i thought the movie was excellent except for the horrible portrait of the black man (the character and actor's name i dont know). Portrayed as slow, dumb, lazy and extremely superstitious, this was so offensive. i wonder if it has ever been examined before. sad thing is that most black actors probably didnt work unless they took roles like this.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
****i thought the movie was excellent except for the horrible portrait of the black man (the character and actor's name i dont know). Portrayed as slow, dumb, lazy and extremely superstitious, this was so offensive. i wonder if it has ever been examined before. sad thing is that most black actors probably didnt work unless they took roles like this.****
Yeah, well, HELLO THERE! Didjya happen to notice, hey, the movie was made in 1941. The world is quite a bit different: instead of Steppin' Fetchit, now we all have to put up with Ludacris -- what a deal! And I'd gladly take Butterfly McQueen over Oprah any day of the week. dean
i realize that. so what. does that mean its okay? i dont think so. the black man in this film was such a sad and offensive caricature; i dont know if ive ever seen worse. even in movies from the same era with other black characters.
anyway, my point is: i know there is a lot of work on minority criticism in the cinema, but i am wondering if this film has ever been examined. if it has, i would like to read about it.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
I guess we're not tracking: anybody who came of age or lived through the civil rights era is more than aware of past grievances. But that's just it, they are past grievances. Nothing anybody can do now. It's over. Let's move on. And a good start might be the way certain middle and upper-middle class black men choose to come off as bad-ass ghetto. Gimme a break, most of 'em couldn't find their way of out of South Central in a fully equipped 'Hummer' -- they're just posturing as 'gangsta' to make a buck. But it's a real insult to those of us who had great respect for MLK and Ralph Abernathy. Those leaders of the mid-60's would be spinning in their graves to see what some young blacks have done with the freedom attained for them. And while I'm at it, I'm also more than a little pissed off about the way Christians are portrayed in film: most always as hapless inbreeding types short of brain cells and teeth. Everytime I see such a stereotypical portrayal it speaks volumes about the so-called tolerance of the American (NY&LA) liberal. And that's all going on NOW -- not 60 years ago. Respectfully, dean
sharei see what you mean about past grevances, but that doesnt mean we should just forget about them. and there is certainly no harm in studying the cinema and the way it treats minorities. i pretty much agree with your analysis of rich people trying to resell poor people their own image. its is a sad and hypoctitical process. by thats beside the point.
anyway, at this point in time in the country, right wing christians are the ones with the power. and people in power get made fun of sometimes too. whats so suprising about that? but it looks like we are from two different sides on the issue. i am one who criticizes christians also. not all, but some. anyway, at least no one is lynching christians or spraying them with fire hoses. am i right?
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
Oprah has the number 1 TV show.
Most top athletes are black.
Denzel won an Academy Award.
Let's not forget Venus and Serena.
I just don't want to miss any of the "Black, Happy and Nappy" I can make fun of. Look ... I don't want to lynch 'em or anything. I just want to drag 'em all down with words and silly portrayals. All in fun, you know? Have a nice day, bigot. And keep making fun of the Faith, but don't bitch to me when you need it and don't have any.
i dont think making fun of black people is very funny weather they are rich or not. besides what kind of christian are you if youre making fun of people? did lord and savior jesus christ make fun of anyone? i should think not. and arent you trying to follow in his foot steps? i think youd better take some extra communion next sunday.
and same goes for calling me bigot. your "when you need it and dont have any" kind of thinking, a variant of the "my way or the highway" paradigm, is precicely the thing i laugh about with you tunnel vision christians. there are other ways to live life and there are other things to believe in other than your own, and even though i am christian, i can respect that. if you ask me, your kind are the ones who are bigots, not those of us who are more worldly and openminded.
anyway, there is no excuse for steryotypical portrayals of minorities. and when i say minorities, that includes racial minorities, women, and homosexuals.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
Okay ... 'worldly' bigot, then.
