Gone With The Wind Temporally Removed From HBO MAX (Or How To Look Back On Controversial Media) (2 Viewers)

This was a pretty good article on the subject.


While reading the article it mentions this cartoon which I had never stumbled on before:


And just wooooooooow.



I have no issues with no longer showing racist films and images and even some of the cancel culture where appropriate. But I do wonder whether sanitizing already completed movies, shows and artwork from society maybe removes what actually happened or was told? People should be able to see what things were like back when racism and discrimination was ignored or even accepted.

For example, I watched 13th on Netflix, and there were images of lynchings and brutality that hurt to watch. If those were edited out, I wouldn't understand how badly people were being treated simply because of the color of their skin. I'm just thinking, should we gloss over or ignore the mistakes and wrongheadedness of the decisions people made. I dunno, just pondering here.
 
I have no issues with no longer showing racist films and images and even some of the cancel culture where appropriate. But I do wonder whether sanitizing already completed movies, shows and artwork from society maybe removes what actually happened or was told? People should be able to see what things were like back when racism and discrimination was ignored or even accepted.

For example, I watched 13th on Netflix, and there were images of lynchings and brutality that hurt to watch. If those were edited out, I wouldn't understand how badly people were being treated simply because of the color of their skin. I'm just thinking, should we gloss over or ignore the mistakes and wrongheadedness of the decisions people made. I dunno, just pondering here.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse
The movies/art that you are talking about ARE the sanitized or propaganda) versions - presumably, they hinder our moving forward bc they make disgusting actions/behaviors palatable

Hamilton deliberately takes great liscense with the past - it’s done in these post- modern times, so it has artistic precedent
But say it’s 100 years from now and we are several cycles away from post-modernism — maybe the culture is so diffuse and varied that arts years for historical accuracy- I could see Hamilton coming under fire for its retelling of history
 
I have no issues with no longer showing racist films and images and even some of the cancel culture where appropriate. But I do wonder whether sanitizing already completed movies, shows and artwork from society maybe removes what actually happened or was told? People should be able to see what things were like back when racism and discrimination was ignored or even accepted.

For example, I watched 13th on Netflix, and there were images of lynchings and brutality that hurt to watch. If those were edited out, I wouldn't understand how badly people were being treated simply because of the color of their skin. I'm just thinking, should we gloss over or ignore the mistakes and wrongheadedness of the decisions people made. I dunno, just pondering here.

That's why I havent tossed any of my DVDs. Physical media is the only way to protect against one of your favorite shows or movies getting memory-holed in an online world.
 
I never saw it. I have not seen Citizen Kane either, but I did see Kane when he was on wrastlin.
Did you guys know Kane is now the mayor of Knoxville Tenn?

You're not missing anything. I always hated this film. The main character is a completely unlikable spoiled rich scum; somehow, we're supposed to care what happens to her. It's a complete waste of celluloid. They can drop it off the face of the earth for all I care. It's a stupid movie.

Citizen Kane is something you should see, however. Not just for the skewering of Hearst, but because Welles' performance is masterful.
 
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse
The movies/art that you are talking about ARE the sanitized or propaganda) versions - presumably, they hinder our moving forward bc they make disgusting actions/behaviors palatable

Hamilton deliberately takes great liscense with the past - it’s done in these post- modern times, so it has artistic precedent
But say it’s 100 years from now and we are several cycles away from post-modernism — maybe the culture is so diffuse and varied that arts years for historical accuracy- I could see Hamilton coming under fire for its retelling of history

What I think I'm trying to get at is leaving those sanitized versions of history to remind people that they are exactly that. In other words, how do we know what's sanitized if we aren't able to observe and identify it? I mean, it's sort of like trying to explain to a flat earther without showing him a globe, or showing a round earther an old flat earth map and why it was wrong.

Sort of like the old maps of the early days where everything was pretty distorted because of our limited perception of the earth at the time. And, I don’t know, Gone with the wind was a fictional account of one's limited views of what the South was in that time period. Not really accurate, and in a similar way to Hamilton being a historically incorrect portrayal.
 
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...........


They're already in process of doing it. They're removing B'rer Rabbit, et al, and replacing those characters with the ones from "The Princess and the Frog".

 
Last edited:
What I think I'm trying to get at is leaving those sanitized versions of history to remind people that they are exactly that. In other words, how do we know what's sanitized if we aren't able to observe and identify it? I mean, it's sort of like trying to explain to a flat earther without showing him a globe, or showing a round earther an old flat earth map and why it was wrong.

Sort of like the old maps of the early days where everything was pretty distorted because of our limited perception of the earth at the time. And, I don’t know, Gone with the wind was a fictional account of one's limited views of what the South was in that time period. Not really accurate, and in a similar way to Hamilton being a historically incorrect portrayal.
Let’s also be clear that GWTW has not been removed and is available
Outside of Song of the South, there aren’t that many shoes that have been removed entirely
- pretty sure you can still see Burth of a Nation if you have such an inclination

I will argue that GWTW is as much propaganda as art
And most John Wayne movies and their ilk are more propaganda than art
 
Let’s also be clear that GWTW has not been removed and is available
Outside of Song of the South, there aren’t that many shoes that have been removed entirely
- pretty sure you can still see Burth of a Nation if you have such an inclination

I will argue that GWTW is as much propaganda as art
And most John Wayne movies and their ilk are more propaganda than art

That makes sense. I was thinking of the shows that removed episodes with blackface and such. And more of whether GWTW should be banned entirely or just left on the dust heap where people can just view it in their own homes or whatever. I've never been a fan of the movie.

