|
|
Post by craigoman8 on Nov 3, 2005 13:45:20 GMT -5
Actually, wincing is good! Trust me. I have heard film scholars, like Leonard Maltin, say in effect that seeing how those in the past viewed things, the experience should be educational. Poking fun at any and all different types of people (and the created stereotypes that showed up in the movies and literature of the past) were an accepted shorthand in those times. Are these views correct in 2005? Hardly. Ban any of them? No. How is one supposed to learn what to do and what not to do in society, if we do not have examples? I know many would like to ban everything that they do not agree with or that they find distasteful in their viewpoint. I think instead that everyone should have the opportunities available for further knowledge. (And yes, I still like the older films over a lot of the newer ones. I think I am smart enough to know history cannot be changed. I just choose to learn from it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by zootmoney on Nov 3, 2005 15:48:28 GMT -5
Well put!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ymymeatemup on Nov 3, 2005 18:42:10 GMT -5
1) Should dated offensive material be kept from public viewing?
I think adults ought to be able to view whatever material they wish. I agree, however, that films shown on TV in the middle of the day should fall within the guideslines generally accepted in our culture to be 'inoffensive,' or at least on channels routinely watched by children.
2) Does the expression "Thats the way things were"
hold much water?
Yes, to some extent. Part of the human condition is that most people tend to go along with what their family and friends think, and to a greater extent, society. Most people who are offended by certain things probably would not be offended if they grew up in a culture where those things were accepted. So I'm willing to cut the old folks some slack.
3) Is viewing such material educational? Why?
Inasmuch as it's a window into the past, then any old film is educational. As far as kids go, I'd recommend that somebody view the controversial stuff with them in case they get the wrong idea from any of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OPT on Nov 3, 2005 19:47:24 GMT -5
I agree with craigoman8 as well. There is no need to bury your head in the sand and pretend things did not happen in the past. BTW welcome to the new member  |
|
|
|
Post by sidewayscap on Nov 3, 2005 21:06:23 GMT -5
While certain films are racist, I could'nt stand not being able to watch them! They shouldn't be banned. It's not like you HAVE to watch them. They are a little hard to comprehend sometimes, the racism of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Nov 3, 2005 22:42:57 GMT -5
1) Should dated offensive material be kept from public viewing?
Think of how stupid that would be, to ban old films containing racism. If they did that, why not ban junk food or pornography? They don't have to show it on TV (but they don't seem to mind shows like Sanford & Son, The Jeffersons, South Park, etc etc etc), but never releasing them to home video would be taking it too far (Disney is famous for this- Song of the South, edited Fantasia and cartoons on their Disney Treasures collection, which are supposed to be uncut). Put a disclaimer on the package or something.
2) Does the expression "Thats the way things were" hold much water?
Well, yeah? It IS the way things were, isn't it? It's called history... and it's on film, all kinds of history. Political correctness has gotten so irritating. They put racism in movies *TODAY*, and we're free to pick on white people on TV, and no one raises hell over it. But when it comes to old movies... you get the picture. PC, whatever.
3) Is viewing such material educational? Why?
Well, the things you see in old movies aren't anything you would actually teach in schools, so I guess my answer is no. The racism that are taught in schools is the segregation and the fight for equality, not how the blacks used to talk or the stereotypes. If you wanted to get into details how life was back in the day, then you can watch the oldies at your own time.
|
|
|
|
Post by maliejandra on Nov 4, 2005 10:12:31 GMT -5
1) Should dated offensive material be kept from public viewing?
No, absolutely not! That is censorship and I absolutely abhor it. ESPECIALLY since there is all sorts of reverse racism in the public eye that is completely overlooked (ie BET, Black-only scholarships, etc).
2) Does the expression "Thats the way things were" hold much water?
Of course it was. I happen to find ethnic humor to be very funny, on all sides, not just geared toward blacks. Sometimes it can make you wince when it goes too far, but saying something like, "White men can't dance" kind of makes you chuckle because you can picture all sorts of white men dancing badly. So why should saying black people like fried chicken be offensive? Have you ever gone into a Popeyes?
3) Is viewing such material educational? Why?
It can be, especially for a film class. But honestly, when you call attention to it, that is when it becomes a problem. When I was 7 years old watching these films, I didn't even notice the racial humor. It is thanks to modern times where you have to walk on hot coals when it comes to race that you realize it, because it is constantly thrown in your face.
