Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 14:50:14 GMT
A thread about Viggo Mortensen's use of a certain word got me to thinking about how much things have changed since my childhood of the 1970's. We have, as a society, made tremendous leaps and bounds in how we treat each other, IMHO. A lot of progress has been made, and I'm sure more will be made.
One of the vehicles for that change was irreverent satire. I personally believe that Mel Brooks caused a great many people to look at their own attitudes and realize a change was needed.
While I am thrilled that society has taken the satire to heart and much of society has changed a great deal, I am so concerned that we somehow may have lost the ability to mock how we were as a society and how we are now. Mel Brooks himself has said he couldn't remake Blazing Saddles in today's age, and it's absolutely true. I've been reading some opinions on how racist that film was. It saddens me to know that a film that blatantly challenged racism would be construed to be racist.
If you are not offended of the use of the "N" word in satire, feel free to watch this little clip. If you are, don't click it, or prepare to be offended if you do.
Who exactly was that scene designed to offend and cause introspection?
Who would be offended by it today? Would it be a completely different group? And why?
Any other films that fit this bill? In 20 more years will Blazing Saddles be regarded as racist by a society that can no longer tolerate being satirized?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 17, 2018 15:53:20 GMT
"Blazing Saddles" was the first to come to mind on reading the thread title. Hell, even "Spaceballs" (one of Brooks' tamer movies) would be tough to get greenlit today. Even though we've got new Star Wars movies that are controversial, and the timing would be perfect...
Seeing Tarantino's "Django" got me thinking about this. I found it to be one of the ballsiest movies I've seen come out in sometime. I'm sure Brooks didn't create any of his controversial scenes in an effort to specifically piss anyone off. It was probably more about creating comedy out of 'that stuff we don't mention and pretend doesn't exist.'
QT is the only big name I can think of carrying on this legacy. Some of his stuff isn't really my thing, but I appreciate the deliberately 'if you're offended, fvck off' style of his movies. It leans more towards violence than Brooks, but I think the two are very similar filmmakers within the art of controversy.
Never had time to get offended by "Blazing Saddles." Too busy laughing my ass off. The Count Basie Orchestra was my favorite part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cooper, the Golden Retriever on Nov 17, 2018 15:55:52 GMT
THE KING OF JAZZ sraring Paul Whiteman and his very large orchestra! (1930.) WHY? The defition! I mean, hardly any one (I would though) might call him jazz, but for a long time, 1925-1934 or so, he was! (One of the bestr ever!)
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 17, 2018 15:59:04 GMT
Most of AL Jolsen's career  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:53:06 GMT
Most of AL Jolsen's career That one would be a tough one to take on even with satire! Lol ask Ted Danson! |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Nov 17, 2018 17:12:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Nov 17, 2018 17:19:19 GMT
I'd say Animal House. I used to read 1970s National Lampoon magazine and it could get pretty offensive, but it was hilarious. I always thought they got away with it because they poked fun at all groups of people. I'm not sure how it would be received today, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Nov 17, 2018 17:32:57 GMT
THE KING OF JAZZ sraring Paul Whiteman and his very large orchestra! (1930.) WHY? The defition! I mean, hardly any one (I would though) might call him jazz, but for a long time, 1925-1934 or so, he was! (One of the bestr ever!) Not everyday you run into a fellow Paul Whiteman fan!  Big band music is actually a pretty good comparison to Mel Brooks' style. It was one of the first integrated (black and white) sources of entertainment. Black and white musicians were actually prohibited to share many stages in the USA as early as the 20's. They had to jam after hours, if at all. The music itself is a blend of European harmonies and African rhythms/forms. While many drank out of segregated water fountains, these musicians were getting together broadening their horizons. If you've read any of their biographies ("Miles" is one of the best books you'll ever read), you know they can crack a joke that'd make the church lady gasp...all just laughing at people's difference. The relationship between Stravinksi and Duke Ellington is the prime example. I think Mel Brooks understood this. The importance of laughter over slaughter...and persecution. Shine a light on the weirdness between two groups and it will eventually go away or become funny. And more often than not, both perspectives have something funny to say that nobody gets to hear if we're all so worried about being offended. Hurumphh... Mel Brooks and big band makes perfect sense. Aside from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I don't think anything's come close to Brooks' satire chops. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 17, 2018 19:35:43 GMT
One word: Caligula.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Nov 17, 2018 20:47:53 GMT
"Triumph of the Will"
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Nov 17, 2018 21:17:16 GMT
Song of the South
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 17, 2018 21:39:25 GMT
The old Tarzan movies with Johnny Weissmuller at MGM, and maybe with other Tarzan actor too, that was made in the 1930s.
