MovieChat Forums > CimarronĀ (1931) Discussion > Plenty of watermelon here...

Plenty of watermelon here...


Gee - I'm sure glad I came to Oklahomy...

omg HOW RACIST

You can't buy the necessities of life with cookies.

reply

Considering that when this film was released, some parts of the country wouldn't allow blacks to use the same restrooms as whites, this film is pretty light.

A lot lighter than Gone with the Wind anyway, and thats supposed to be one of the greatest films of all time.

reply


I've owned the DVD for months, finally got around to watching it. Ehh. The opening lad rush scene is quite exciting for any time period, but I can't figure why the biggest scene in the picture comes first. There's no way the rest of it can live up to it.
Being black, the "Isaiah" character of course made me squirm as most black characters in these old movies do. At least the kid got a paycheck (underpaid, I'm sure) Eugene Jackson did look familiar. Then I remembered that more than 30 years later, he was a recurring character in JULIA, Diahann Carroll's TV show. He played her uncle!
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

reply

Not really. Stereotypical, but not racist. Also, you don't seem too upset by the very stereotypically weak Jew or the many racist comments in the film directed toward Native Americans. How peculiar.

reply

It is stereotypical, on the other hand when I was a kid just about every kid I knew, regardless of race, loved watermelon so I don't think it's stretching things at all. Personally I don't like it and didn't when I was a kid, but I was regarded as a weird kid by just about everybody.

reply

Much as it hurts, cannot rewrite the history of this country. I suggest that political correctness has really screwed up this country.

reply

it shows how things were, not how they are... surely the way the women are treated is just as cringworthy

reply

OK.

So yes it's got stereotypes: Indians, African-Americans, Jews, Women. And yes it's racist and sexist.

But it's nowhere near as racist and sexist as pictures of that time were (and would be for the next 40 years).

Nor nowhere near as stereotyped. In a 1930s movie, at every turn, Yancy and/or the arc of the movie's story, is taking the progressive opinion: Jews should not be bullied, Indians should have full citizen's rights, Indians land should not be stolen and granted to white citizens, Yancy's son should be able to marry an Indian, women should not be sent to jail for "having loose morals", women can be elected to Congress and accepted as equals. [In 1930, this is coming just 10 years after women just got the vote, too!]

The one thing I winced at: when they show the "pure-blood" Indian wife of Yancy's son. (First, of course, the need of white people to bring this up in the first place...) But that they used an obviously white, non-Indian actress, complete with her full mid-Atlantic accent.

reply