My thinking is less about a specific show and more about what parts of art, history and/or even propaganda should be preserved and taught so that we don't repeat past mistakes and lessons learned remain as such.
 
Here's a deeper question on "cancel culture" that recently popped up in our office conversations.

Can you (and should you, or would you, or do you) separate the art from the artist?

Examples:

1. Let's say your favorite artist is Mike Phone, and Mike one day is arrested and convicted on, say, domestic violence. Or rape. Or murder. Or whatever the "breaking point" is for you in terms of crime/sin. Should you stop listening to Mike's past music that you love, and that maybe even "helps" your own happiness?

2. What if your favorite team signs a player that did something you find awful. Let's say, for this case, Derrius Guice is convicted of what he was just charged with, but is available in 2 years, the Saints sign him, and he goes on to have a 1,000 yard season. Do you cheer when Guice scores, because the Saints come first? Do you boycott the Saints? Do you groan at the uncomfort you find?

3. Or if your favorite restaurant owner has been harassing women or people of color. Do you boycott his restaurant(s), or can you enjoy his food/menu?

4. Can someone still watch The Cosby Show with a new generation of kids because it is wholesome TV content, even knowing the main person has been charged with heinous crimes?

Now, to be clear, the actions above are just examples. The "criminal or moral act" can be whatever disgusts you. I just provided headline type examples.

This is a complicated situation of course. Boycotting a famous restaurant owner doesn't necessarily hurt him the most. He's theoretically well set up from cookbook sales, TV money, savings, etc. But if suddenly no one comes to the restaurant, how does that impact the line cook? The dishwasher? The host/hostess? They may ultimately suffer more than the owner ever would.

Likewise, an NFL team is a moving machine of 53 main roster players, 10 practice squad players, 20 IR guys, a dozen coaches, operations staff, etc. Does you giving up your NFL tickets to make a point impact our fictional Derrius Guice scenario, or does it just impact your enjoyment of life, etc?

Is it easier to support a team still over an individual such as a solo singer, golfer, tennis player, etc? But even then managers, backup singers, bandmates, etc are impacted.

So is there a "right" answer? A "right" balance? Is there a way to "punish" someone in the examples above?
 
Here's a deeper question on "cancel culture" that recently popped up in our office conversations.

Can you (and should you, or would you, or do you) separate the art from the artist?

Examples:

1. Let's say your favorite artist is Mike Phone, and Mike one day is arrested and convicted on, say, domestic violence. Or rape. Or murder. Or whatever the "breaking point" is for you in terms of crime/sin. Should you stop listening to Mike's past music that you love, and that maybe even "helps" your own happiness?

2. What if your favorite team signs a player that did something you find awful. Let's say, for this case, Derrius Guice is convicted of what he was just charged with, but is available in 2 years, the Saints sign him, and he goes on to have a 1,000 yard season. Do you cheer when Guice scores, because the Saints come first? Do you boycott the Saints? Do you groan at the uncomfort you find?

3. Or if your favorite restaurant owner has been harassing women or people of color. Do you boycott his restaurant(s), or can you enjoy his food/menu?

4. Can someone still watch The Cosby Show with a new generation of kids because it is wholesome TV content, even knowing the main person has been charged with heinous crimes?

Now, to be clear, the actions above are just examples. The "criminal or moral act" can be whatever disgusts you. I just provided headline type examples.

This is a complicated situation of course. Boycotting a famous restaurant owner doesn't necessarily hurt him the most. He's theoretically well set up from cookbook sales, TV money, savings, etc. But if suddenly no one comes to the restaurant, how does that impact the line cook? The dishwasher? The host/hostess? They may ultimately suffer more than the owner ever would.

Likewise, an NFL team is a moving machine of 53 main roster players, 10 practice squad players, 20 IR guys, a dozen coaches, operations staff, etc. Does you giving up your NFL tickets to make a point impact our fictional Derrius Guice scenario, or does it just impact your enjoyment of life, etc?

Is it easier to support a team still over an individual such as a solo singer, golfer, tennis player, etc? But even then managers, backup singers, bandmates, etc are impacted.

So is there a "right" answer? A "right" balance? Is there a way to "punish" someone in the examples above?
Woody Allen used to be my favorite director by a healthy margin
I have not watched a Woody Allen movie since ‘the triubles’

I won’t watch a Mel Gibson movie bc he seems like a truly heinous person

I don’t have enough spending power for my dining choices to matter
 
Most of us listen to music from some pretty heinous people - Bowie, Mick, Page, Elvis, etc... For some reason, rock stars get a pass that other types of media don't.
 
Woody Allen used to be my favorite director by a healthy margin
I have not watched a Woody Allen movie since ‘the triubles’

I won’t watch a Mel Gibson movie bc he seems like a truly heinous person

I don’t have enough spending power for my dining choices to matter

In the grand scheme none of us matter. But should we even care? And is it enough to just care? Or do our actions matter? If we were all trying to explain things to our young teenagers, what is the “right” answer?
 

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