Discussion concerning not seeing films done before a certain date, in the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

Elizabeth Blakeslee recently posted a link to an article by Ann Hornaday advocating for not "shutting down" films or "locking them away" when they become controversial, but making them subjects of considerable contextualization. She acknowledges our time one where suddenly a lot of the past is "problematic," and sees the mature, grown-up response to this to increase our awareness of these films, to enter the past, even more... and at grander, more prestigious venues, like museums, cinematheques. The problem with asserting this the adult response is that what historians (she's a film historian) usually use to justify their own immersion in history and to leverage their lecturing us on doing the same, isn't as much on the table now as it once was. It is not as evident that human beings are the same now as they have always were, making knowledge of the past self-evidently about furthering our knowledge of our own selves, about uncovering truths that apply to us, a controversial proposition; and as we begin to think of history again as linear, as always progressing, it is no longer as evident that each age contains riches as worthy as any other, either. And when that's more the context you find yourself in, arguing that not simply cutting oneself off wholesale from a unwholesome partner it was implied previously you should keep in touch with but whom you never really did much like, is not actually the more self-realized, the more grown-up decision, seems itself problematic... it becomes incumbent on you to justify yourself, why you spent your life doing what you did, once more. It becomes more on you to explain why exactly you found it so natural/comfortable to immerse yourself in worse times populated by worse people; and more on the films to demonstrate that their ratio of art to foul messaging remains sufficient to not judge them ultimately still company we could do without--films to be scrapped as readily as do statues that contain no art at all, that being the brave act, for it being an honest act that to emerge had to fight back against the common presumption of it as appalling.

The very fact that Hornaday tries to accent what might strike a lot of us as quite a realized moment that's sprung upon us -- that we're finally saying "no" to Columbus and "no" to Andrew Jackson; that we're not just teasing pulling back "Gone With the Wind" but more "Birth of a Nation" obliterating it; that many very progressive people will not only no longer themselves watch Woody Allan films but clearly discourage their children from doing so as well, that we're not just playing at but actually doing -- as only a childish "wishing away," suggests that what could be lost to her if what she revered and gained revered status from loses its hold, is sufficiently unsustainable for her that she's not going to rely on reason to make her case but crass elision and implicit intimidation too.

Let's be prepared to have none of it, and take advantage of this fortuitous opportunity to bravely extend what we have already agreed there is sense in doing. Just as many agree there are patch edits we should make -- no to "Manhattan," but yes to... -- just as many cineastes would argue that we would lose nothing if we did a horizontal exclusion and did without a certain whole category of films within our own time -- Oscar-bait films, perhaps; films that flatter our liberal sensibilities but contain no innovation at all -- we should try out doing a vertical timeline exclusion, and see whether there might be a year that could serve as a cutoff date where before it, we would pledge to never again dip into. If I could see no film done before the 1960s, for example, Richard Brody would say I denied myself both Chaplin and Wells, but he'd also argue I'd made a preference for performers who reflect "a fundamental lack of fear, a sense of impunity regarding the spontaneous and natural inclination—a lack of fear that has been ingrained from early years," and denied myself knowing people otherwise, which sounds like something I could recoup with. Is there a date you might try out? Maybe no film done before when Hollywood agreed that all white wasn't a problem? Or even more recent: no film done before when Hollywood decided it would try out having Asian characters actually played by Asians, so just a year or two ago?



Do we remove them? Or put them in a proper context?
WASHINGTONPOST.COM

LikeShow more reactions
Comment
Comments
Mark Schaffer Having none of it means dismissing almost the entire Hollywood past, which trafficked heavily in sexism, toxic masculinity, racism, ethnic characterization, dialect comedy, fof starters..Where do you draw the line to feel morally superiior to someone from 1935, 1954?..Also, I'm not sure I followed your argument.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
8
September 4 at 12:29amEdited
Remove
Laura-Jean Kelly He wants to know if it s time for us to basically boycot, ban, hide away art that is not as enlightened or as progressive as we all are now.
No.


LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 12:54am
Remove
Mark Schaffer To make himself feel morally purer and superior to folks from 60 and 70 years ago..Its leftist puratinism at its best..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
4
September 4 at 12:59amEdited
Remove
Mark Schaffer The progressive academics have created this windup army of moral indignation and released them on an unsuspecting public.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 1:02amEdited
Remove
Laura-Jean Kelly I'm pretty left but I think this is too much...theoretical and forced. Feels so left it can be right. 
I don't personally want or Need to view GWTW again or study it, but Some May want to and that's good I think. 
I like this article because it is saying we can we use film for its good And its bad. Not banish things. Maybe context IS everything.


LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 4:25amEdited
Remove
Mark Schaffer I emailed Hornaday and suggested that GWTW can also be seen as insensitive to bubble headed, well to do conniving women..No response

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
5
September 4 at 1:22amEdited
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Mark Schaffer I'm not entirely sure that people who would personally exempt "Manhattan" or "Gone With the Wind" are just wishing to ban it because it makes an imagined community that would still feel deeply attached to these films look even worse (and themselves, that much more superior). There is a component of such within some of them (not within the millennials I personally know, though; they turned away in horror out of empathy for what they believe they've done to marginalize and hurt people). But I think mostly they watch these films and want to throw-up. Here is Andrew O'hehir's response to the film. It's interesting, because for him the appeal of the movie, its seductiveness, its art, ultimately contrives to make it in the end even more wretched, rather than an element that needs to be rescued: http://www.salon.com/.../the-confederate-mystique-why-is.../

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview
1
September 4 at 8:18amEdited
Manage
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Laura-Jean Kelly But if this was rephrased as, "he wants to know if it's time for progressives to detach themselves from regressive people," then your "no" would require explanation (using terms like "ban," "hide," "boycott," obscures this, as it paints progressives as emotionally untethered people -- that is, as not actually progressive -- or as cowards). Why not? Hasn't that been our move since the late '70s? Detaching ourselves from flyover for more enlightened locales? Haven't we already been doing it? And without apology? Isn't what is happening just an extension of what a previous generation decided to themselves do, but at a pace they can't keep up with... it was never supposed to happen to them, AND THAT'S the primary problem: some are deciding to fly over them, and in childish overreaction, they effectively allow themselves to suddenly join the rightwing mob of "True Patriot Love"... of those who've tolerated enough insolent behaviour and want to strike back?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 8:38amEdited
Manage
Ursula Hemard-Teri Where would you want to draw the line in other art forms then? Every renaissance painting which depicts a slave ought to be locked up as well? ... just a thought ... this could go on 🤗

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 11:34am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Ursula Hemard-Teri My experiment is what has become my go-to... I don't really any longer read or watch material before the '50s. If everything before 1950 was sent to oblivion, do I think we'd be fantastically shortchanged?... I'm not sure I do. We'd feast better on more nurturant matter, perhaps. If everything before 1980 was, I absolutely would think we'd stranded ourselves, however. History is linear, but built of cycles, where after a period of sacrifice, a Depression, a major war, there's a lengthy period of youthful permission that will permit art greater than what will be produced by a subsequent generation at the termination of the cycle that were actually raised more kindly. These folks, given more love, which is absolutely a key ingredient for creativity, will not however have as a surveying God someone who lends support to youth, but someone who gives adults who can no longer keep up His full support and approval. His power is too strong, and waylays any counteracting factor... we have to wait past a period of penance and intentional hopeless frustration (our current period) for the children of these kindly raised adults to have an environment which gives lift to them, and which bullies back all regressive old timers, to have as a result art that surpasses all, once again. This maybe should be obvious, when we see how many people want to strangle "unctuous" students and their "extreme" behaviour these days... the same was felt by many in the 1950s, but boy did they end up losing: doesn't feel like we'll get the same result today, though, now does it? These wonderful youth are imperilled.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 12:22pmEdited
Manage
Mark Schaffer What is the problem with Manhattan?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 6:19pm
Remove
Laura-Jean Kelly Patrick McEvoy-Halston. No i cant explain my explanation of what i THoughT you were saying. Too much projecting and theoretical talk for me...sorry...all the best.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 7:36pm
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Mark Schaffer yeah! I was wondering about that too 😳

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 9:22pmEdited
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Patrick McEvoy-Halston I've read three times what you just in the reply feed above ... slowly and concentrating ... but I still cannot grasp what you want to say ... now you even bring the supernatural superstition as well today's youth in it ... sorry ... in any case, please be diligent and unpatronising with those who still very much enjoy to read or watch from the past ... even if it's a simple Lubitsch or Fritz Lang ... p.s. I can have a blast with my 6 year olds watching Buster Keaton ... or reading Winnie the Pooh 😂

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 10:10pmEdited
Remove
Mark Schaffer Me neither

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 9:54am
Remove
Mark Schaffer Keaton objectifies women. Unclean..To the trashbin with him..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 9:55am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Ursula Hemard-Teri Dollars to donuts, every artist from the past you liked voiced a sentiment close to mine own--make hard demands on oneself. They didn't innovate and create something new by admonishing people to revere the past, and they passed over those who couldn't keep up where logic was demanding. But, sure, I'm sure we can find a nice corner for you where you can enjoy your Fritz Lang, Buster Keaton and Winnie the Pooh, just please try and not get in our way as we pontificate their potential irrelevance.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 10:17am
Manage
Ursula Hemard-Teri Patrick McEvoy-Halston🙄😳😳 Buster Keaton is not innovative?!?!? Lol

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:38am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Ursula Hemard-Teri They did innovate, but they didn't do so by admonishing people to admire the past; they did it by making demands on themselves and allowing huge portions of the past to lose their authority on themselves. I'm saying their attitude is fundamentally mine. A path is opening up that undeniably has some sense... let's follow it, and see where we are.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:41amEdited
Manage
Mark Schaffer Uh..I think they were just trying to make a picture that sold tickets

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 10:51amEdited
Remove
Mark Schaffer So who is relevant through a 2017 aesthetic criterion? Three names..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 10:53amEdited
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Patrick McEvoy-Halston what path are you talking about? 😳

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:55am
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Yeah ! So who is révélant since 1980? ... somewhere in this feed I read that Patrick thinks that everything g before 60's or even the 80's is irrelevant today ...

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:57amEdited
Remove
Thomas Zorthian Patrick McEvoy-Halston Your writing tends to obfuscate, with lack of proper punctuation. It makes it hard to follow your thesis, which may be the intent. I get the idea that you believe people today are morally superior and do not need any art producedbefore 1950. This is arrogant and arbitrary. I guess Shakespeare doesn't have value anymore! This argument has nothing to do with liberal politics. Liberals are open-minded and these views are closed-minded.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 5 at 6:42pm
Remove
Laura-Jean Kelly Thank you Thomas Zorthian. Hard for me to find the words i feel.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 6:47pm
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Thomas Zorthian  👍🏻🙏🏻 exactly my thoughts 💭

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 6:48pm
Remove
David Kaiser Mark Schaffer I'd say it's sensitive to bubble headed conniving women, not insensitive.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 8:54am
Remove
Mark Schaffer Its not writing. Its typing..

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 12:49pm
Remove

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 12:52am
Remove
Laura-Jean Kelly I understood her article to be about Context. And finding truth in art. Maybe that s on us to do that Ourselves...in our own contributions. To express our truth in creative ways...like to me it s more important for me to worry about expressing my own truth and then Im less concerned with other peoples art anyway.
I'm not a filmmaker but If I Was I Sure would want to be able to reflect on all the good inside the bad dated untruthful works as a point of reference at Least! 
Im afraid to read what you might say to me because i probably wont understand it. In the right way. So Ill say sorry ahead of time...all the best.


LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 1:51am
Remove
Carol Steel Ban everything except cave art.
Is that acceptable?
Or will PETA object?


LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 7:33am
Remove
Maureen Daniels Why don't we ban all WW2 movies? Then cinema-goers would never have to think about Nazis and we could pretend the Holocaust never happened. Oh, wait though, there is a world of information that exists outside movies, plus the evil of men is useful to know about in case we ever come across it ourselves.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 8:07am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston How did watching all those WW2 films work to make America and Europe absolutely free from going fascist once again? Weren't we all immersed with these films and their contextualization, and what beckons ahead for us, now, exactly? Maybe the only thing we learnt was that if we go fascist, in order to do it guilt-free, it can't look overtly Nazi. Maybe that's the only thing we ultimately learnt, how to properly "colour" our urges. 

Maybe knowing about the past isn't what makes it less repeatable. Maybe what makes it less so, is if people improve, and that comes from more encounters with people who are emotionally healthy and fewer with those who were born out of more deprived environments. If this is the case, then going with Brody's films made after 1960, which show people who are looser out of coming out of less constrained childhoods, would be the trick we need, not delving further within less emotionally nurturant times.... the 1940s, and before.


LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 8:16am
Manage
Maureen Daniels A lot of maybes there! Actually I think people improve and learn more from meeting those with more deprived backgrounds. I must say also that I disagree with the notion that GWTW glorifies the slave owners. None of them were really nice or admirable people.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 8:53am
Remove
David Kaiser Not even Ashley? But basically I agree with you. Incidentally, I've never read the whole book. In one of the first scenes Gable warns everyone that the South is going to have a very tough time in the war. Is that in the book?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 4 at 8:57am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Maureen Daniels So the 1970s liberals would have been better not flocking to coastal cities and effectively only knowing one another, and rather just staying in small towns, the South, the midwest, Pittsburgh, Detroit? Or are you just conjuring the image of people who've long spent time with their own crowd and sent their kids to schools exempt from struggling America, demonstrating superiority via platitudes they weren't fool to?  

I like your contribution about how the slave owners were actually portrayed. Sounds like we're more getting into it.


LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 9:04amEdited
Manage
Patrick McEvoy-Halston David Kaiser Morris Dickstein, in "Dancing in the Dark," argues that the film is ultimately anti-nostalgic, that, "[f]ree of all nostalgia for the old order, she [Scarlett] spunkily embodies the commercial awakening that came to be called the New South. For her, indeed, 'Tomorrow is another day.'"

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 9:15amEdited
Manage
Maureen Daniels Patrick, I'm with you from "Or..." onwards! David, Ashley is really weak, spineless and two-faced! Melanie is the "nice" one, but too good to be true.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 9:55am
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Yes, to me that was the msg of the movie that Scarlett was the only progressiste who was embracing the changing world order ...

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 11:24am
Remove
Mark Schaffer The movie was the apotheosis of 30s screwball comedy, with a plucky, resilient heroine ala Stanwyk or Rogers parrying with screwball comedy foil Gable and making her own way after her world disappears...There so many movies that preceded GWTW that depict bubbleheaded, well to do women tended to by knowing African American maids who were way more on top of things than their flustered employer..GWTW is built on that foundation..So's the book..Do we now dismiss all white telephone movies because they feature subservient African Americans? What does this achieve?i

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 6:10pmEdited
Remove
Thomas Zorthian Patrick McEvoy-Halston You state "If this is the case, then going with Brody's films made after 1960, which show people who are looser out of coming out of less constrained childhoods, would be the trick we need, not delving further within less emotionally nurturant times.... the 1940s, and before." First, you don't explain who Brody is, and I don't know who you are talking about. Second, it is absurd to believe that there weren't loving, nurturing parents before 1940. A lot of the enlightened values you hold have been around for a long time. Read some more history and study some philosophy. Open your mind instead of shutting it.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 6:52pm
Remove
Thomas Zorthian Patrick McEvoy-Halston What does this mean: "Or are you just conjuring the image of people who've long spent time with their own crowd and sent their kids to schools exempt from struggling America, demonstrating superiority via platitudes they weren't fool to? " What are platitudes they weren't fool to?

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 6:55pm
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston I would take as a compliment if someone argued that my own voice here is actually akin to Scarlett's: http://www.nytimes.com/.../01/books/review/White-t.html...

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview
2
September 4 at 9:39am
Manage
Ursula Hemard-Teri That was a hell of an article/ essay 😱 .... I think Selznick was a very shrewd business man ... he produced what he could sell... I don't think he put anything if his personal ideas into the movie but what people out there are wanted... GWTW was a product of its time .... this is what people wanted to see and felt comfortable with ... that's why the success and the bucks ... at the time .... today's audience is totally different

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 10:10am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Ursula Hemard-Teri Thanks for the reply. I argue below though that our times may not be at all totally different, and rather simulacrum-akin. See if it checks out.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 10:30am
Manage
Ursula Hemard-Teri It would be interesting to note that GWTW was forbidden/burned in all former communist countries because of its nasty capitalist/private landowner depictions ...

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 9:52am
Remove
Maureen Daniels Indeed, and the airbrushing of history is what I am dead against.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 9:57am
Remove
Mark Schaffer It also was celebrated in the UK as an inspiration to Brits during their darkest times in the blitz, when their way ofblife was in jeopardy.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 6:13pm
Remove
Mark Schaffer Still having trouble with the basic argument here. Shun pre-1960's popular art because it depicts people treating people in an unenlightened fashion?, as no doubt art does so glowingly now? Where is the value added here? No Hemingway but dollops of Alice Walker? Thoughts? I don't read much of anything past 1960, butb that's just me

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 6:28pmEdited
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Just as a note guys, my background is English literature studies... I spent years exploring works from Chaucer on up. But after I did that, I realized that I still found myself mostly reading works from post WW2, and I don't think out of comfort level -- which had been tested, with the long immersion I spent away from contemporary literature -- but because of what Richard Brody got at in his reviews of films made in the 1950s vs. those done in the 1960s(+): there's something healthier about the writers, and for me, this equates with more copious bravery, with greater human extension into terra incognita for their having the emotional bearing to do it (though I think we're regressing lately... Dave Eggers, Sadie Smith, Franzen, Foster Wallace are not greater, in my judgment, than Roth, Updike, Atwood and Ann Tyler). 

I actually think that "Gone With the Wind" is the opposite of being at risk of being whisked away, as it was created in a period with strong correlations with our own. Secretly, it'll probably find even more appeal to liberals: for like Scarlett and Rhett, they too are noticing that many of their peers who previously were comfortable in their assumptions, and comfortable, generally, are finding it difficult to get by as readily as populist attitudes gain hold and their staked territories are under siege, and are thinking on making the emendations advised by the likes of Mark Lilla (whose recent discussion with Remnick is here: https://www.newyorker.com/.../a-conversation-with-mark...) to themselves survive and prosper. It's a film that will likely be re-created many times over in our coming period, even as the real inspiration is probably not the film itself but the twinned nature of our unsettled and scary times. https://www.newyorker.com/.../why-its-impossible-to-re...


LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 10:33amEdited
Manage
Ursula Hemard-Teri English is my second (or third?) language ...... I'm surprised how much is read int GWTW. ... tons and tons of arguments and essays about every little detail ... to me the story is a typical story repeated in almost every country and language ... namely the importance of your own land .. that security is if you posses at least little bit of a land for yourself to cultivate ... if you have your land you won't get hungry ... etc. .... from Laxness to Checkhov to Hamsun to Knittel to Steinbeck ... etc. .... the main character in GWTW to me was always Tara ...

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 10:43am
Remove

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 10:46am
Manage
Mark Schaffer Well put..Its a national epic that plays out in every country..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 4 at 6:14pm
Remove
Sadie Berlin Loads of theatrical comments on here. I'm not sure we've read the same article. It's rather temperate.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 4 at 10:56am
Remove
Mark Schaffer Hornaday is uber temperate

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 12:35am
Remove
Maurice Yacowar why boycott a work if there's no threatening connection between its themes and its maker's transgressions? how does a Gig Young flick endanger anyone's wife? or your boycott prove the operative reason someone else won't kill his? i guess basically it's a matter of what each individual finds discomfiting to what extent they're willing to forgo some experience, provocation and experience. You're going to skip Blue Jasmine and Crimes and Misdemeanors because of Mia's muddied claims (including, of course, her subsequent campaign to free Roman Polanski)? Given all that is NOT known I'm not prepared to condemn Allen at all. on the other hand, i'll boycott a work that promotes prejudice, especially the currently ubiquitous antisemitism, so I've dropped the Met for producing The Death of Klinghoffer (spoiler alert: the elderly Jewish tourist doesn't "die" there; he's murdered by Palestinian terrorists,whome the libretto valorizes at great cost to history, peace prospects and civilization). I've stopped going to Ken Loach films because his knee-jerk antisemitism (posing as antiZionism, which in a world with about 60 Muslim states and that one threatened sliver of a Jewish state is the same thing) undermines any credibility I can expect from his political position on anything. Interesting that Israel banned The Merchant of a Venice for many years and the Nazis banned it as well. That's arguably the best reason for staging it.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 4 at 9:45pm
Remove
Maureen Daniels Ken Loach is absolutely not an anti-Semite and I will remind you that Palestinians are Semites too.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 4:18am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston "why boycott a work if there's no threatening connection between its themes and its maker's transgressions?" Who amongst those who admire a work of art is going to find the "interesting" connection between its themes and its maker's transgressions, if they did exist? If they do in fact find some, they'll self-implicate in their own admiring of the work. To even consider this takes courage we don't often see. And I'm not talking boycott, myself. I'm suggesting that progressives have often been those who detach themselves from regressive cultures they've been smothered by counting too long amongst. If we find other time periods less progressive than our own, and we see once again that history is mostly linear, so that what was progressive 50 yrs ago does not meet the standards of today, but it is superior to what was considered evolved 50 yrs before, and so on, then it seems strange that we seem to reify all art through history. It's a useful experiment to wonder if there might in fact be a date where you could cut off yourself from all art done before it, and actually be better off. It's time away from more intensive immersion in healthier periods. I think the thought experiment is fun, not a cause for panic, and for a pretty unsophisticated exploration of what progressive actually means... some would think it means trying out moving on.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 7:40am
Manage
Mark Schaffer Okay..So my cutoff date is the 1300s. So long Aristophenes and his ilk..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
2
September 5 at 9:58amEdited
Remove
Maurice Yacowar Maureen Daniels in common usage 'antisemitism' connotes hatred of the jews, including its current form in anti-zionism. Loach supports the bds movement which the founder has dedicated to the eradication if the Jewish state.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 11:18am
Remove
Maureen Daniels Absolute nonsense Maurice Yacowar. I know all about its common usage, which is not to say it is accurate. All Jews are not Zionists and vice versa. There are also Jews who support BDS in protest at Israel's actions.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 11:41am
Remove
Herman Costa I'm sorry, but Burning Books, Banning Movies and Censoring Speech have nothing whatsoever to do with being Progressive. I do appreciate that we all have the freedom to express our points of view on these controversial questions in this Open Forum.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 7:23am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Beginning to elide the past, has a lot to do with being progressive. Calling out people who are questioning a reverent stance towards past artwork as censors and book-burners, is a conservative inclination. Innovators, those who can still let go, come to seem "uppity."

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:34am
Manage
Herman Costa GWTW may be cloying, oppressive and an unbearable piece of propaganda to sit through, but -- like the overtly racist themes which support and promote the Ku Klux Klan in The Birth of a Nation, a silent epic by D W Griffiths -- it should not be censored, thrown into the fire nor erased from history. Racism has been rampant in this country since before 1776, and it continues to flourish in 2017. We need to face our own history of violence against the slaves we dragged here from Africa as well as the slaughter of the indigenous population that flourished here for centuries before the arrival of Europeans nearly wiped them out. We need to take responsibility for our actions -- then and now -- and begin to make reparation for out unfathomably unacceptable actions. Sweeping our history under the rug and keeping it out of sight will merely help to perpetuate the already existing problems. I suggest that we begin to look at GWTW not as entertainment, not as a light romance, nor even as a depiction of the historical era during which the Civil War took place. The time has come for us to view it as just another example of the shameful perpetuation of Racism in America, and we sit and we watch it in solidarity with our black brothers and sisters who have endured this oppression for far too long.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 11:31am
Remove
Mark Leach Cineaste? Really?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 9:59am
Remove
Mark Schaffer However, I do propose a total ban on all Adam Sandler movies would be be a small step for persons..One large step for Personkind..I'm down with that

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 5 at 10:19amEdited
Remove
Jane Middleton You know, Sandler did a movie about a guy who lost his family in one of the 9/11 planes. Don Cheadle (no less) was also in it. Sandler was good; the movie got me.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 10:41am
Remove
Mark Schaffer Yeah, and he will be in the running at Oscar time for the Brothers Mendelson..So a few get a pass..Just wish he respected his obvious talent..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 10:48amEdited
Remove
Thomas Zorthian Jane Middleton Reign Over Me was the movie.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 7:07pm
Remove
Mark Schaffer The Meyerwitz Stories. Sandler apparently kills in it.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 12:51pm
Remove
Raman Umamaheswaran There's Punch-Drunk Love too. Sandler isnt really bad , he's just found a formula that makes him loads of money at the expense of artistic value, and really, who can blame him for wanting money?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 12:55pm
Remove
Mark Schaffer Yeah..Good in that..And The Cobbler. So why does the guy insult his talent? Doesn't want to confuse his doofus fan base? Who knows?

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 1:07pmEdited
Remove
Ursula Hemard-Teri Patrick is trying to convince us that he is right ... the problem is that I'm not quite sure what it is what he's so right about ... my humble intellect can't follow .. 🤓

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 11:09amEdited
Remove
Thomas Zorthian The problem is not your intellect, it is that is writing is flawed and confusing.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 5 at 7:08pm
Remove
Thomas Zorthian correction: it is that his writing is flawed and confusing.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 6 at 5:21am
Remove
Patrick McEvoy-Halston You're the horse, wondering in bewilderment. I'm the statue, only hoping the sand will soon bury me.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 6 at 12:43pm
Manage
Mark Schaffer Very Rimbaud there. Is he still relevant? Dunno

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 6 at 12:52pm
Remove
Thomas Zorthian Patrick McEvoy-Halston That clarifies everything.

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
1
September 6 at 1:17pm
Remove
Mark Schaffer Damn you all to hell! Movie prolly irrelevant because it objectifies apes..

LikeShow more reactions
Reply
3
September 5 at 11:36am
Remove
Andrea Estepa I don't think the apes are objectified at all. They are fully developed characters.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 5:18pm
Remove
Mark Schaffer Uh.,This is called satire

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 5 at 11:04pm
Remove
David Kaiser The apes certainly objectify the humans!

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 8:56am
Remove
David Kaiser By the way--my favorite moment in that wonderful movie is when Heston has escaped from his cage and is trying to find somewhere to hide. He finds himself inside some sort of temple where a funeral is in progress. The clergyape is saying, "The deceased once told me, 'I never met an ape I didn't like.'"

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 8:57am
Remove
Andrea Estepa Mark Schaffer I thought I was playing along. Sorry you didn't get that.

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 11:45am
Remove

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 11:45am
Remove
Mark Schaffer The horror!

LikeShow more reactions
ReplySeptember 6 at 12:52pm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Review of "the Snowman"