Since when are women a 'minority' -- they outnumber men. (And live longer.)
I had to laugh at you launching into that whole 'aren't you trying to be a Christian thang' ... I knew you were going to do that about 2 posts ago. I want you to go back and RE-read my earlier comment about denigrating Christians in movies -- see anything there about me being a Christian? All I said was that I was pissed off about the portrayals. To your way of thinking I couldn't protest lousy portrayals of blacks unless I smeared shoe-polish all over my face first.
Keep prejudging people. You're really gifted in that area. dean
"since when are women a 'minority' "
this sentence alone shows your utter stupidity and ignorance of our society. any fool SHOULD know that men are the dominants and women are the subordinates in our world. they are paid less then men, they have to worry about walking alone in parking lots at night, etc. as a man, have you ever had to worry about any of that? dont even bring up that "outnumber" crap. any person who has studied sex relations, womens studies, or taken any sociology class should know that women are a minority. or am i dealing with an uneducated person here? that would explain a lot, but i wont jump to conclusions. anyway, i guess i dont blame you for not understanding women. most men are ignorant of what women have to put up with.
but you dont even have to take my word for it - about women being a minority. please ask any woman. of course, you being a man, you dont know anything about a woman's problems. just another typical male. haha. anyway, i see no point in responding to the rest of your post since i already know youre an idiot.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
*********************i already know youre an idiot.***********************
Really? I'm not one calling myself ChimpCadet. Have a nice day -- and another banana.
I'd rather go by an idiotic name than actually BE an idiot and say stupid stuff like you.
What does a respectable name mean anyway? You could call yourself King Dean for all I care. Still doesnt change the fact that youre actually, literally, undeniably stupid. haha.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
Fine. You've been so correct in all your assumptions, why stop now? You may notice (as you had to earlier in regard to Christianity), I never claimed to be smart. In fact, I'm quite stupid. I'd have to be to continue conversing with you. So ... I'll give you the last word, since you appear to be a man of so few. Take your best shot. Leave it on the board. And don't forget to clean up the drool when your done.
shareShut the hell up, ma'am.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
[deleted]
What do you mean? i was just quoting one of my favorite movies, "Band of Outsiders." no sense in getting all sad like a dog with beagle pain syndrome.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
Okay, I admit it, I've missed you. Don't ask me why. I guess you've become a habit ... sort of like, scratching my ass first thing in the morning. How've you been. Did you miss are lively name-calling? Obviously. It didn't take long for you to come running once I turned the porch light back on.
share(YAWN)...BFD
View D.W. GRIFFITH'S BIRTH OF A NATION and tell us all about "racism".
The film produced in 1919(?)is considered a masterpiece of cinematography by many film affaciandos. It unashamedly glorifies the KKK and portrays negroes as hapless children, unable to do anything for themselves.
"RACISM" ?
Wow. that was so impressive, jbgrogan.
thanks for the info, but i actually own "the birth of a nation" on dvd and have studied it academically in many contexts (including for its racist content). am i supposed to be impressed with your title dropping? i mean cmon. the racial issues in that film have been discussed to death.
by the way, it is considered a masterpiece more for its continuity editing style (which it practically invented) rather than for its cinematography (although that is also certainly notable).
so what- just because youve seen a racist movie that you think no one else has seen, youre cool? and because that is probably the film most debated in regards to racism (afterall, the NAACP protest every single screening) discussions about any other film regarding racism are boring or irrelevant? do us all a favor and dont become a film critic. in fact, dont ever watch another movie.
maybe you should try impressing your mother with those facts and stop making a fool of yourself in front of real cinephiles, like myself.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
What is it you actually want? To simply point out the racist aspects? I'm not really sure what your goal here is. Personally, the black actor's performance was top notch, and despite being a limited role, you could definately see talent in him. Yes, I realize he played a the whole "yes boss" role, but let's embrace the past and recognize how far we have come, and understand this movie for what it was - advanced for its time.
shareembrace the past?
recognize how faw we've come?
hah.
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
I find this personal trashing disgusting, whatever side does it. The black man in High Sierra is an appalling stereotype. Christians in such films as The Robe are admirable. Christians in real life are all too often racist, sexist, and bigoted, and thus a fair target for criticism. "I'm a right-wing terrorist," says a Christian fundamentalist at a town hall. The answer: "You are a great American." Wha ...? Bogie was, in his personal life, one of the more decent guys at that time. The movie shows many signs of hasty rewriting, which was not his fault, maybe Walsh's? And the superb Ida Lupino never got an Oscar. Go figure. The tunnel vision of both sides in this discussion - at this day and age - is almost unbelievable. But not quite. Count on small minds to make ever smaller points as they fly up into their own posteriors cawing out the famous Kee bird cry: "Kee, Kee, Kee-Rist it's cold in here!."
sharehuh? Are you a scientologist ? Because youre brainwashed like one..
This is how black people were portrayed in the 40s.. and I would even go so far as to say this is how a lot of blacks actually WERE in the 40s..
I dont like it, but thats the way it was.. Heres an idea.. lets ban all movies prior to say the 70s from ever being watched again..and never let a film maker make a movie pre 1970 era because the protrayals may be offensive, even though somewhat accurate..
And whats the right wing christians have to do with anything ? What a moron.. Most of the actors, studios, etc. etc of that day were democrats..Bogey was a democrat...HARDLY right wing..
Get some facts before making such as broad and baseless statement next time..
I hate racists as much as anyone, but ignoring history and acting like it didnt happen is just dumb. I suggest you stick to new movies, and only those new movies based in current time. Hey I dont think piracy was a good thing either, but I loved the hell out of Pirates of the Caribbean.
huh? Are you a scientologist ? Because youre brainwashed like one..
This is how black people were portrayed in the 40s.. and I would even go so far as to say this is how a lot of blacks actually WERE in the 40s..
I dont like it, but thats the way it was.. Heres an idea.. lets ban all movies prior to say the 70s from ever being watched again..and never let a film maker make a movie pre 1970 era because the protrayals may be offensive, even though somewhat accurate..
And whats the right wing christians have to do with anything ? What a moron.. Most of the actors, studios, etc. etc of that day were democrats..Bogey was a democrat...HARDLY right wing..
Get some facts before making such as broad and baseless statement next time..
I hate racists as much as anyone, but ignoring history and acting like it didnt happen is just dumb. I suggest you stick to new movies, and only those new movies based in current time. Hey I dont think piracy was a good thing either, but I loved the hell out of Pirates of the Caribbean.
Isn't it amazing that Americans still cannot discuss ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and other class distinctions without resorting to broad sweeping generalizations and lack of reason? Wouldn't it be a laugh if Raoul Walsh envisioned the role for a white man, but decided to give the part to a black man out of generosity? Sometimes you just never know...
It's a shame that both liberals(class) and conservatives(faith) here in America think they have all the answers to the mysteries of existence? We need to check ourselves... Aren't we ugly?
Bravo!! Bravissimo mFF8785. Bravissimo!!
share
typical response by someone ignoring fact and living in a dream world..
a fool looks at facts that he/she dislike and calls them 'generalization'.
left wing, right wing, thanks for that inference into the conversation as well.. pointless and shows your lack of accepting facts.
1941 was a totally differant time.. all kinds of movies have similar portrayals of blacks..some accurate, some not, but it was a differant age.. no sense in getting mad about it 60 years later.. maybe we should be as upset about grandpa being portrayed as a stupid hick from the country too..
keep ignoring history.. get mad about it if you like..
-- 'you're a good man, sister.' Humphrey Bogart
Wrong assumption. Black people were NOT like that in the 40's!!! Believe it or not, many of those actors were college educated. They were forced to take those types of roles because no other roles were available to them at the time.
shareThe time the movie was made doesn't excuse this type of portrayal. It does take some of the enjoyment from the film.
shareIndeed.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
It looked to me that Roy accorded Algenon about the same respect that he would have to a white handyman. He spoke more or less as an equal and listened to what Algenon had to say. He had no hesitation turning over his car for the radiator treatment and allowing Algenon to retrieve his bags.
The way I interpreted the storyline, I don't think they would have had to change any of the dialog if they had cast a white actor, except perhaps the part where Algenon explains his name. I would opine that those parts that we now view as flagrantly racist, were inserted by the actor himself with the concurrence of the director and were allowed to remain in order to fulfill some audience expectation of a low level black employee.
As pointed out elsewhere, this was 1940 and few black actors had speaking roles in feature novies. By the time Bogart got to the USS Caine, black actors had meaningful neutral roles, if peripheral. It was up to Sidney Portier to make us all believe that black actors could have a starring role and still engage a wide demograhic (see my comments about Sidney Portier accompanying "The Bedford Incident").
I don't have to show you any stinking badges!
I'm black and I agree that character was an embarassment. Times have changed, but I guess you can't go back and edit the character out. But to share a funny story...I remember a Tom & Jerry cartoon from the 50's which had a big, fat, very dark "mammy-type" maid wearing a head scarf who was talking to Tom saying "Well now Tawm, ya gots ta ketch dat dare mouse". I saw the same cartoon probably 5 years ago, and to be politically correct I guess, they had gone back in and edited the dialogue with a voice over so that you now have the same big, fat, very dark "mammy-type" character with this vibrant, bouncy and obviously white female voice saying "Now Thomas, you've just got to catch that mouse". I died laughing. I know they were trying to do the right thing, but it was too funny!
"Thank you for the coffee...and the SEVENTEEN floor climb!"
that is funny. at least they are trying i guess. i read recently that there was a dvd release of some old, rare disney cartoons that [originally] had some scenes of very racist stereotypes of asians. the new release has been edited so that those stereotypes were completely gone.
if you want to read an interesting article about racism in film in the early days, check out this article at roger ebert's web site:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051208/EDITOR/51208001
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
It is just an obnoxious and unfunny stereotype used for in this film for "comic" relief. It would've been as obnoxious and as unfunny if it were a stereotype of a Caucasian "hick" that was used for comic relief (and there have been many films that have done that).
Incidentally, I don't think the time the movie was made in should have anything to do with how we evaluate it now. You always find apologists for lazy writing such as this using the tedious, "Oh, give me a break! It was made 60 years ago!", as if that is a valid counter-argument that has anything to do with the film itself.
If you can't afford LSD, try colour TV.
"Incidentally, I don't think the time the movie was made in should have anything to do with how we evaluate it now. You always find apologists for lazy writing such as this using the tedious, "Oh, give me a break! It was made 60 years ago!", as if that is a valid counter-argument that has anything to do with the film itself." (posted by Vivek-Anand).
Okay, Vivek-Anand, but I have a question. Project yourself 60 years into the future. It's 2066, and a lot has changed as far as how humans view the world. They're looking at some of the films made around the years 2000 - 2006, and they're saying "Eeeewwwww ... those movies are totally obnoxious and sterotyped ... how could people EVER have attitudes like that about "________". Those movies suck big time." And they're talking about the very same movies you are voting "10's" for today.
What is your response?
Yeah, like the kid who was fishing on the same property that 'Roy' fished as a kid. Tell
me that wasn't a portrayal of a 'hick', a white one at that. Who got the bigger role also ? I could see if this was a white actor hired to portray a hick black men but it was a black actor !! He was hired to play a 'hick'. What did you expect from him ? A director
can only do so much - the rest is supplied by the actor him/herself. Hell, I never even mentioned Velmas family ... talk about politically correct gone insane !!
Since, in 1941, the word "racist" had not been coined, and the concept was foreign to all but a few, it is a bit daft to apply it to this film.
Well - I think so, anyway!
If you must watch movies from the pre Martin Luther King era, you will, alas, usually see black people portrayed in this patronising way.
Sad, but true.
Cinema is a portrait of the way we were once, not as we are now, and that is one of its glories. It tells us how far we have advanced.
In this day and age it is obligatory to depict non-whites only in positions of authority and possessing immense wisdom and we all rejoice at this. (Morgan Freeman is one of my favourite actors), but the modern diversity obsessed enlightenment, in which all good persons and true rejoice greatly, was still very much in the future in those far off and benighted days.
It is racist no question, the actor's name is Willie Best, who was also hilarious in the Ghost Breakers with Bob Hope . The unfortunate part is that this was also a reflection of the times. We have come a long way, but that's not to say we can't enjoy what I think is an excellent performance. As for Best's character being superstitious he does turn out to be right about the Dog's curse one of the movies interesting thematic threads.
Is this board filled with idiots, or something? Did you all actually VIEW this film?
Yes, it's true that racism existed in Hollywood and many black actors could only get roles similar to this one. And Algernon was supertitious of the DOG - BUT Lupino's (white) character was as superstitious as he was. (For good reason, too, apparently, since Algernon was proved correct!)
But "slow, dumb, and lazy"? Actually, in his few minutes onscreen, he was shown as industrious, capable and fairly bright. And if you've seen Best in any other movie, you'd realize that the bug-eyed doubletake is his trademark as a comedian. So quit trolling the board with this inane and totally false charge that the black character was "horribly" portrayed. There are much worse examples of racism on film, 'black' or 'white', and many better uses of your time.
Last seen:
High Sierra - 5/10
'Trolling' is not the best way to describe a healthy discussion about how blacks were portrayed in older movies. And the fact that the actor played dumb in all other movies he starred in doesn't justify anything.
Please take your agressive condescending remarks and shove them up your ass.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
Very late and ignorant responder is very late and ignorant.
I did NOT say that ALL discussions of blacks in movies was trolling.
Please take your inability to comprehend, projection of arrogance, and unjustified ad hominem and shove them all up YOUR ass. Sideways.
The Doctor is out. Far out.
Why don't you complain about how whites are portrayed in films when paired with blacks today. That's TODAY. The whites are always shown as fumbling, unhip, inepts compared to their black counterparts.
Blacks talk to and treat whites so horribly in tv and film that blacks think they can do so in real life. Now that's racism.
horrible argument full of blanket statements and generalizations.
the reality is that in our society, blacks are still subordinates. in fact, i bet the films that you reference were even produced by white men. why dont you take it up with them?
"Don't ever listen to anyone on IMDb except ChimpCadet."
1941 that's all you need to knowWhen there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
I didn't see any racism but I hate guys that screams racism at the smallest thing.
And the black man was actually portrayed as rather smart AND his superstitions was most probably correct.
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyleshare
I disliked Algernon's portrayal as well. I thought it was demeaning and stereotypical. It was no shock coming from a 1941 film, but it did strike me because I'd just watched 1936's The Petrified Forest which featured a far more human character Bogart's black henchman Slim. He was a criminal, but he was intelligent, independent, and critical of another black man's servile nature within the film.
Seeing the two films back to back, it struck me seeing the more stereotypical figure some five years later. Though the two films were unrelated, aside from both featuring actor Humphrey Bogart, I still felt as if the second film was somehow undermining the first film. To me, it seems almost as if films based off of stage plays were the only ones to depict black people as people and not stereotypes.
In contrast, ever seen "Sahara" with Bogie from 1943? That movie has one of the best and for its time heroic depictions of a black man on film, Rex Ingram as Sgt Major Tambul. What a great, memorable character. So at least one movie back then wasn't totally racist.
shareIn contrast, ever seen "Sahara" with Bogie from 1943? That movie has one of the best and for its time heroic depictions of a black man on film, Rex Ingram as Sgt Major Tambul. What a great, memorable character. So at least one movie back then wasn't totally racist.