Theater bans Gone With The Wind for being "Insensitive"

[CJohn]

MODERATION:

Drawing broad conclusions based on an entire race or ethnicity is wrong and frowned upon at BOT.

 

Maybe it is time for everyone to chill out a bit? This thread is getting moved to the Speakeasy btw.

[Jason]

7 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

This is pure FALSE though. The theater didn't ban the movie. The PEOPLE DID. They Said hey, this is a film I have NO desire to watch and don't want too, but I'm a whinny little fuck and  I don't think ANYBODY else should have the right to see it..... Im going to stop going here if you play this. You're going to loose a valued costumer. 

 

Im sorry but in what world is nobody saying Gone with the Wind should be ban?!? How do you think it got BANNED! 

 

That's not what the word "banned" is generally understood to mean. A ban is a legal or otherwise official prohibition, which didn't happen here.

 

I think you can reasonably disagree with a theatre choosing to stop showing a film because of complaints rather than because of a lack of ticket sales, but calling it a "ban" is disingenuous.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Jason

[Kvikk Lunsj]

7 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

This is pure FALSE though. The theater didn't ban the movie. The PEOPLE DID. They Said hey, this is a film I have NO desire to watch and don't want too, but I'm a whinny little fuck and  I don't think ANYBODY else should have the right to see it..... Im going to stop going here if you play this. You're going to loose a valued costumer. 

 

Im sorry but in what world is nobody saying Gone with the Wind should be ban?!? How do you think it got BANNED! 

But another theater can play the GWTW and not listen to the protesters.

[grey ghost]

48 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Wikipedia.

 

Nope, people have right to assembly but I can't discourage it to do it on my lawn, you can certainly give a cost to certain speech, I'm not saying that people should respect other people free speech and right to opinions, I'm saying that giving a cost to someone speech (specially organizing a cost to someone speech) is limiting free speech (it is not free anymore).

 

The cartel in south america is limiting freedom of press without being a state, the Klu Klux klan/Brown shirts were limiting people freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of forming political entity, etc... without being the state. Isis/Al-quaida did effectively reduce freedom of speech in Western Europe. Not being a state entity does not mean you cannot reduce other people ability to speech without a cost, without feeling a bigger restriction than a $200 fine would.

 

You certainly can and certainly should stick to the bill of rights (the right of free speech of one will not supersede the right of someone else to judge him or speech against him) but we do not have to lie about saying that receiving huge cost and consequence for a speech has nothing to do with free speech has long as it not state sponsored.

 

So people aren't allowed to boycott.

 

Isn't protest a form a free speech?

 

Basically, if the founder of Burger Kings said blacks are animals who deserve to be lynched, no one can organize a boycott.

 

You want free speech with no consequences which is not how life works.

 

If I call my bosses wife a slut I can expect to get fired.

 

If I call my customers mentally challenged I can expect less business.

 

Also keeping the worst opinions taboo stops that bigotry or hatred from snowballing into institutional persecution. We already see it happening with things like the Muslim ban and transgender crackdown in the military.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by grey ghost

[ban1o]

30 minutes ago, DAR said:

No I'm asking if you would complain if a theatre refused to show DTRT.

 

And you might want to check your own racist assumption that white people "rally around racist films".   That's approaching davincicode level of trolling

it seems that many people on this site are all rallying around this film for some strange reason. The film is racist period. It always has been and always will be. Y'all can watch it if you want but a theatre should be forced to show it because it's culturally important or whatever shit people claim about the film. people commented disdain for the film and the theatre made the independent decision to cancel the screening That's America!! 

 

LOL theatres already refuse to show Do the Right Thing. LOL imagine thinking people will complain about that. When it was released theatres refused to show it and still do this. Hell Theatres already refuse to show black dominated films in many parts of the country regardless of subject matter. Imagine being this out of touch lol. 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ban1o

[grey ghost]

Also ISIS, the KKK, the Mexican cartels use terrorism to limit free speech, which is not only against the law but also a tad different from a theater owner deciding they don't want to play a pro-confederate movie during a racially tense time. 

[filmlover]

45 minutes ago, ban1o said:

lol right? I imagine A LOT of theatres will refuse to show that movie. lol people mad because over some 80 year old film. White people love to rally around racist films. Theatres can show whatever film they want for whatever reason. 

[Incarnadine]

The decision to pull the movie was almost certainly due to online complaints rather than a strictly business decision.

The movie obviously sold tickets and made the theater money as this theater has had 1 or more showings of GWTW every year for the last 34 years and had already announced it was on the schedule again before this kerfuffle started and they caved to the online outrage and pulled it.

If the local ticket buying community had been "outraged" by the movie I doubt it would have played there so long as ticket sales would have suffered.

I suspect most people never gave it a second thought or felt the need to complain about it in person, but once you can complain about something from the comfort of your own phone, and often anonymously, people suddenly become outraged and emboldened about pretty much anything.

 

Interestingly, I just saw the most recent showing at this theater was Aug. 11. Presumably there were either few or no complaints before that showing as they scheduled another showing. I wonder what suddenly changed?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Incarnadine

[Premium George]

5 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

So if someone says they want to diddle little kids and mass murder US troops I not only need to allow them to say it, I have to respect their opinion? 

