ADVERTISEMENT

"Reframed Classics": Alternative to Cancel Culture?

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
69,822
45,601
113
Margaritaville
After the hullaballoo over Gone with the Wind last year, which gave a couple of posters here likely permanent butt injuries, TCM has rolled out a whole series following HBO's example. A large number of movies will not be removed, but rather aired with appended discussion meant to give context to the aspects that make these films "problematic classics," that is, undeniably parts of our cultural heritage that can't be ignored, but nevertheless containing content that is clearly rooted in accepted prejudices of the time.

My question: How do those of you on both sides feel about this? If you find yourself more sympathetic to the people who are troubled by these classics, do you think the effort at adding historical context gets the job done? If you are rather on the side of being more bothered by "cancel culture," do you think this is an acceptable substitute?
 
After the hullaballoo over Gone with the Wind last year, which gave a couple of posters here likely permanent butt injuries, TCM has rolled out a whole series following HBO's example. A large number of movies will not be removed, but rather aired with appended discussion meant to give context to the aspects that make these films "problematic classics," that is, undeniably parts of our cultural heritage that can't be ignored, but nevertheless containing content that is clearly rooted in accepted prejudices of the time.

My question: How do those of you on both sides feel about this? If you find yourself more sympathetic to the people who are troubled by these classics, do you think the effort at adding historical context gets the job done? If you are rather on the side of being more bothered by "cancel culture," do you think this is an acceptable substitute?
I like it. I like Disney’s disclaimer too.
 
I think it's an appropriate measure, and I trust TCM to do it correctly. Simply erasing the films doesn't really accomplish anything insofar as learning from history, no? Showing these classic films with a proper discussion of their historical context seems completely appropriate and I applaud TCM for handling it this way.
 
After the hullaballoo over Gone with the Wind last year, which gave a couple of posters here likely permanent butt injuries, TCM has rolled out a whole series following HBO's example. A large number of movies will not be removed, but rather aired with appended discussion meant to give context to the aspects that make these films "problematic classics," that is, undeniably parts of our cultural heritage that can't be ignored, but nevertheless containing content that is clearly rooted in accepted prejudices of the time.

My question: How do those of you on both sides feel about this? If you find yourself more sympathetic to the people who are troubled by these classics, do you think the effort at adding historical context gets the job done? If you are rather on the side of being more bothered by "cancel culture," do you think this is an acceptable substitute?

Glad they are not blocking...kind of meh on the context. Guess I would have to see how they deliver that. My thinking is how much of it is truly necessary though? Like what is the median age of someone who would watch Gone With The Wind? I would have to think it would be teenager at the youngest (and even then most of then would be watching something like that because they are being forced to.) Who doesn't understand the historical context by that point? I am just not sure who that context is being added for. Is it truly to educate at that point or is it to avoid the scolds scolding them for having it on the air in the first place?

That being said, education done right is not a bad thing. So whatever.
 
Glad they are not blocking...kind of meh on the context. Guess I would have to see how they deliver that. My thinking is how much of it is truly necessary though? Like what is the median age of someone who would watch Gone With The Wind? I would have to think it would be teenager at the youngest (and even then most of then would be watching something like that because they are being forced to.) Who doesn't understand the historical context by that point? I am just not sure who that context is being added for. Is it truly to educate at that point or is it to avoid the scolds scolding them for having it on the air in the first place?

That being said, education done right is not a bad thing. So whatever.
Forgive me if I read too much into this, but your reply is the only one that isn't clear. It sounds like you do in fact have an issue with this. Does it matter whom it is for or whether it is necessary? The question was whether or not you find it an acceptable substitute for "cancelling." It seems like you don't. If that is right, I wonder if you could expound upon that more.
 
Glad they are not blocking...kind of meh on the context. Guess I would have to see how they deliver that. My thinking is how much of it is truly necessary though? Like what is the median age of someone who would watch Gone With The Wind? I would have to think it would be teenager at the youngest (and even then most of then would be watching something like that because they are being forced to.) Who doesn't understand the historical context by that point? I am just not sure who that context is being added for. Is it truly to educate at that point or is it to avoid the scolds scolding them for having it on the air in the first place?

That being said, education done right is not a bad thing. So whatever.

I think these disclaimers are obviously an effort to seek atonement for a wrong about to be committed. It makes the broadcaster feel better. This atonement assumes two things I strongly disagree with. First viewers are too dumb to understand context of the questionable material and second the broadcaster is smart enough to call that out for the viewer. More divisions between elite people and common people.