I rewatched all those Johnny/Tarzan movies last spring, there are six of them, and my initial thought was that as they were done, they couldn't be remade nowdays.
Not only would self proclaimed vegetarians get a heart attack (people who eat meat eats dead animals, get over it), but the way they treat and talk about native Africans in those movies would be be more or less impossible to remake as they were written back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 17, 2018 21:49:03 GMT
A little-known film titled Soul Man would not be made given the recent backlash against blackface.
I'm not sure if Airplane! could get made as it was with the racial humor in it. Animal House is pretty political incorrect nowadays, and a handful of 1980s teen comedies like Revenge of the Nerds wouldn't fly today because of the objectification of teenage girls.
James Cameron probably couldn't make True Lies today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 23:58:51 GMT
It could be made again today but it would never include this:
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Nov 18, 2018 0:44:38 GMT
This nugget might find a very limited release. www.imdb.com/title/tt0029989/Never seen it, never want to. It was famous as being one movie that Mystery Science Theater 3000 wouldn't touch. |
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Nov 18, 2018 1:07:24 GMT
I think political correctness is a horrible form of prejudice. I flip the argument on them and say that I don't think the elitist notion of the ruling class (White American Males) deciding what black people can or cannot handle.
"Some of my best friends are black"
"How come I NEVER see you with your best friend?"
|
|
|
|
Post by 博: Dr.BLΔD€ :锯 on Nov 18, 2018 1:28:46 GMT
A film version of English 70's TV sit com. Love Thy Neighbour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 18, 2018 1:28:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 18, 2018 1:29:21 GMT
ZULU
Even DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE
wouldn't be acceptable now.
The problem is that films that were made for political reasons (progress) often inject insincere and dishonest messages that come back to bite their activist descendants on the ass. It was always meant to be disposable though--unlike normal art. Normal art is meant to last, propaganda is just propaganda.
Case in point, for 1964, ZULU was the epitome of progress. You have the two white leads Baker and Caine expressing doubts and insecurities, you have the most heroic characters (the ones killing lots of blacks) being wounded or drunks or criminals. The Christian characters are total whackos.
And even better, in the end, the Zulus "salute fellow braves" and depart.
Nice, except it is bs. The drunk hero didn't drink at all in real life. The Christians were nothing like they were depicted.
The Zulus retreated because the relief column came--making them leave peacefully is now regarded as offensive because it suggests Zulus were happy with colonial powers beating them.
If they had stuck to the facts, it wouldn't be so dated now.
King Kong 1933 ages better because it does not portray the islanders as moral role models-just another tribe who have their own interests which may clash with the explorers. They kidnap the white woman but they also work together with the explorers to try to keep Kong out of the village. It is more sincere about behavior--since they are pursuing their own self-interests.
It isn't trying to social engineer.
Another film that is majorly unPC is THE LION, 1962-about a girl living in Africa. The depiction of the black villagers would really offend the easily offended. It shows one black chieftain wanting to take the adolescent white girl as his bride, and in another scene, one black man spits in the face of an old injured black man (because they come from separate clans).
Even for 1962 it was a bit surprising for a US studio backed film.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 18, 2018 1:35:21 GMT
I was gonna say "Charlie Chan" but apparently Lucy Liu is working on a new adaptation (I'm guessing they're skipping the yellowface)
|
|
