Keeping all these garbage symbols of a sickening past is something Americans really much get past. Tear down the Confederate Statues, remove old racist movies like GWTW and BOAN. America is finally starting to change - and that is a good thing.
shareThere's a big difference between Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind.
shareThat's fair to say, but not big enough.
shareI disagree. I think there's a big difference between portraying the fall of the old South from the perspective of a Southerner and having black people shown as animalistic and evil by actors in blackface and then having the KKK be the cavalry who "save the day" at the end.
Gone with the Wind shows that the decline of the South was a hard knock for Southerners like Scarlett. It has tunnel vision there and a better, more complete picture would be had by better showing the cruelty and barbarism of that falling "civilization". It also has stereotyped portrayals of black people in the South. That's bad. But it's not as bad as in Birth of a Nation.
Furthermore, it portrays Scarlett as ignorant, selfish, and frivolous because of her myopic worldview and opulence. That's not nothing.
It was just Birth Of A Nation - a little bit more subtly done with better looking stars.
shareIt's Birth Of A Nation that is the bad movie
[deleted]
"Film scholars agree, however, that it is the single most important and key film of all time in American movie history - it contains many new cinematic innovations and refinements, technical effects and artistic advancements, including a color sequence at the end. It had a formative influence on future films and has had a recognized impact on film history and the development of film as art. In addition, at almost three hours in length, it was the longest film to date. [...]
Its pioneering technical work, often the work of Griffith's under-rated cameraman Billy Bitzer, includes many techniques that are now standard features of films, but first used in this film. Griffith brought all of his experience and techniques to this film from his earliest short films at Biograph, including the following:
• the use of ornate title cards
• special use of subtitles graphically verbalizing imagery
• its own original musical score written for an orchestra
• the introduction of night photography (using magnesium flares)
• the use of outdoor natural landscapes as backgrounds
• the definitive usage of the still-shot
• elaborate costuming to achieve historical authenticity and accuracy
• many scenes innovatively filmed from many different and multiple angles
• the technique of the camera "iris" effect (expanding or contracting circular masks to either reveal and open • up a scene, or close down and conceal a part of an image)
• the use of parallel action and editing in a sequence (Gus' attempted rape of Flora, and the KKK rescues of • Elsie from Lynch and of Ben's sister Margaret)
• extensive use of color tinting for dramatic or psychological effect in sequences
• moving, traveling or "panning" camera tracking shots
• the effective use of total-screen close-ups to reveal intimate expressions
• beautifully crafted, intimate family exchanges
• the use of vignettes seen in "balloons" or "iris-shots" in one portion of a darkened screen
(CONT)
(CONT)
• the use of fade-outs and cameo-profiles (a medium closeup in front of a blurry background)
• the use of lap dissolves to blend or switch from one image to another
• high-angle shots and the abundant use of panoramic long shots
• the dramatization of history in a moving story - an example of an early spectacle or epic film with historical costuming and many historical references (e.g., Mathew Brady's Civil War photographs)
• impressive, splendidly-staged battle scenes with hundreds of extras (made to appear as thousands)
• extensive cross-cutting between two scenes to create a montage-effect and generate excitement and suspense (e.g., the scene of the gathering of the Klan)
• expert story-telling, with the cumulative building of the film to a dramatic climax
https://www.filmsite.org/birt.html
As a movie it is a masterpiece but its message is really, really bad. I hate the word "problematic" but the contents of The Birth of a Nation are very, VERY problematic. It is an almost perfect testcase for the level to which a viewer can differentiate between the cinematic qualities of a movie and its contents.
shareWhy is it 'bad' or 'problematic'?
shareremove old racist movies like GWTW
[deleted]
Ignoring the reality of history and censoring art has not and will not ever improve the plight of the oppressed (or perceived oppressed). The only change that’s happening is increased hostility and division.
Just about any movie/tv show/book is offensive to someone. Don’t complain when something you like is targeted next.
> Just about any movie/tv show/book is offensive to someone.
The motive behind that aol comment is that we should just avoid allowing insulting, bullying or offending someone to be a thing - just take it. Everyone is offended by something, which means that offense by its very nature is just an illusion.
If you are not up to discussing it or analyzing it - then bugger off.
Campaigning for better representation going forward is fine. Trying to ban and censor art is regressive, totalitarian, and unproductive.
There are degrees of offensiveness and offense most certainly is subjective. I just saw a comment today complaining that Harry Potter is offensive because there is only one main female character and there are no LQBTQ characters. Some religious fundies find it offensive because it supposedly promotes witchcraft. By your logic, all production of TV, movies, and books should be halted and all existing art should be destroyed. It’s insane and nothing good has ever come from this kind of authoritarianism.
You are like the kind of person who considers laws a restriction against your freedom ... until someone does something to you that you do not like.
shareI’ve seen and read plenty of things that made my skin crawl due to the offensive nature of it, particularly towards women. I would never in a million years suggest those works be censored or banned. Censorship does nothing to improve real-world conditions. Analysis and discussion of the arts helps us identify real-world problems and come up with solutions. Art is a reflection of the real world. Smashing the mirror won’t erase the problems.
shareThose broad hand-waving high sounding arguments are nothing.
