But why is this a problem? People who choose not to view the contextual material don’t have to watch it, those who do can. Perhaps HBO sticks a minute or two of introduction onto the film a la AMC. The only price to be paid is a month, maybe two or three, of no access to an 80 year led movie. People are more pissed about losing access to Mad Men.
I suspect what will happen is a lot of under age 50 adults will actually be drawn to watch the film for the first time. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:30 PM 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < [email protected]> wrote: > The problem with the didactic material is that they could include a > forward by, say, Donald Bogle (who's more or less the go-to guy on this > sort of thing), or even an informed panel, and how many people are going to > skip through it to get to Scarlett and George Reeves at that damned > barbecue? > > I think that, at this late date, anyone who's motivated enough to want to > watch even an hour or two of the movie is either aware of its implications > or background and/or doesn't care and/or supports that mindset. > > I think it's different with something lesser known like the "Censored 11" > Looney Tunes, because most people would A) assume that they're intended for > kids and mostly benign and B) don't know about the troublesome ones. I have > enough knowledge of film and the period to know that "Coal Black and de > Sebben Dwarves" of "All This and Rabbit Stew" aren't exactly loaded with > positive imagery, but I have enough awareness to put it in the context of > "Goin' to Hebben on a Missouri Mule" from "Wonder Bar" or Mickey Rooney's > blackface number in "Babes on Broadway" and dismiss it without excusing it. > > --Dave Sikula > > On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 3:30:37 PM UTC-7, PGage wrote: >> >> So, responding to each of Joe’s points: >> 1. My understanding is the HBO is working with recognized experts to >> develop not just didactic material but informed conversation among them. I >> applaud this approach, rather than punting to the Wikis. HBO is taking >> their responsibility to contextualize this seriously. >> >> 2. Highly (highly) unlikely. HBO is really not just making a knee jerk >> response to a Twitter storm, but is informed by some pretty serious >> scholars, film makers and film critics. Most of these people are decidedly >> not in favor of taking the film out of circulation. Were HBO to sit on the >> film and never return it, they would be pissing fb almost everybody who >> really cares about the issue, on any side. I do agree that it would have >> been preferable to announce some kind of time frame for bringing it back; I >> assume the uncertainties introduced by the pandemic and the resistance to >> police violence (both of which would impact the people involved in making >> the commentary) are the main reasons for the silence. >> >> 3. Strongly (strongly) disagree, based on many decades of talking to >> people who have watched and either loved or hated the film, with little >> understanding of the underlying issues. >> >> It really is hard to communicate the impact of GWTW. While there is that >> fraction of people under 40 who almost never watch a film made before they >> were born, even among young adults classic films have a large following. >> And this particular film/book has the largest following of all. >> >> I suppose the best analogy would be to LOTR - both a book and film (in >> this case both trilogies) That have deep and wide fandoms with huge >> cultural footprint. If at some point in the future there were elements of >> the story that were seen as offensive (indeed, for some that time is now), >> there may be seen value in pairing at least the films with some background >> on, say Catholicism and the British experience in both the Industrial >> Revolution and the two great wars of the early and mid 20th century. >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:38 PM Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Disclaimer: I have never seen either Birth Of A Nation nor Gone With The >>> Wind, nor do I have any plan to do so at this time. With that out of the >>> way, and returning briefly to the specific decision: >>> >>> There was an earlier point made by PGage Wednesday night that the >>> headline was misleading, because WarnerMedia promised "it will return with >>> a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very >>> depictions." >>> >>> To which my response is: >>> 1. Given that it would take about a day to create an intertitle that >>> says the first two sentences from the statement spoken to Variety in their >>> item, with a link to hbomax.com/gwtw, which could start with a link to >>> the Analysis section of the existing Wikipedia entry about the film and >>> grow from there, I fail to see how there's a need to pull the film (it >>> ain't like we didn't know this was a problem on June 8); >>> 2. The failure to provide a definitive return date given the reasonably >>> extensive content that a simple Google search returns on the topic leads me >>> to believe that the actual goal is to not return this film to the library >>> and let it go away; >>> 3. If a viewer is really committed to spending three-and-two-thirds >>> hours on an 81-year-old film, I'm guessing they know the metaphorical score >>> already. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:40 AM 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've seen it two or three times (nearly getting into a fight the last >>>>> time I saw it in a theatre) and, its racial politics aside, find it a >>>>> lousy >>>>> movie. It's bloated, all of the characters are static, ending up either >>>>> dead or exactly where they started psychologically, and the two male leads >>>>> obviously dislike their characters. McDaniel struggles bravely with her >>>>> role, but there really is little of value in the whole thing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the days before TV there was just the movie theater. And the movie >>>> playing there changed frequently, so if one missed a movie during its run >>>> it was conceivable that one would never see it. And over the course of time >>>> moviegoers would have seen many movies that they would have forgotten soon >>>> after they left the theater and a few that stuck with them for months or >>>> years afterward. GWTW is one of those movies that stuck with viewers and >>>> got into the lists of best movies over the decades. A lot of that had to do >>>> with people who loved the book and were happy to see how it was brought to >>>> the screen and a lot were swept away from the romance. Today, with access >>>> to the movie, as well as film criticism, only a click away, we can form a >>>> different impression of GWTW. When the question of repertory movie theaters >>>> booking GWTW came up a couple of years ago I realized that I saw the movie >>>> when it was a massive event on network TV back in 1978 or so. Then it was >>>> shown on two nights and broken up for commercials. So I got a DVD from a >>>> used book store and then watched the movie and a commentary track from a >>>> film historian. >>>> >>>> I agree with Dave's assessment. The script went through several hands >>>> and the movie went through different directors and it shows. They were over >>>> budget and rushed for time and a lot of sloppiness remains in the film. One >>>> scene that sticks out to me was a scene with Scarlett and Ashley in a barn. >>>> Through the whole scene Leslie Howard talks with an English accent. I can't >>>> understand why they would print that and not do another take. >>>> >>>> I've also seen Birth of a Nation and I realized while watching GWTW >>>> that a lot of Griffith's visual language was copied into it. Since there >>>> was a 24 year gap between the movies I'm not sure if it was expected that >>>> viewers would resonate with those cues or just that was the way the era was >>>> going to be depicted. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFpa8X9nVj8S1L4XwcUaTx6%3DaY4Zyyr22yoFAMTx%3Dzx-Q%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFpa8X9nVj8S1L4XwcUaTx6%3DaY4Zyyr22yoFAMTx%3Dzx-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BePWxsssUUXSxijO54PDmwoX1mPRGycLPZHt7Rtma9sNg%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BePWxsssUUXSxijO54PDmwoX1mPRGycLPZHt7Rtma9sNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/043ccdd3-4a2d-4b75-8fd0-bdb45e17ef81o%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/043ccdd3-4a2d-4b75-8fd0-bdb45e17ef81o%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2BiLkNKAj1SwbCcE3kKf%2BkxH%2BNQp%3Db6pTW1p4Avg7vaHA%40mail.gmail.com.
