Gone with the Wind Cancelled

d15ude wrote: »

"Set during and after the American Civil War, Gone with the Wind has long been attacked for its depiction of slavery.

Based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell, it features slave characters who seem contented with their lot and who remain loyal to their former owners after slavery's abolition."

Understand?

Its likely many former slaves remained in the paid employment of their former "owners".

d15ude wrote: »

"Set during and after the American Civil War, Gone with the Wind has long been attacked for its depiction of slavery.

Based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell, it features slave characters who seem contented with their lot and who remain loyal to their former owners after slavery's abolition."

Understand?

Referring mainly to "Mammy", the woman in question. Although rare, the occasional such caricature did actually crop up. And don't take that "understand" tone with me, it is inappropriate and unnecessary.

The next 'logical' step is to tear up the bible as Jesus and his apostles appeared to have no problem with slavery in those days.

jimgoose wrote: »

We morons very much do read the articles, and find ourselves wondering why it's necessary to include an explanation of why a film made in 1939 and set in the Deep South during the American civil war should include a large-girthed, middle-aged Negro woman as a head housekeeper in a plantation great house. Could it be yet more pandering to woke idiots who've found another reason to shit their pants and scream?

But the OP and the other mouth-breathers aren't wondering why it's necessary for an explanation to be included. They're shyting on about the movie being banned. Which isn't happening.

I once dated a girl whos favorite was gone with the winds.
I have sat through this film twice, I Personally did not like the film. Apparently its a very romantic film like the Titanic was in the 90s.
What i have read its not banned its just been moved from a provider. We will be seeing this trend happening with many to most pre 2000s films comedies etc.



If when farther Ted gets removed from a provider how many of us will care of be outraged?

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

puts on inginant voice "What happened to freedom of speech? Huh? HUH?"

Oh, that's right - you're not actually censoring someone by complaining about what someone says and calling it inappropriate. It's an acceptable reaction that the other party can take or leave.

Just like Gone With The Wind isn't actually being censored by having a notice attached to it stating that some of the content isn't appropriate by today's standards, that people can decide themselves whether to pay heed to or not.

Most of us with cognitive processing capability somewhere North of fruit have figured out that slavery isn't appropriate by today's standards, 80-year-old movies notwithstanding.

I remember one of those 'Who do you think you are' programmes and unfortunately I can't actually recall the subject person now but anyway the story was fascinating. The lady traced her ancestors back to being slaves on a cotton farm, have a feeling it was in Barbados or somewhere like that. But the slave owner was a bit unusual in that he fell in a big way for her great grandmother and didn't just bed her as was common but set her up in his home as his wife (not sure if he actually married her.) But when he died,(he was much older than her,) she became the boss of the plantation and carried on having slaves working for her. It was a bit confusing for the subject of the programme because her ancestors were both slaves and slave owners and in the case of one of them both slave and slave owner and she didn't know what way to feel about them.

Overheal wrote: »

Cops I understand because despite the disclaimers, the theme of the show and it’s presentation work to glorify officers

Cancel '24 Hours in A&E', it glorifies doctors.

Cancel 'SAS: Who Dares Wins', if glorifies soldiers.

Cancel 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire', it glorifies both wealth and a Western, white and male-centric knowledge corpus.

Cancel 'Antiques Roadshow' and and return the many indigenous trinkets displayed on it to their original creators.

As soon as anything like this happens, some outraged person comes on and moans about "snowflakes" and "the permanently outraged". You're as boring as the people moaning about Gone With The Wind.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Do you morons even read the articles?

Yes. And I read the Los Angeles Times article linked on the BBC page which was written by John Ridley, script writer of the multi Oscar winning movie 12 Years a Slave.

Now that was a mediocre movie overburdened with Academy baubles if ever there was one. Ridley had the gall to say that Gone With the Wind "had the very best talents in Hollywood at that time working together to sentimentalize a history that never was."

Oh yeah? And 12 Years.. was an accurate insightful depiction of the south as it REALLY was? No mawkish over-sentimental exaggeration? No unlikely pandering to modern mores about gender equality and "black beauty norms"? No hint at the idea that there could be a more subtle approach to oppression than total reliance on the bull whip? Well, it did mention that slaves were not permitted to learn to read but that was about it.

Gone with the Wind is a dated overblown epic from the classic era of Hollywood. Many of its set pieces and moments of memorable cinematography are hopelessly corny and unbelievable by today's standards. Who can watch today the scene where Leslie Howard returns home to Olivia de Havilland at the end of the war (the prolonged arms outstretched race down the entrance path-- "Ash-lay! Ash-lay! Ash-lay"--into each others arms) without sniggering uncontrollably?

Nevertheless it is a marvellous example of melodramatic cinema, indicative of its time and worthy of watching (if only once). Mr Ridley's idea that it should be sent into a dark corner so that the populace at large can think about what it means before re-emerging with appropriate trigger warnings and editorial directives on how to view this movie in context is patronising and self important in the extreme.

Like others in this thread I am old enough to remember when Ireland refused cinema releases to films like Monty Python's Life of Brian. In fact during my first year at university, great effort was expended by my peer group to get to see that film in semi-private viewings with small screens and hopeless sound on the then new fangled technology of VHS. The cinema censor didn't stop us!

Prediction: before too long, people will raise objections to Life of Brian being shown widely because of its transphobia and gender stereotyping. The scene where Stan wants to become Loretta so that he can have babies (one of the funniest scenes in the movie featuring the People's Front of the Judea, or was it the Judean People's Front?) is bound to offend the sensibilities of the sexually indeterminate.

I give it a year or two.

mick087 wrote: »

TV well what we know of TV is changing. When i was growing up we only had a few channels and would sit arond the TV watching the main shows of the week. Few watch TV now they stream live programmes watch box sets in a day.
You carnt make shows like you did 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago. I guess people want more reality shows.

Reality shows led to Trump. People thought the scripted persona he played on NBC was the potus they would be getting. Sheesh. Won’t mind when they fall out of fashion.

The Simpsons caused Trump not reality shows only saving grace is Lisa won't be the first female POTUS

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

But the OP and the other mouth-breathers aren't wondering why it's necessary for an explanation to be included. They're shyting on about the movie being banned. Which isn't happening.

True...having some trigger warning/"now kids, this is an old film made when people were ignorant, unlike us today with our god-like perspective!" is a bit sad though.
Like "Warning - contents are hot!" on cups of takeaway coffee and tea, but nowhere near as bad as just removing it for good.

(now that I think of it did that idea sort of come from the USA also/worries about being sued over customers burning themselves??)