The Democrat Ministries of Truth are on the job.
Don't have "BadThink." It's illegal.
Your Bookshelf May Be Part Of The Problem -- NPR
HBO is owned by John Stankey a Republican. The decision to pull GWTW is probably some misguided attempt to appear woke. It was the first movie where a black actress won an Oscar for best supporting actress, Hattie McDaniel. Incipient racist move.
Just some stupid corporate dweeb kneeling on the neck of a significant work of American art.
If this isn't a grateful woman, I don't know who is. Seems like a real class act too.
That is a very nice thing you did there.
You can see how emotional she is at the end.
Thanks for the props.
What about the fact that McDaniel could only get a role playing a slave maid? A role in which she had no name. Only "Mammy." Yep, that's Hack's kind of black woman. And after that her best role was on TV playing a maid called "Beaulah." Yep. A real example of emancipation. And you are a real example of a pusillanimous propagandist. With absolutely no moral fiber. Go fuck yourself.
What about movies that show blacks as felons? What about movies where women are viewed as sex objects only? What about all the homophobic on screen depictions over the years?
Are they all no longer appropriate to air as well?
would be asking. I'd want to know, on what basis did HBO pull GWTW? Is there any degree of logic behind this move? Because categorically, I am not following it?
Have watched a number of gut-wrenching movies, who's plot, I totally detested. Yet they were historically accurate. Reminds me of the old saying, "those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it."
IMHO, streaming GWTW, is neither condoning nor accepting, some of the clearly racist, clearly reprehensible conditions, portrayed in that movie, by any means.
So again, before this even remotely makes sense to me, I must ask WHY? What is the motive here?
I agree. I would like those questions you pose answered as well. That is looking at it at 10 feet when I was going with the 30,000 foot view.
Jinx has speculated that it is wokeness, and I believe he is correct so I do worry about the slippery slope if that turns out to be the case.
And even if the movie was not historically accurate, that is fine with me as it is art.
I remember when Oliver Stone was being interviewed by Larry King when "JFK" came out and King questioned Stone on the numerous inaccurate misrepresentation of historical facts in the flick.
Stone's answer was that he took creative license with the film. Perfectly ok answer for me. As long as he is honest about that I have zero issue with it.
Good post.
I think your statement about being doomed to repeat the past is very appropriate here.
If we just try to white wash our history and pretend it never happened, how do we ever learn from the mistakes of the past?
If we are going to pull GWTW we are going to have to pull almost every movie from the 20th century. How about the movies with white people playing Indians? Or ANY cowboys and indians movie with the possible exception of Dances with Wolves. Or how about the WWII movies where both the Japs and the Krauts are depicted as murderous barbarians? The list goes on and on. In a hundred years most of we do today is going to be found objectionable.
Personally I think it is just a weak attempt by a giant corporation to appear "woke" as jinxie said. and I think they should be called out for the transparent attempt to curry favor of the PC crowd.
It doesn’t. Spike Lee movies should not exist. All Disney movies shouldn’t either. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid and Pocahontas all portray negative stereotypes. All classic Westerns should be banned because they show native Americans as criminals. Maybe not Dances with Wolves, but Costner is an asshole, so why not?
This ill advised attempt to rewrite American history as shown through a decidedly made in America art form robs us of teaching moments that help to expose endemic racism and therefore allow us to fight against it.
I want my children and my grandchildren to ask the hard questions of the forebears and in the wisdom of a child say it’s wrong. If they don’t know about it, how will they know to ask those questions.
As always, humans act exceedingly stupid in a crises.
"Gone With the Wind is a product of its time and depicts some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that have, unfortunately, been commonplace in American society. These racist depictions were wrong then and are wrong today, and we felt that to keep this title up without an explanation and a denouncement of those depictions would be irresponsible. These depictions are certainly counter to WarnerMedia’s values, so when we return the film to HBO Max, it will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions, but will be presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. If we are to create a more just, equitable and inclusive future, we must first acknowledge and understand our history."
to me. Clearly, the depictions were racist. They accurately portray the time/setting. Not sure this film does anything but reminds us of a very dark period/event in our nation's history.
Can not see how, anyone who would choose to watch GWTW would change their views on racism, one way or another. Difficult to for me to believe, the hard core racists, will see the error of their ways by watching this movie. Just as I am pretty sure, those who abhor racism, won't have a change of heart and embrace it, all of a sudden. Furthermore, the movie itself, is not steeped in propaganda aimed at influencing people's views.
Of course, I am not a person of color, would have to defer to someone who is, but it DOES beg your question; "where do we go from here?" I am confused. This must be some type of political stunt. Maybe more information will come out and clarify, exactly what IS going on.
which glorified the Klan.
way, to call out the KKK, than to leave "The Birth of a Nation," and other films like it, in circulation?
and I don't want movies banned, Do I like it when I see Chinese portrayed only as mindless Coolies? or when most of the Chinese characters are played by white people, or when the only Chinese characters are passive servants like Hop Sing on Bonanza? Of course not, but pretending it never happened not only serves no purpose, it's actually counter productive.
One thing that is a realistic hope for a movie such as GWTW is that some white family is watching it together some night in the not too distant future and one of the children asks her mother "Did we REALLY treat black people that way?" and her mother is truthfully able to say that "Yes we did long ago, but we've learned how to treat everybody equally today"
Then that settles it, this is all I needed.
And it'll probably end here. The Godfather, The World of Suzie Wong, The Magnificent Seven (With Charlie Bronson)...will still be around
This was really no big issue.
EVERYBODY would be up in arms about it, except for perhaps the Irish.
Not that they can take a joke any better, just that they are too drunk to care. (sorry Once and Jack. low hanging fruit lol)
strong exception to that remark. But, even though I do not drink, have more than enough in my family who do, and unfortunately, at times, excessively.
