Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2020 15:57:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Aug 14, 2020 16:47:52 GMT
Good luck doing this for a Lynch film, yikes. Couch & psychiatrist not included.
Me, I'm all for it. I think "Blazing Saddles" is sort of a special case. Blazing Saddles is not a racist comedy - it's a comedy that deals in racism. I think the main reason for the disclaimer (or whatever you want to call it) is the frequent use of "the n-word" it is a film that is fun for the whole family but you don't want anybody thinking it's okay to run around using that word after the movie. A couple years back I knew some teens that used the word among themselves thinking it meant "homeboy" or something. life has taught them different.
the humor in Blazing Saddles is at the expense of the racism. even the kindly little old lady using it works for me. Mel Brooks is making fun of racism. He had Richard Pryor and others to advise him on doing this in the writing of it. he had the marvelous Cleavon Little and others letting him know what worked and what didn't. I think it's a splendid movie.
I like the disclaimer but, as I say, I think it's really to remind people the racism is the target of most of the things we now think of as problematic.
I think "Gone with the Wind" and classic Disney shorts are a bigger problem which is why I like the disclaimer solution. Hell, with the disclaimer you could show "Song of the South". unlike "Blazing Saddles" these are the product of being made in racist times with different standards there is still much to admire about them. I think regarding the weakness along with the strengths puts them in the proper context. they are extraordinary films that reflect the times they were made.
you could say something similar about Saddles but only that it was made during an "anything goes" era when pretty much anything was considered fair game. it's cavalier attitude about male gayness, flatulence and horses will certainly offend some people. In the 70's being deliberately offensive was okay. rarely was it done as good naturedly as it is here IMO.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 16, 2020 9:12:25 GMT
I don’t find it sad.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 16, 2020 9:24:45 GMT
I'm not sure.
I tend to think that it IS sad that anything that doesn't fit into young people's correct and sensitive world has to be excused or explained just because they are incapable of understanding or accepting nuance or parody or satire or whatever.
What's next - books come complete with little inlays saying the author didn't mean to use naughty words, he was just quoting the characters?
Let the audience come to the work, not vice versa.
But I'm interested to hear more of a defence for this kind of thing. And I understand that it's not widespread practice. Blazing Saddles is, as Snee says, definitely a special case.
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Aug 16, 2020 10:33:38 GMT
HBO Max is a for profit entertainment company. I find the slightest intimation that this is somehow “cancel culture” laughable. I mean they show the film. If people who pay for HBO don’t want to hear the n-word then they’ll know better than to watch that movie.
Meanwhile libraries & school districts all over the US will continue to flat out BAN “to kill a mockingbird” & “huckleberry Finn” citing the use of that word. Is the word really the problem? These are profound works of humanity & tolerance. Tax dollars won’t buy them in many areas because they make people “uncomfortable”.
I often see lists of books that Face similar problems with schools and libraries. Many of these books shaped me as a young reader. Some of these use the n-word, many don’t. ALL of them make somebody “uncomfortable”
It gets me that HBO charging people money to see the confederacy presented as heroic and giving it a little context isn’t nearly so big a deal as taking works of tolerance & beauty out of young reader’s reach. If I decide to watch “the bad lieutenant” I don’t mind being told why I might want to think twice before I watch it - “nudity & adult situations”. When I see Harvey Keitel’s weenus I may be shocked but I won’t be surprised. Same thing.
Telling me our kids can’t get books of merit from the library because they make people “uncomfortable” - it’s not all cut and dry but I think this is much more likely to be really & truly “cancel culture” but none of our stalwart culture warrior types will call it that should they ever decide to complain about it.
