How to say “I never watched Casablanca” without saying it.
Sam isn’t a bartender, he’s the piano payer, but more, he’s Rick’s friend, and an important part of why the Cafe Americain is popular. He’s integral to the plot.
And I always thought the racist part of Fantasia was the “coolie hatted” stereotypical “slant eyed” mushrooms in the Chinese Dance.
Good points, and you made them better than I did.
“Casablanca” is perhaps my second-favorite movie of all time, but I cringe when I hear Ilsa ask the waiter about “the boy playing the piano.” Dooley Wilson was 56 years old when he played Sam.
Oh yes. And so casually said, especially considering she had an idea who it was.
And yet, a few minutes earlier Rick had snapped, “I don’t buy or sell human beings!” to Ferrari’s query, “What do you want for Sam?”
It’s incredible, to 2024 sensibilities, that a movie containing that exchange could also show a 56-year old man referred to as a ‘boy’.
That’s what I thought it was going to be, too, having never seen the other character.
I’d like to think Ferrari was talking “buying out his contract”, but he was sort of sleazy, so who knows.
Well, clearly Ilsa is a bit racist- If that is what they wanted to show. Unless it is a “boys in the band” kinda thing but I think it is just bad writing.
They are in Africa.
He did reply to Rick’s rebuff by musing about “mak(ing) a fortune) smuggling refugees.
I presume the question is whether one would personally consider an objectionable film to be great. I mean, regardless of my opinion, many people previously and currently consider “Gone With The Wind” to be a classic. I don’t remember it being special. It’s been decades since I watched it.
On one level, films can be appreciated for their technical skill, acting, direction, scope and a hundred other things.
On another level, there are dangers in judging past works of art and events solely by modern criteria. There is value in looking at the complete picture, the prevailing views at the time, attempts at education about previous views or attempts to rectify previous wrongs, considering the degree of offence and things like irony or enlightened views of past problems. I mean, I don’t think schools should stop teaching Mark Twain.
Plenty of things from movies and TV even thirty years ago seems very cringeworthy today.
On another level, some issues were very controversial even in their day, and are now clearly considered off limits. Although this is subjective, in some cases the offence is extreme and obvious. This is not only confined to race, of course. Propaganda and many other elements might be considered offensive by many.
I do think this stops me from proclaiming a highly objectionable work “great”. That may or may not mean the work is unsalvageable. A lot depends on the specifics, and my opinion is only my own, and may mean little in the plurality. I don’t think comedians, say, should stop joking about race. I don’t think all people are exactly the same. But I think there is value in celebrating and appreciating the differences. The problems may occur when differences are used to subjugate or demean or mock, instead of to elevate or unite.
There’s a science fiction role playing game called Blue Planet set a few centuries in the future where players can take on the role of uplifted cetaceans like dolphins or orcas. These orcas and dolphins are intelligent and are full members of society. There’s a little blurb in the rulebook that mentions in the game’s setting Moby Dick is only read by English majors and racist which got a chuckle from me.
It’s a great movie even if it’s interpretation of the South and Reconstruction is pure baloney. We wouldn’t be talking about it almost 90 years later if it wasn’t special. But I do think GwtW’s cultural influence has faded as fewer and fewer people have seen it. I wonder how many people under 40 have actually seen it?
I do think GwtW’s influence has faded a bit, probably moreso than other things from its time relative to 40 years ago. I think that the influence of almost everything that old or older has been fading a bit: I recently noticed how people don’t talk about the Revolutionary War as much as they used to, but then I realized that it is 20% more distantly in the past than it was 40 years ago. Whereas GwtW is twice as old as it was 40 years ago, so that makes sense.
Sure. The line is fuzzy and not clear.
Even though Twain did use an objectionable word a lot, he goal was still to show that bigotry is stupid.
Yes; in case it needs to be said:
Works that depict racism are not (necessarily) racist works.
But works that glorify racism- are.
Apologies for that, my goldfish brain often forgets who said what earlier in threads. It’s clear we are mostly in agreement.
I’m not sure when the word “remastered” entered the language but it makes me think of something recent. The edit was done by Disney prior to the 1969 re-release and long before VHS was a thing. It looks like there were a couple of different versions of the edit but that character wasn’t seen after whatever release happened before 1969. (A quick glance looks like 1963) A very good chance no one here has seen the original edit except in the clips posted on YouTube.
“…the unedited centaur sequence showcasing “Sunflower” in all her glory was accidentally aired on a Disney Channel special in the mid to late 1980s. However, only part of the edited centaur sequence was aired (I believe the shot where they are all carrying Bacchus down from the throne)…” - Fantasia Laserdisc Question · DVDizzy Forum
I know this assertion comes from some random person on the internet, but around 1990, I saw a video recording of the airing referred to that a co-worker had fortuitously made. I’m pretty sure the black centaur grooming the white one was seen, but I’m not confident enough to claim it was the “original edit.” I don’t recall any optical zooming and it was certainly more than was usually seen in those days.
The original video version, although banned in the US, was still sold quite late overseas. I have a copy, adjusted to play on US video machines.
You can tell when they edit Sunflower out, by the way, because if they do a close-up to eliminate her the film gets noticeably more grainy.
I’d like to emphasize that it’s the multiply-pigtailed hairdo of Sunflower (which makes her look like Topsy out of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or some other “pickaninny” character) and her obviously subservient role that makes hee objectionable, not her being a black centaur. As I pointed out above, no one objects to the more grown-up zebra-bodied black centaurs, and they;'ve never been censored out, to my knowledge. Their design is just too cool. It’s true that they act as “servants” to the inebriated Bacchus, but, then again, so do all the other characters, black or white.
Birth of a Nation is great because it expanded the language of filmmaking. Prior to this, most movies were essentially stage plays with a cameraman in the audience, maybe the occasional close-up, but the entire scene in the movie is shot from a consistent angle and position. D.W. Griffith straight up invented techniques that made movies more watchable, and he is an important filmmaker mainly for this. Griffith threw that approach out the window by changing up angles within a scene for dramatic effect.
Are other films from the silent era more diligent about portraying sympathetic non-white characters? (The one I can think of offhand was Broken Blossom, by one D.W. Griffith.)