We indeed have racial issues that need to be addressed. Obsessing over old movies is in the same category of diminishing, or contextualizing Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Disclaimers are a solution to a problem that is a racial side show.
 
Glad they are not blocking...kind of meh on the context. Guess I would have to see how they deliver that. My thinking is how much of it is truly necessary though? Like what is the median age of someone who would watch Gone With The Wind? I would have to think it would be teenager at the youngest (and even then most of then would be watching something like that because they are being forced to.) Who doesn't understand the historical context by that point? I am just not sure who that context is being added for. Is it truly to educate at that point or is it to avoid the scolds scolding them for having it on the air in the first place?

That being said, education done right is not a bad thing. So whatever.


how one sees the objection to GWTW, depends on exactly what the objection is to.

if it's to the notion that the war was about anything other than slavery, then said objections are valid.

if it's about how blacks were portrayed, then objections are only valid if portrayals weren't remotely accurate.
 
Glad they are not blocking...kind of meh on the context. Guess I would have to see how they deliver that. My thinking is how much of it is truly necessary though? Like what is the median age of someone who would watch Gone With The Wind? I would have to think it would be teenager at the youngest (and even then most of then would be watching something like that because they are being forced to.) Who doesn't understand the historical context by that point? I am just not sure who that context is being added for. Is it truly to educate at that point or is it to avoid the scolds scolding them for having it on the air in the first place?

That being said, education done right is not a bad thing. So whatever.
Worst date in my life was when a young woman talked me into going to see Gone With the Wind. Movie was OK, but a four hour date sitting in a dark theater was just too much to take.
 
I think these disclaimers are obviously an effort to seek atonement for a wrong about to be committed. It makes the broadcaster feel better. This atonement assumes two things I strongly disagree with. First viewers are too dumb to understand context of the questionable material and second the broadcaster is smart enough to call that out for the viewer. More divisions between elite people and common people.

We indeed have racial issues that need to be addressed. Obsessing over old movies is in the same category of diminishing, or contextualizing Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Disclaimers are a solution to a problem that is a racial side show.
I can’t help but believe that all of this cancel culture crap is for the benefit of a ridiculously small percentage of people.

99.99 percent of Americans are completely ambivalent about stuff like this.
how one sees the objection to GWTW, depends on exactly what the objection is to.

if it's to the notion that the war was about anything other than slavery, then said objections are valid.

if it's about how blacks were portrayed, then objections are only valid if portrayals weren't remotely accurate.
I notice you guys also didn't actually answer the question.
 
Forgive me if I read too much into this, but your reply is the only one that isn't clear. It sounds like you do in fact have an issue with this. Does it matter whom it is for or whether it is necessary? The question was whether or not you find it an acceptable substitute for "cancelling." It seems like you don't. If that is right, I wonder if you could expound upon that more.

Sorry, I much prefer this to cancelling, particularly if done correctly. Like running a disclaimer before the movie to say it reflected attitudes of a different time, that is just kind of a "well, duh" type of thing to me. So what are you really adding at that point? On the other hand, I am a history buff, it was my undergrad at IU. So a chance to show people, hey this is how things were and contextually, these are the things this film glosses over or outright ignores, cool beans. I think we have too many people in this country who don't have a grasp of our history.

So yes, I prefer this to cancelling but if we are doing "this" is it just a half ass thing because that is what we have to do in this age to silence the censors or are we really looking to educate. Most people know that slavery wasn't a pleasant experience. Even those who deny that because of racial animosity know the score on that.

I don't know, I am having a hard time explaining where I fall. My preference is to let people see things and then have then fill in their context. If we are going to provide context though, I lean more towards an hour long History Channel (before it came the Alien and Swamp People channel) dive into the historical context over a paragraph or two on a black screen to tell people what they probably already know.
 
Sorry, I much prefer this to cancelling, particularly if done correctly. Like running a disclaimer before the movie to say it reflected attitudes of a different time, that is just kind of a "well, duh" type of thing to me. So what are you really adding at that point? On the other hand, I am a history buff, it was my undergrad at IU. So a chance to show people, hey this is how things were and contextually, these are the things this film glosses over or outright ignores, cool beans. I think we have too many people in this country who don't have a grasp of our history.

So yes, I prefer this to cancelling but if we are doing "this" is it just a half ass thing because that is what we have to do in this age to silence the censors or are we really looking to educate. Most people know that slavery wasn't a pleasant experience. Even those who deny that because of racial animosity know the score on that.

