 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2015 - 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
First, this is NOT a thread about the PC police coming to ban your favorite films, so please don't take it in that direction.
I am curious how film lovers react to such stereotypes, and how you balance placing a film in its historical context with the more visceral reactions such stereotyping may elicit.
For example, a while back, a watched a 1940s film in which Cary Grant played an ad exec trying to come up with a campaign for a product. The happy-go-lucky African American housekeeper, who appeared throughout the film, ends up supplying the tag line. Everyone lives happily ever after: Cary Grant probably gets a big fat bonus and a promotion, while the black maid continues being a maid. It was a good film for what it was, but I had a hard time with the ending.
On the other hand, for some reason, Peter Sellers playing an Indian in "The Party" doesn't really bother me, while Mickey Rooney's Japanese stereotype in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is beyond awful. Not sure what the difference is, if any, but I have two different reactions.
Just curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 1, 2015 - 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
About twenty-or-so years ago I went to a repertory theatre screening of the old Astaire-Charisse musical I had seen in 1957, SILK STOCKINGS, planning to enjoy it again after a number of years as it seemed innocuous enough to me as a 17-year-old when it came out.
During the film, Charisse sings (with help  ), the Cole Porter lyric for a song within the score, "Without Love", describing her new-found love.
I'd never thought much about the lyrics in 1957, but this is how they go:
"Without Love, what is a woman?
A pleasure unemployed.
Without love, what is a woman,
A zero in the void.
But with love, what is a woman?
Serene contentment, the perfect wife.
For a woman to a man is just a woman,
but a man to a woman is her life."
The hissing and catcalls from the modern and independently-minded women in the audience was loud and clear and drowned out dialog for a few minutes at that screening.
I've never thought about SILK STOCKINGS in the same way since, though I still enjoy the film. But that moment within the film is still hard to take, though very much of its '50s time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grecchus i agree with you.
so we can sneer at attitudes in old movies? Its hardly news guys.
Once a movie is made, thats it, it is of its time.
Accept it.
Or just watch new movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, for some reason, Peter Sellers playing an Indian in "The Party" doesn't really bother me, while Mickey Rooney's Japanese stereotype in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is beyond awful. Not sure what the difference is, if any, but I have two different reactions.
You have to let actors be actors and play different races and nationalities. That's why they're actors, pretending to be what they AREN'T.
But if the production is naturalistic, as is usually the case, then it's easier to cast like with like. Plus the 'not enough jobs for ethnic players' consideration which is a very valid one.
It's part of being eclectic though, to appreciate a work of art in its context. When we look at old James Bond posters of scantily clad ladies begging for gun-barrels, we say, "Well, those were the times ..." if it's the early '60s, but, even given the tongue-in-cheek element, it looks a lot more jarring when they appear in the feminist '70s or '80s , and they'd just not make it today.
.
People tend to polarise this: when it comes to PC, they're either fer it or agin' it. And as ever, it's more about how they want to project themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DP carry-on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