> Censorship does nothing to improve real-world conditions.
That is just stupid to say that - it is not something you can back up or measure. Here is a for instance that I can think of at this moment involving censorship - where at least the point can be argued intelligently - which makes you a real dip.
It is not exactly art, but the principal is the same, OK, go back the fire at Paris's Notre Dame Cathedral. Suppose they found out it was a terrorist action, or set off by a Muslim. To put that out on the news - at least at the time - would have done no good, and would have inflamed racial hatred.
People react to things emotionally - especially when they do not have time to process them or they hit them especially hard. People are irrational and the unknown and there is plenty of reason that marginal people should not be exposed to things that can set them off - at least at some threshold.
I think it was the exact right think after WWII for Germany to ban any Nazi paraphernalia or groups. That is where you have to stop kidding around about art and free speech and realize that speech can be like a virus.
For god sake - look what Trump has done to the US with this his looney speeches and Twittering. Imagine if he was really trying hard to subvert the American system. You just want a brain-dead one-size-fits- all solution because you don't want to have to deal with the thinking and complexity involved with these kinds of issues.
You are still a child mentally if that is the case.
Your entire argument is that oppression and totalitarianism is acceptable in order to prevent feelings from being hurt. And you have the nerve to complain about emotional reactionaries and irrationality.
That you think it’s acceptable for the media to shield reality from the public is absolutely insane. In your mind, terrorism and violence committed by Muslim radicals or any non-whites is not a problem but even the potential for white people to take a stand against that scourge must be quashed at all costs.
The ideology of your cult is not complex at all. It all boils down to white people=evil, everyone else=perpetual victims.
> white people=evil, everyone else=perpetual victims.
Of course nutso rant will come up with idiots conclusion ... like this. I don't think, believe or say anything like this. Where do you cretins get off telling me what I believe. All your comments are you- this or that ... and you know nothing about me, and you have no real argument for whatever your weirdo thesis is here.
You win the discussion by a million miles CupidDeLocke.
It freaks me out that there are people out there who actually would take the side of brux. I hope more people start to stand up to the progressive censorship brigade.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. These films are documents of things we do not want to happen again. It's part of history. Shouldn't be forgotten.
shareNo, that is one of the main points ... a movie is not history, it is not even history of how we view history - most movies are about completely useless when it comes to facts or truth.
shareMovies like this reflect the times and not necessarily history. It is really crazy that people just can't accept things that have passed and move on. Are we going to go through every movie, song, play or book that has questionable material. That is insanity.
share> Are we going to go through every movie, song, play or book that has questionable material. That is insanity.
Yes, in a reasonable way.
Example, I am a big lover of the comedy series "Fawlty Towers", but I just read a little while ago about how they are pulling and censoring parts of it out of consideration for people's feelings.
It's leaves me torn, as since I saw it and don't think I was affected by it, selfishly and egoistically I think they should remain the same.
The episode was "The Germans" where some German guests come and stay in the hotel. Basil Fawlty makes a comment "don't mention the war, I did, but I think I got away with it".
I can understand that. It is a joke, and it was funny, but as it was funny and meant something in one time, it means a different thing today. There were also derogatory names called to blacks and the Spanish bellman Manuel. Basil was doing his funny walk goose-stepping back and forth.
I don't know how you think you get to decide what is strong enough to affect people and what isn't, or because something doesn't bother you that is the end of it. That is egotistical BS.
It is not an inhuman or constrictive thing to think about other people's feelings and I have no problem with it. While I like FT even when I first heard that joke about the Germans a little voice pops off in my head when I saw it ... that is kind of mean to Germans.
It's like you are saying that you cannot have humor without cruelty or someone being the butt of the joke. I think that is a defect in your character.
No, I have been the butt of jokes for years. I have been the brunt of hate speech and have been physically attacked by others due the ignorance of others. Even with all that, I still don't find it offensive to watch anything that is pertinent to me. Actually, when I see those things in older movies, I think "how far we have come". It isn't offensive to me, because I realize that it is from a different time. What I do find offensive is someone saying something hateful to me live and in person less than a week ago. It hurt. They should know better in this day and age. People have put me through a lot of shit over the years, and honestly, censoring some movie from a time when people did not know any better isn't going to take away the years of abuse I suffered.
share>Even with all that, I still don't find it offensive to watch anything that is pertinent to me.
You are as self-centered as Trump for God's sake. I don't care about your personal feelings, any more than I care about the feeling of someone who think they have a right to pollute a river or make other people feel bad. It is not all about you - get that through your head. You've not done any real deep thinking on this subject since you only seem to think it is all about how you feel. It really makes you a waste of time to talk to, at least on this issue.
Believe you me, that if there was some motive for someone taking advantage of you they would find a way, and develop it as they did with blacks or Jews or any other oppressed people. You seem to reason that since no one has found a reason to screw you over that it is all about you and no one else should complain - but the worst part is how you close your mind.
It is about me. I've lived it. And censoring movies isn't going to make it any better.
share“ I don't care about your personal feelings, any more than I care about the feeling of someone who think they have a right to pollute a river or make other people feel bad.”