I don't know, I am having a hard time explaining where I fall. My preference is to let people see things and then have then fill in their context. If we are going to provide context though, I lean more towards an hour long History Channel (before it came the Alien and Swamp People channel) dive into the historical context.
Thank you for taking the time to explain fuller. Again, not to speak for you, but it sounds to me like you think this is a good idea for your own reasons, but are uncomfortable with the actual reasons the people who made the decision might have behind it. That is to say, perhaps you feel they reached the right destination for the wrong reasons.
 
I can’t help but believe that all of this cancel culture crap is for the benefit of a ridiculously small percentage of people.

99.99 percent of Americans are completely ambivalent about stuff like this.



the agenda is to keep everyone fighting over social issues all day everyday, and away from economic issues, and away from the class war Wall St doesn't want brought up at all, rather than the culture war Wall St wants to keep everyone focused on 24/7/365.

Bernie scared the f out of Wall St and big money when they thought they had all parties firmly under their thumb.

Wall St and the corporate media don't want any class war discussion, or on economic issues, and the only way to achieve that is to always keep all the discussion elsewhere.

they don't want another Bernie coming out of the woodwork and endangering class rule, and look for full war on by both sides if one starts to emerge.

no doubt AOC will be closely monitored, and they will try to keep her tied up with social issues as well.
 
After the hullaballoo over Gone with the Wind last year, which gave a couple of posters here likely permanent butt injuries, TCM has rolled out a whole series following HBO's example. A large number of movies will not be removed, but rather aired with appended discussion meant to give context to the aspects that make these films "problematic classics," that is, undeniably parts of our cultural heritage that can't be ignored, but nevertheless containing content that is clearly rooted in accepted prejudices of the time.

My question: How do those of you on both sides feel about this? If you find yourself more sympathetic to the people who are troubled by these classics, do you think the effort at adding historical context gets the job done? If you are rather on the side of being more bothered by "cancel culture," do you think this is an acceptable substitute?

I am somewhat curious to see how it is done, but it doesn't concern me. I cannot imagine that an appended discussion is going to be viewed by many, given DVR, time constraints, etc. I only watch TV using DVR now so I cannot imagine actually spending the time to watch it.

But, if those that are so sensitive to old movies feel like they need the context, let them have the option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and mcmurtry66
We have warnings that movies have sexual content, violence, smoking, flashing lights, etc. I think a brief explanation makes sense. Even more sense than cancelling, letting people know how/why a portrayal is wrong is a great idea. I do not think most Americans are historically aware especially concerning this subject.
 
We have warnings that movies have sexual content, violence, smoking, flashing lights, etc. I think a brief explanation makes sense. Even more sense than cancelling, letting people know how/why a portrayal is wrong is a great idea. I do not think most Americans are historically aware especially concerning this subject.

I would be more than fine with that type of "warning" at the beginning of a movie. But, that's less detailed than what the OP describes.
 
That seems like a rather radical stance IMO
As I said in my first post in this thread, I don’t think disclaimers have anything to do with the movie. They are all about the broadcaster seeking forgiveness for showing the flick. Disclaimers are a combination of woke virtue signaling, condescension, and elitism. There is a lot of gross, edgy, and other undesirable messages in movies. Let the viewer watch, interpret, and maybe enjoy without the preaching.
 
As I said in my first post in this thread, I don’t think disclaimers have anything to do with the movie. They are all about the broadcaster seeking forgiveness for showing the flick. Disclaimers are a combination of woke virtue signaling, condescension, and elitism.There is a lot of gross, edgy, and other undesirable messages in movies. Let the viewer watch, interpret, and maybe enjoy without the preaching.
I think the bolded is spot on, wrt these new disclaimers.
 
letting people know how/why a portrayal is wrong is a great idea
Strongly disagree. The viewer can decide what is wrong. I remember when Bonnie and Clyde was banned in some European countries because of violence. Yet it was shown here without reservation. So what is “wrong” in that context and who decides. If the movie is so “wrong” how does a disclaimer change it?

I don’t think the rating system for movies is analogous.
 
I would be more than fine with that type of "warning" at the beginning of a movie. But, that's less detailed than what the OP describes.
True, just suggesting the door was open long ago.

I frequently attend IU Cinema, pre-COVID. They usually have someone come out and give a couple minute discussion about the film. A quick history, or other information about its making or whatever. Personally, I love it. Why not learn something about the movie be it controversial like Triumph of Will or fun like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (both movies I saw there). AMC Network has frequently done this for movies, just not on this aspect.
 
True, just suggesting the door was open long ago.

