understand the sensitivities but we are not talking about a school textbook.
my college history book was an old book and our professor warned us that there was some terms, concepts, and language that would likely offend modern sensibilities. However, he felt like besides that, it was a very well written book on the history of the USA and covered early years very well.

I also just think he was a pretty old guy set in his ways and had no desire to change the book and have to revamp his entire class. But he was a very good and nice teacher.
 
[QUOTE="AARPSaint, post: 8075974, member: 179"}
I am trying to think of an example of inadvertent propaganda in an artwork, something more subliminal. The Shakespeare history plays are probably consciously jingoistic.
[/QUOTE]
comedy probably gives the most obvious examples
'yellow face' in Breakfast at Tiffanys is an obvious example, but even up to 16 candles and beyond, it was still an easy, if dehumanizing, laugh

Fred Astaire doing an obvious homage to Bojangles was not meant as negative propaganda, but it is no longer kosher -- and all of the blackface in Bugs Bunny was quoting directly from skits/jokes from vaudeville stages - i could surmise that the WB cartoonists were just including it bc they remember laughing at blackface when they were young without any awareness pf its Jim Crow origins (or maybe i'm kidding myself)

Horror movies have all kinds of moralistic tropes that aren't intended as a direct rebuke of the thing terrorized it's just an easy shortcut to out psychologic triggers
 
One of these days I should watch it.

If they're just doing this to put a primer on it, then meh. Lots of fuss over nothing.

At the same token, many movies have issues with them, old books have issues with them when it comes to racial sensitivity and language. These are moments in time and who they were then. I think it's on us to be aware of them and the subject matter. I don't expect a "primer" for every old movie, book, etc out there. But, I also understand why they are doing it.
and it happens all of the time
disney sanitized each and every fairy tale it ever made a movie of
 
Disney will never allow Song of the South to see the light of day ever again because of this

Disney fans are urging the theme park operator to rethink Splash Mountain, a log flume ride based on a nearly 75-year-old movie that has long been criticized for racist themes.

The company has been distancing itself from its controversial 1946 film “Song of the South” for decades now. The movie, set on a plantation after the Civil War, is not included on the new streaming service Disney Plus. And former Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger, now executive chairman, says it won’t ever be.

“I’ve felt as long as I’ve been CEO that ‘Song of the South’ — even with a disclaimer — was just not appropriate in today’s world,” Iger said in March during a shareholder meeting. “It’s just hard, given the depictions in some of those films, to bring them out today without in some form or another offending people, so we’ve decided not to do that.”

Given that, advocates of the change say it’s time the film’s fingerprints be wiped from the company’s theme parks as well. The ride can be found at the Florida, California and Tokyo resorts. Disney plans to reopen its domestic parks next month after closing them because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The push to give the ride a new theme has gained traction on social media and in Change.org petitions in the past week amid a broader national conversation — and massive protests — around racism and injustice sparked by the death of George Floyd. Four former Minneapolis police officers have been charged in connection with his death...........

 
I just don't know. I mean, most TV shows with violence have a primer, albeit brief saying "The following show contains violence and brief nudity".

Maybe instead of pandering to us with explanations and other crap, maybe we just add "Depictions of slavery" or "Mild racism" to the list of "Nudity" or "Violence", etc.?

Hell I don't know.
 
I just don't know. I mean, most TV shows with violence have a primer, albeit brief saying "The following show contains violence and brief nudity".

Maybe instead of pandering to us with explanations and other crap, maybe we just add "Depictions of slavery" or "Mild racism" to the list of "Nudity" or "Violence", etc.?

Hell I don't know.

I hadn't thought about adding that in the movie description, but considering, that makes sense.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom