Gone with the Wind Cancelled

Moghead wrote: »

A lot of overreacting on this thread, you'd swear you all watch the film every weekend.

I watched it nearly 40 odd years ago as a kid and thought it overlong and fooking boring.
But it is a fooking principle at stake.

First they started reworking stuff like Noddy, then it was some fooking clowns complaining about Friends and lesbians, then we had all the shyte about Christmas songs, now it is BBC pulling episodes of tv shows because some knobends might get offended.

I think something like "Birth of a Nation" would be pretty offensive, but if some tulips want to waste time watching it I couldn't give a flying fook.
And if people worry those watching it will be influenced by it, then the ones watching it must be morons and ar**holes to begin with.

We now have situation where people get offended on behalf of other people.

Where does this shyte stop?

We have entered the realm of thought control where we must all have a hive mind, dictated by gobshytes.

jimgoose wrote: »

The main joke in that scene was that Major Gowan relates the story of the time his lady companion at the Oval kept referring to the Indian players as <N-word>s. His reply starts off sounding like he's going to rebuke her for using racist terminology, but what he says is:

"No no, no!" I said, "<N-word>s are the West Indians. These people are <W-word>s!!"

...and it is trouser-wettingly funny. Classic. What I always took from it was that the old coot had no idea he was being horrendously racist, but was always careful to use "correct" terminology.

Jaysus fook ing ch*** on a bike.
We are now having to explain jokes to people on here.

Gourmet Night



Bail:
This is the new menu.

Colonal Hall:
Duck with Orange.
Duck with cherries
Duck surprise


Mrs Hall:
Whats duck Surprise?

Basil:
Thats duck without orange or cherries.

Colonal Hall:
Is this all there is, Duck?

Basil:
Ermmm yes but then done in 3 extremely different ways.

Colonal Hall:
Then what do you do if you dont like duck?

Bail:
Then your rather stuck (Bail Laughs)

This is classic stuff its the one where he thrashes the car with a branch,
The man should be in broadmoor not running a hotel its hilarious

as along term lover of Hip Hop - I'm wondering when the woke brigade will go for the Chronic - Already that woke bastion Facebook went for 2- Tone and banned people for liking various 2-Tone pages - A couple of days later they copped on that 2-Tone was all about anti-racism (and good music) - As a long term advocate of anti-racism having had some great friends of all background, doesnt matter - if they are good , they are good, and if they are bad, likewise - But these virtue-signalling police have gone beyond the ridiculous - I actually wonder have they ever actually lived in a real multi-cultural world, and maybe should give the Chronic a listen and then re-assess some of this nonsene, that to me seams about just selling more product by over wake Marketing departments and media.

Certain stand up comedians will have to watch their backs. Bill Burr, Douglas Stanhope etc have always enjoyed getting up the noses of these idiots.


Why has nobody gone after Roy Chubby Brown yet?

statesaver wrote: »

Live PD is cancelled, i like that show.

First 48 will probably be next.

Better hide the DVD of Life of Brian before the eejits see and cancel that too.

Life of Brian was banned for years in a number of countries including Ireland for blasphemy.

But there's a good chance that might happen again.

vetinari wrote: »

Are you a member of HBO Max, a US based streaming service.

Nope

vetinari wrote: »

If you are, was that the only way you had to watch Gone with the Wind.

Nope

vetinari wrote: »

If it was, were you planning to watch it anytime in the next year.

I wasn't going to, having seen it a couple of times before. Long ago. But I have a hankering to watch it now.

vetinari wrote: »

If any of those are not true, then how is it an irritant to you??
Why the insatiable appetite to find something to be outraged about?

In what Thesaurus or Lexicon are the words "irritated" and "outraged" synonymous?

It is an irritant because the assumption is that one can only interpret or be moved by a piece of art, be it a movie, a drama, a novel, a song etc in a way that is acceptable to a modern, vociferous and organised lobby. They (that is whoever convinced HBO to suspend distribution of the movie) clearly think that modern viewers are so stupid that they might be inspired by an 80 year old movie to conclude that slavery was a decent institution or that black people were most fulfilled while in bondage to whites.
Come off it!!

I have only heard third party suggestions as to what parts of the film offended the complainants but I gather the depiction of slaves having amicable and often influential relations with their masters is deemed to be inaccurate and disingenuous. Assuming that to be a complaint, let us examine it further.