Overall, you have to understand that Little Rascals was revolutionary in that it showed black kids haning out with white kids and almost nothing was said (Yes, you had Dickie Moore's mother telling him not to play with "that colored boy" in Free Wheeling, but not only did race problems happen between Stymie and Dickie in real life that they were oblivious to, it also had to do with class). Also, the "racist" episodes like A Tough Winter with Stepin Fetchit are extremely funny! I'm sorry, but Fetchit was an awesome comedian and it is sad that his humor is looked down upon today. He wasn't being racist, he was making fun of racism!
|
|
|
|
Post by follies38girl on Nov 5, 2005 1:24:14 GMT -5
GOOD QUESTIONS AND VERY THOUGHTFUL AND THOUGHT-OUT RESPONSES. AS THE WHITE MOTHER OF AN ADOPTED BLACK SON--NOW A MAN NEARING MIDDLE-AGE, AND AN HISTORIAN HIMSELF, I THINK YOU LITTLE RASCAL FANS HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD. WHEN I WORKED ON THE SET IN THE SEVEN FILMS, BUCKWHEAT WAS JUST ANOTHER LITTLE FELLOW IN THE CAST-- JUST ANOTHER KID, BUT THEN BACK IN THE THIRTIES, ANY FORM OF RACISM WAS NOT TOLERATED BY MY FATHER. HE ENCOURAGED MY BROTHERS TO MAKE A HERO OF JOE LOUIS AND PAUL ROBESON, AND A HEROINE OF MARIAN ANDERSON! LAURA JUNE, AND SO GLAD TO BE PART OF THIS GROUP!
|
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on May 4, 2016 21:56:21 GMT -5
You know, Sing Joy never got much attention in the Our Gang films...  |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Oct 23, 2016 10:18:10 GMT -5
I've been researching the Gang - and their various imitators - through news magazines of yesteryear for some time now. While I always find something of interest in the pile of bland "Good comedy... everyone laughed" reviews, this one comment really made me cringe - from a review for "Election Day."
I'd compliment them on getting his gender right, if I wasn't so distracted by that awful comment at the end. Ugh!
|
|
|
|
Post by tboneator64 on Oct 24, 2016 17:17:03 GMT -5
I've been researching the Gang - and their various imitators - through news magazines of yesteryear for some time now. While I always find something of interest in the pile of bland "Good comedy... everyone laughed" reviews, this one comment really made me cringe - from a review for "Election Day." I'd compliment them on getting his gender right, if I wasn't so distracted by that awful comment at the end. Ugh! If you hadn't cited the source, I might have just mistakenly assumed the reviewer was a southerner. So much for Canada being progressive in terms of race relations, in the 1920s, at least! UGH, is right!  |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Oct 24, 2016 17:28:31 GMT -5
I've been researching the Gang - and their various imitators - through news magazines of yesteryear for some time now. While I always find something of interest in the pile of bland "Good comedy... everyone laughed" reviews, this one comment really made me cringe - from a review for "Election Day." I'd compliment them on getting his gender right, if I wasn't so distracted by that awful comment at the end. Ugh! If you hadn't cited the source, I might have just mistakenly assumed the reviewer was a southerner. So much for Canada being progressive in terms of race relations, in the 1920s, at least! UGH, is right! Doesn't help that they had the audacity to imply that "Election Day" was funny. |
|
|
|
Post by tboneator64 on Oct 24, 2016 19:53:25 GMT -5
If you hadn't cited the source, I might have just mistakenly assumed the reviewer was a southerner. So much for Canada being progressive in terms of race relations, in the 1920s, at least! UGH, is right! Doesn't help that they had the audacity to imply that "Election Day" was funny. For now, I'll have to take your word for it, as I don't have that particular silent short, although I can hardly imagine it being any less funny than ELECTION DAZE (1943)! Man, are those last year of MGM shorts ever dreary!  As this topic is about Racism, I will obliquely address it by stating I would have much rather that Buckwheat got elected instead of Janet! At the very least, there wouldn't have been the instant voter's regret that would happen the moment Janet said there would be afternoon tea with her Dollies! YEECH!! But seriously, why NOT Buckwheat? CHEERS!  |
|
|
|
Post by mtw12055 on Oct 24, 2016 22:37:54 GMT -5
When going through these old reviews of the Gang comedies, I'll find the usual racial slurs tossed around - including, on at least one occasion, the 'N' word.
On a lighter note, the black members of the Gang acted as positive images for the black community - at least in the '20s and '30s. Julia Lee goes more in depth about this in her book on the Gang, but from my own searching, I came across an article discussing the Gang's 1928-29 personal appearance tour. It's mentioned that Farina was immediately sought out by members of African-American newspapers upon the kids' arrival in Chicago.
Elsewhere, I found this little mention of Mickey McGuire's own Jimmy Robinson:
|
|
|
|
Post by RJH on Nov 13, 2016 23:07:34 GMT -5
Doesn't help that they had the audacity to imply that "Election Day" was funny. For now, I'll have to take your word for it, as I don't have that particular silent short, although I can hardly imagine it being any less funny than ELECTION DAZE (1943)! Man, are those last year of MGM shorts ever dreary! If you want to see this it's on youtube; just search for "Election Day" "Our Gang" and it shows up first. There has been some history of people posting the silents and then getting them taken down by bogus copyright claims, but the last attempts seem to have taken hold for a year or so. Like most copies of this film, it is missing the beginning, which includes a very important opening title card that we know about thanks to theluckycorner.com: "The trouble started when Farina threatened to vote eight times against each candidate." "Election Day" is better than "Election Daze," which says very little. "Election Day" is shot entirely outdoors but that is not sufficient to make it much good. My favorite part of "Election Day" is Farina communicating with the intelligent cow. "Election Daze" doesn't have any favorite parts. |
|