I frequently attend IU Cinema, pre-COVID. They usually have someone come out and give a couple minute discussion about the film. A quick history, or other information about its making or whatever. Personally, I love it. Why not learn something about the movie be it controversial like Triumph of Will or fun like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (both movies I saw there). AMC Network has frequently done this for movies, just not on this aspect.
I feel like this is becoming the fault line. Some people think learning about the context of a work of art is valuable. Others seem to think it is somehow dangerous.

I'm only surprised that there isn't another fault line. I was expecting some others here to say that this sort of contextualization wasn't nearly enough to make up for the problems in these films. We have yet to see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Strongly disagree. The viewer can decide what is wrong. I remember when Bonnie and Clyde was banned in some European countries because of violence. Yet it was shown here without reservation. So what is “wrong” in that context and who decides. If the movie is so “wrong” how does a disclaimer change it?

I don’t think the rating system for movies is analogous.

Isn't B and C a bit over the top? I will tie it to Seuss, someone was trying to tell me the "Chinaman" character just banned was not at all offensive. I mentioned Charlie Chan elsewhere, there are many Americans who do not realize that portrayal is offensive or why. Why not educate?

I think it is far easier to know the Silence of the Lambs character should not be a role model than understand why a much more subtle portrayal is not a role model.
 
I feel like this is becoming the fault line. Some people think learning about the context of a work of art is valuable. Others seem to think it is somehow dangerous.

I'm only surprised that there isn't another fault line. I was expecting some others here to say that this sort of contextualization wasn't nearly enough to make up for the problems in these films. We have yet to see that.

I took one of those worthless work personality quizzes years ago to determine my strengths (it was required by employer and was Strength Finder by Gallup). One of my 3 strengths was putting things in context. So of course I favor context.

I think we can still learn from old books, movies, songs. We just may not learn what the creator hoped for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
Isn't B and C a bit over the top? I will tie it to Seuss, someone was trying to tell me the "Chinaman" character just banned was not at all offensive. I mentioned Charlie Chan elsewhere, there are many Americans who do not realize that portrayal is offensive or why. Why not educate?

I think it is far easier to know the Silence of the Lambs character should not be a role model than understand why a much more subtle portrayal is not a role model.

Where you are going is that it’s okay to impugn some groups but not others. Why do you suppose the movie producers changed the nationality of the bad guys in Sum of All Fears from the book? Rhetorical question, we know why. My point is that these disclaimers about what is “wrong” is subjective. Viewers, readers, or listeners, don’t need the warnings. We can figure it out.
 
I'm only surprised that there isn't another fault line. I was expecting some others here to say that this sort of contextualization wasn't nearly enough to make up for the problems in these films. We have yet to see that.

I said that. If a movie is bad, a disclaimer shouldn’t save it. The problem is that these disclaimers seem to be addressed to badness that is contextual. That not the same thing as saying a movie is so bad it should never be shown.
 
Why do you suppose the movie producers changed the nationality of the bad guys in Sum of All Fears from the book? Rhetorical question, we know why.
Really? Why do you think it was changed? I remember both the book and the film (which was awful), but I don't remember any discussions about why they changed the villains.
 
Where you are going is that it’s okay to impugn some groups but not others. Why do you suppose the movie producers changed the nationality of the bad guys in Sum of All Fears from the book? Rhetorical question, we know why. My point is that these disclaimers about what is “wrong” is subjective. Viewers, readers, or listeners, don’t need the warnings. We can figure it out.

If we could figure it out, would we have flat-earthers, moon hoaxers, truthers, Newtown is a false-flag, antivaxxer, Holocaust-denier crowds?

I think far too many Americans really do not pay attention to events/history like say you do. I think that there is a large swath of America that is not racist at the same point do not know why/how certain images or words might be offensive.
 
Worst date in my life was when a young woman talked me into going to see Gone With the Wind. Movie was OK, but a four hour date sitting in a dark theater was just too much to take.
Holy shit you’re old.

edit: bulk was way ahead of me. Should read the whole thread next time haha
 
If we could figure it out, would we have flat-earthers, moon hoaxers, truthers, Newtown is a false-flag, antivaxxer, Holocaust-denier crowds?

I think far too many Americans really do not pay attention to events/history like say you do. I think that there is a large swath of America that is not racist at the same point do not know why/how certain images or words might be offensive.

Do you think the test really is whether “certain images or words might be offensive”? If so we aren’t in the same ball park. Does the message promote or perpetuate racism is the test I’m applying. Can the latter be fixed with a disclaimer? The former doesn’t need a disclaimer in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker
ADVERTISEMENT