Perhaps the key black character is Mammie, the "house negro" played by Hattie McDaniel who became the first African American actor to receive an Oscar for her performance. She is big, fat, tough and rules the kitchen, and indeed the young white women of the house with a rod of iron. She disapproves of Scarlett O'Hara's designs on Ashley, married to Olivia de Havilland's character and physically prevents her from rushing to greet him on his return from the war. "No black woman would dare do that in practice!" is the implied complaint. "She would be whipped. Go see 12 Years a Slave if you don't believe me!".

Mammie is a competent, industrious and worldly woman, who despite being confined in slavery nonetheless has a strength of character, wisdom about human frailties and sense of humour that makes her a heroic person, in my view.

50 years after McDaniels received the best supporting actress Oscar, the same award went to an actress playing another strong, determined, resourceful, loving but seriously underprivileged woman: Brenda Fricker as Christy Brown's mother in My Left Foot. Women in 1930s Ireland couldn't open bank accounts without their husband's permission, had zero financial support from the state, were forbidden from controlling their fertility and were often confined to being breeding factories for children and had no career prospects beyond raising their families.

Yet that Mrs Brown is the heroine of the film, devoting herself to caring for and nurturing her disabled son despite having almost zero means at her disposal. To admire that character is not to glorify the conditions with which she had to contend any more than admiring Mammie is to infer that slavery must have been OK if it produced women like that.

Both those characters were utterly believable. I bet there were loads of women like Mammie, just as I know there were loads of women like Christy Brown's Ma.

One character, also played by a Best Supporting Actress Oscar winner, whose depiction really did offend my sense of credulity appeared in a much more recent film, 12 years a Slave.

I can believe that there were many beautiful young slave girls that the evil masters brought into their beds for their own sexual gratification.

I can also believe, with a bit more effort, that there may have been some slave women who were the best cotton pickers on their plantations. Women with the strength, stamina and dexterity to be more productive than any of the male slaves.

What I refuse to believe, or at least will raise my eyes to heaven if asked to do so, is that the same woman could perform both roles! There is usually a trade off between those two strengths. Yet that is just what 12 Years a Slave asks us to believe. Presumably the case against slavery would be seriously diminished if the pretty slave girl who warmed the master's bed was useless in the field!

Are we only to be permitted to watch bad films, with unrealistic messages imposing impossible standards on underprivileged people for fear that we might confuse a movie with reality?

The reality of it is that films etc that are from another era gradually tend to fade away by their own accord anyway. Everything has a natural shelf life. You won't see too many watching films about cowboys and indians anymore. I doubt there was a massive demand for Gone with the Wind for many years either. But ironically it has now been given a new lease of life and a whole new or second time round audience.

Christopher hitchens quote more appropriate today than ever.
Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great lexicographer, compiler of the first dictionary of the English language.

When it was complete, Dr. Johnson was waited upon by various delegations of people to congratulate him, of the nobility, of the quality, of the Commons, of the Lords — and also by a delegation of respectable ladies of London, who tended on him at his Fleet Street lodgings, and congratulated him.

“Dr. Johnson,” they said, “we are delighted to find that you have not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary.”

“Ladies,” said Dr. Johnson, “I congratulate you on being able to look them up.”

kowloonkev wrote: »

I don't since they're largely the cause of it.

I feel sorry for them, they have nothing.

Back when I was young we could spend hours talking about a movie, it could be Goodfellas or Dumb and Dumber or Full Metal Jacket or albums from bands, or comedies on TV, I remember when Channel 4 used to be edgy....it was a culturally rich era.

Those movies, albums, tv shows have all aged well, and are still appreciated to this day.

We are creating nothing to replace them, the last 5 years in particular have been culturally barren more or less....it looks like that is not going to change anytime soon.

Hopefully the actions this week will wake up more people to the narcissistic idiocy we have tolerated for far too long.

o1s1n wrote: »

A Clockwork Orange was actually pulled by Stanley Kubrick himself, nothing to do with censorship boards.

Decided to self censor due to gang violence.

We did ban From Dusk Till dawn for a bit alright, as well as Natural Born Killers and Manhunt 2 on the PS2 if anyone remembers that.

Wasn't The Evil Dead banned too. Maybe it still is?

kowloonkev wrote: »

I don't since they're largely the cause of it.

I think the younsters of today are being played like a fiddle and they can't see it.
Certain groups are constantly steering them in directions that serve their own ends.