It’s hilarious (and sad) that you can’t even see the irony of this statement.
IT IS HISTORY...MOVIE HISTORY...TRYING TO ALTER OR CENSOR HISTORY NEVER GOES OVER WELL.
sharePeople with a dictatorial mindset who want to erase the past will likely create an even worse and more oppressive future if they have their way.
share
Strangely, the leftist cancel Nazis don't see the profound parallel between what they're doing and what the radical Islamists were doing just two years ago.
When you look at old Democrat political posters from the time, you can understand why they want the whole matter to be forgotten.
https://streetsofsalem.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/lincoln-election-poster-1864.jpg
And you have expertise or insight to comment on that ... how? Just some mindless thought or retort that popped into your head. If you want to discuss something you need to actually make an argument or a proposition ... not just some statement that doesn't mean diddly
shareOh, it means a lot more than diddly, and I think your response shows that. Anything your ilk disagrees with must be shouted down and silenced. OK, Stalin.
That is what normally happens when dictatorial history-changers take power. When the communists took control in Russia they destroyed many of the monuments and statues. They later killed millions of their own citizens. When the Nazi party took control in Germany they destroyed or stole any monuments, statues and art work that did not fit their belief system.
They also killed millions of their own citizens and plunged the world into another war. More recently we have the Taliban destroying ancient statues because they conflicted with Islamic law, followed by their execution of thousands of 'infidels'.
American leftist radicals will start by destroying statues of white people they don't like and eventually move on to killing real white people. History has shown us many, many precedents.
> That is what normally happens when dictatorial history-changers take power.
What a pompous foolish statement.
Your two line summary of the history of the last century is so over-simplified it just shows you cannot deal with anything more complex than Dr. Suess book I guess.
Just for kicks, go back and think about what it was that around the turn of the last century, when blacks were just starting to demand their rights - and the cities of the South started erecting those monuments. Why do you think they did that stupid?
That was a terrorizing move to intimidate black people and keep them in line afraid to ask for their rights. Who says someone gets to decide what goes in the common space for all?
You talk about Russia and Germany and you look at them like through a pinhole missing the big picture. What do you think all those swastikas and pictures of Hitler were all about when they went up ... and somehow you are trying to defend that by calling the taking down of stuff like that censorship. You are an evil person, to just not too bright.
Your transparent and deliberate misinterpretation of my post is not working. You claim I am complaining about the removal of Hitler's propaganda. I am obviously talking about the existing art and culture Hitler removed and displaced. Your movement is just another Nazi movement but directed at whites in general this time instead of specifically Jewish people.
shareyou, you, you ... that is all you say. You have no rebuttals to my arguments or answers to my questions. You are a waste of time. I don't have a movement you dip. Get lost.
share[deleted]
I give it 15 or 20 years before the next generation rebels against this oppressive pc dictatorship.And when that day comes I'll be rooting for them.
shareFor those of you that don't know, the Klu Klux Clan started in the years after the Civil War, and had largely been died out or been suppressed by the early 20th century. The popularity of "Birth of a Nation", a film that absolutely glorified the KKK, led to a huge revival of the KKK, one that plagued the USA for much of the 20th century and is still an embarrassment to the sane people. So "BoaN" isn't just objectionable for its content, it had a horrific effect on the history of this nation, and is indirectly responsible for however many murders or acts of violence and oppression were committed by the KKK in the years after their big comeback.
"GWTW" is more complex, it is frankly racist although much more subtly, but I can't hate it because it served as my first glimpse into the mindset of racism and the Old South. And yes, it's a pro-KKK film, you know the scene where Scarlett is attacked in the woods and all the men she knows go off to kill whatever black people they can find near the scene of the attack? In the book it was stated that Rhett and Ashley and Scarlett's husband of the time Frank were all in the KKK, that's what they were doing, but that is never stated in the film. And yes, the film does present slavery as fun for all, at least in Georgia, which is ridiculous and I totally understand why that would make some people hate the film.
I'm actually surprised that I don't hate the film myself, the characters all do things I consider objectionable and horrific, and the political views presented are so alien to me that it's like almost like watching a sci-fi film. I suppose one reason I don't hate the film is that the main characters are presented as deeply flawed anti-heroes, if I were expected to admire their actions or beliefs I'd throw shit at the TV. But as it is, the movie is really about a deeply, deeply flawed person fighting for survival in difficult times.
I honestly have never seen the movie all the way through because I've always liked the book. Even though I like the book I can see how racist it is, but it's not the racism that is the point of the story. It's the love story between Rhett and Scarlet that I like. I like that Scarlet is not a sympathetic character. In fact she is often despicable.
I don't mind that HBO is no longer showing the movie. I don't think that the movie should be erased from history, or the book, but I think that the racism should be pointed out in a foreword or something like that.
I didn't know HBO ever showcased this movie. TCM would have been the first place I would have looked to view Gone With The Wind.
shareTHE KKK ARE BAD...THE FILM IS PART OF HISTORY...NOT ALL HISTORY IS PLEASANT...THATS PART OF OUR SPECIES' LEARNING PROCESS.
share