So I guess, I must quietly, sit back, and enjoy my (not Long Island) iced tea.
I’m not sure we need some social commentary from a hired “expert”. I watch the movie probably once every few years or so and can come to my own conclusions.
There is a great movie called The Unforgiven (not Eastwood’s) starring Burt Lancaster, a smoking Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy in probably his best acting ever that was a not so subtle examination of these issues in the 50s. The term “Redskin Nigger” was coined by this important film.
Show it before GWTW as a double feature and I think a very powerful message will be sent. I don’t need some corporate hack telling me what I should think about.
and I actually have some personal experience on the subject. Some forty plus years ago I used to get mixed up with being an "Indian" all the time. I was hitch-hiking through the real redneck part of California and some members of some tribe or another picked me up and invited me out to some small reservation they lived on and promised me a good meal and a place to crash for the night
What they didn't tell me is that the local rednecks had been fucking with them, destroying their shit and routinely beating their asses and somehow they got the idea in their heads I was going to be their "Billy Jack" if you get the reference, anyone who doesn't can just Google the Movie, but they seriously thought my skinny ass was going to take on dozens of armed fucking rednecks. I was lucky to get out of there with my life. I do know for a fact that several members of that tribe did turn up dead, I was just thankful not to have ended up one of them.
But yes, people do some horrible shit to each other just for being "different" I do remember thinking to myself some thirty years later driving through the same area in my nice airconditioned Cadillac on my way from Las Vegas to the Bay Area just how different my life is today.
So we can agree on a few things. I spent a lot of time hitching rides up the 99 to get to Yosemite, the 1 to get to the city and the 395 to get to Tahoe.
Those Indians you met are my people. The caretaker at my Ranchito is one of them. You’re lucky they just fucked with you and didn’t bury you somewhere out on the llano.
Things got VERY ugly and although I felt bad for the Indians, I wasn't going to take on dozens of cowboys with guns. That shit works out just fine sometimes in the movies, but in real life you just end up dead. I ended up walking out about twenty miles cross country to the nearest paved road, and I don't remember how many more miles to the next real road, but I was grateful the entire time just to be breathing. I am sure a lot of your people weren't as lucky as me. From what I heard later they burned the entire rancheria to the ground.
So do we also have to pull down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial? The both owned slaves but said they opposed slavery.
The main difference is they FOUNDED the country, and didn't try to tear it apart.
Columbus worked for one of the most flagrantly militant Catholic countries ever.
They pretended they were for free speech. Turns out they were only in favor of their speech. As soon as they obtained any power, they began suppressing the speech of others. It started on college campuses where they violently assaulted anyone with a different opinion. It has spread now in the form of "cancelling" people. Their employers are harassed until they fire the person to make the damage stop. They dox addresses. They threaten homes and families. They assault people with cement filled "milkshakes."
.
Liberals are monsters. As bad as any Nazi Stormtrooper. They are sure of their righteousness ... exactly the kind of people who will guard and operate the concentration camp ovens.
I don’t know how many true “liberals” exist on this board. The classic definition of a liberal is one who is open minded and accepts other’s points of view. What we have unfortunately are a number of extreme leftist bigots. For those who might want a “link” to what a bigot is, most dictionaries agree that it is a person who is “intolerant towards those holding different opinions “. Does that sound like some people we know?
And of course there are all of those “liberals “ out there who cause the cancellations of people who are scheduled to speak at colleges, etc. because they just don’t like that person or that person’s message, sometimes resorting to violence and rioting to achieve that goal. Does anyone remember the destruction and violence that caused Stanford to cancel the scheduled appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos in 2017? Yeah, let’s talk about “free speech”. But It only exists if it’s leftist rhetoric. Sorry guys, most of the bigots I see today are on the extreme left.
I've heard of this distinction between "liberal" and "leftist." No real evidence for it. People who ran the concentration camps were often good family people. So a liberal might be more affable as he votes to have someone else throw you into the gas chamber.
In my mind at least, I do differentiate between a "liberal" and a "leftist."
To me, a "liberal" wants to make progressive change but wants to do so peacefully with public pressure (i.e protests, marches, boycotts, social media, etc) and through the ballot box, obviously all perfectly acceptable means, especially in a free society.
But a "leftist" wants to make those changes through intimidation, threats and violence. Now I may have used those two terms interchangeably at times here and that would be wrong if I did.
I have many "liberal" friends, as liberals were in the majority at my university, but I don't have any "leftist" friends, nor would I.
Concentration camps? Not cool Lester.
I’m a liberal and I don’t support suppression of free speech I don’t know any of my liberal friends and I know hundreds of them, That do either. I do support suppression of hate speech which are the only instances I know of that fit your bill.
But I can see how a person of your sensibilities would be opposed to that.
reel you in again.
Lesson #1: Didn't your mom teach you, whenever you group all of the same type of anything together, you are being stereotypical? If she did not, Lester then she should have.
Lesson #2: Expressing yourself as you just did, begs the question, what other categories are you so quick to condemn all people who fit into them? How about all people of the same race, same sex, same ethnic group? See Lester, you basically outed yourself, which could be a good thing as anyone who may have been unsure before, definitely has your number, now.
Lesson #3: Don't post when you are as high as a kite. The worst version of yourself comes out and you only embarrass yourself, when your post openly identifies you as a closed-minded person, maybe even a bigoted on?
You're welcome, Lester, feel compelled to throw you a lifeline, whenever you sound like the singular version of dumb and dumber.
1. Popular Front for the Liberation of Seattle
2. Seattle People's Liberation Front
3. Liberation Front for the Seattle People