i’m more confident that I’ll always be able to enjoy “blazing saddles” than I am that young readers will be able to discover J.D. Salinger or Vonnegut or many others.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 16, 2020 13:53:41 GMT
I'm not sure. I tend to think that it IS sad that anything that doesn't fit into young people's correct and sensitive world has to be excused or explained just because they are incapable of understanding or accepting nuance or parody or satire or whatever. What's next - books come complete with little inlays saying the author didn't mean to use naughty words, he was just quoting the characters? Let the audience come to the work, not vice versa. But I'm interested to hear more of a defence for this kind of thing. And I understand that it's not widespread practice. Blazing Saddles is, as Snee says, definitely a special case. Let’s pull away from the n-word and all of that. I saw some folks on the Internet talking about ‘Spirit of the Beehive.’ They were Americans, and they were complaining about not getting it. I don’t blame them for not getting it, as it is (at least partially) a political allegory about Francoist Spain. So how exactly does someone with no understanding of what that was ever really grasp that aspect of it? It would certainly be helpful to be told at least that much. My point being: Some works benefit greatly from context, for all sorts of reasons. ‘Blazing Saddles’ may be remembered fondly by people our age as an example of the early-70s anything-goes style of comedy - but it really adds to its stature to consider that it was made less than 10 years after the passing of civil rights legislation, and that its comedy was taking the temperature of the times regarding white fears about integration. Perhaps some would argue that people should come to that insight themselves. But I don’t know that most people do - and I don’t think it harms the film or the viewer to be offered that context. What I think it does, is make it possible to continue to show the film without feeling conflicted about the effect of doing so. That doesn’t feel sad to me. It feels like progress.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Aug 16, 2020 14:16:19 GMT
I broadly concur with that, but the other thing about Saddles is that for all of it's n-words it's pretty obviously an anti-racism movie. I don't know how anyone could miss that. Then again, I swear I saw an article last year by some young know-it-all claiming that The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn is a racist book.
(Actually, it's the rape jokes in Saddles and Young Frankenstein that bother me.)
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 16, 2020 14:33:35 GMT
I'm not sure. I tend to think that it IS sad that anything that doesn't fit into young people's correct and sensitive world has to be excused or explained just because they are incapable of understanding or accepting nuance or parody or satire or whatever. What's next - books come complete with little inlays saying the author didn't mean to use naughty words, he was just quoting the characters? Let the audience come to the work, not vice versa. But I'm interested to hear more of a defence for this kind of thing. And I understand that it's not widespread practice. Blazing Saddles is, as Snee says, definitely a special case. I agree. There is something so patronisingly maternalistic about this sorta thing. Oh please Professor, please do explain to us plebs why it's satirical and why we are meant to be laughing at the bigots not with them. Thanks for explaining something I understood when I was 15, now fuck off back to your broom cupboard.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 16, 2020 14:35:19 GMT
I broadly concur with that, but the other thing about Saddles is that for all of it's n-words it's pretty obviously an anti-racism movie. I don't know how anyone could miss that. Then again, I swear I saw an article last year by some young know-it-all claiming that The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn is a racist book. (Actually, it's the rape jokes in Saddles and Young Frankenstein that bother me.) The rape joke is one of my favourite jokes in Blazing Saddles. The weekend after Bowie died the lass and I were a bit down so we watched Blazing Saddles and laughed out loud throughout. It was a real tonic.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 16, 2020 15:03:07 GMT
I'm not sure. I tend to think that it IS sad that anything that doesn't fit into young people's correct and sensitive world has to be excused or explained just because they are incapable of understanding or accepting nuance or parody or satire or whatever. What's next - books come complete with little inlays saying the author didn't mean to use naughty words, he was just quoting the characters? Let the audience come to the work, not vice versa. But I'm interested to hear more of a defence for this kind of thing. And I understand that it's not widespread practice. Blazing Saddles is, as Snee says, definitely a special case. I agree. There is something so patronisingly maternalistic about this sorta thing. Oh please Professor, please do explain to us plebs why it's satirical and why we are meant to be laughing at the bigots not with them. Thanks for explaining something I understood when I was 15, now fuck off back to your broom cupboard. So the downside is... a few know-it-alls feel annoyed?
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Aug 16, 2020 15:19:25 GMT
Yeah! God damn them all to HELL!
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 16, 2020 15:22:19 GMT
Well, if there is a hell for know it alls I'm stuck with fucking Davey for eternity.
The last laugh is on me, Snee, THE LAST LAUGH IS ON ME!
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 16, 2020 15:24:49 GMT
Most of the laughs have been on you. Good that you’re catching on GB! Progress!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Aug 16, 2020 15:25:11 GMT
We managed fine in the 80s and 90s watching off-colour films from the 50s and 60s. What makes this generation so much more in need of the kid-glove approach to cultural appreciation?
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Aug 16, 2020 15:32:10 GMT
Did we manage fine?
Look at our generation and how we’ve developed. No room for improvement?
|
|