That's an exaggeration. Currently living in a conservative part of India, I can not say out loud that I am an atheist. And it's not cos of government but people in my society. IMO barnack is just pointing out that. Criticise, protest against things, but it doesn't get to a condition where People become afraid to say things on both sides. Whether it is criticising minorities or white people.

[Water Bottle]

"The movie comes from a world with values and assumptions fundamentally different from our own--and yet, of course, so does all great classic fiction, starting with Homer and Shakespeare. A politically correct “GWTW” would not be worth making, and might largely be a lie."

 

Roger Ebert

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-gone-with-the-wind-1939

[George Parr]

6 hours ago, ban768 said:

All I have to say is you do know that the reason why we have the first amendment in this country is to mainly protect the speech that we don't like. What is the point of even having free speech if we only allow the people we agree with to voice their opinion openly and freely?

 

If only people actually cared about that...

People love to point to amendments when it fits their agenda, while happily ignoring all those amendments that directly oppose their view at any given time. Not only that, but the interpretation of the constitution often causes hypocritical behaviour as well. Even someone like Anthony Scalia, who claimed to be in favour of a literal interpretation of the constitution happily threw that idea out of the window whenever it worked against the ruling he wanted to make.

 

Beyond that, the first amendment couldn't be less relevant. All it does, is prevent the government from restricting your right to free speech. In no way does this have anything to do with a theater (a private entity!) deciding not to play a movie anymore. Gone with the Wind is not banned, nor will it ever be banned in the USA. Any outcry over this is just ridiculous. You can complain that said theater opted not to show the movie anymore, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie being banned. Most theaters don't play that movie, most theaters also don't show porn, yet no one talks about these theaters or a porn-ban. This is nothing but the individual decision by the theater to not show a movie anymore, which is entirely within their right. They can show movies they want to show, provided they get the rights to show them. They can also decide not to show a movie for any reason they can come up with. Nobody is forcing any theater to show (or not to show) any particular movie. As such, there is no ban, and trying to turn it into a discussion about one makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If anything, this is exactly what you claim to hold so highly. People were voicing their opinion towards a theater, said theater listened to what people had to say, had the management made up their mind, and opted to use their right not to show this particular movie anymore. You can disagree with the decision of the theater, but you cannot turn this into a discussion about free speech and things getting banned. Because if you do, you are saying that people whio voiced the opinion that the movie shouldn't be shown anymore shouldn't have the right to say that, and on top of that, you are suggesting that the theater doesn't have the right to make the decision whether to show a movie anymore or not. How is that for limiting someone's right to free speech?

It wouldn't be a violation fo the first amendment, because you aren't the government, but it's definately going against your own words.

 

 

The other part of the post was about this absolutely nonsensical fear of doom about free speech being restricted in any way. Not only is absolute free speech not completely free in the first place (libel and slander laws do exist in the USA), but it has also nothing to do with preventing the rise of an authoritarian ruler or rights being withheld by the government. If anything, absolute free speech makes countries more succeptible to this than a limited version does. It also has nothing to do with "only allowing people to voice an opinion we agree with", but it has everything to do with putting actual humans ahead of some obscure "right" that supposedly should exist because if it doesn't the world will turn evil any moment. Human dignity should always outweight the ability to rile up people with the goal of spreading hatred or using violence.

 

And no, before anyone gets the stupid idea to twist the words into something they don't mean at all: this doesn't mean that people can just ban anything that offends them. There is no need for safe spaces, and people also can't demand that someone else adhere to his views because opposing views offend him. It means that certain behaviour won't be tolerated, just like murder, rape and plenty of other things aren't tolerated. It also means that you can't announce that you will commit crimes like that, because that in itself is also a crime.

 

 

edit: that's mostly a general "you" btw

Edited August 28, 2017 by George Parr

[a2k]

35 minutes ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

But another theater can play the GWTW and not listen to the protesters.

But those theater owners can fear being bullied at the hands of protesters, and them and their family being given a hard time, tagged as racists on social media with their photographs uploaded, etc. Even being on the right side of the law and police coming to their aid, it can be a traumatic experience. Especially if they fear for their kids being given a tough time.

 

So a goodhearted theater owner who loves the movie for philosophical and artistic reasons may not want to show it and just give in to the moral police.

 

A theater might simply want to show movies that won some of the highest number Academy Awards (Titanic, Ben-Hur, ROTK, La La Land, GWTW are top 5 I think) and may not be able to do that.

 

Concern for their own families, can make good people give up and play along to avoid the bullies. That then emboldens these bullies and it keeps on increasing till a society looses significant amount expression.

Edited August 28, 2017 by a2knet

[ban1o]

6 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 there's literally a 14 page thread about people pissed a private theatre made their own decision to canceled a special screening of Gone with The Wind since people complained it was racist (which it is) Apparently now theatres don't have the right to play whatever film they want. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ban1o

[Kvikk Lunsj]

2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Racism is subjective it is in the eye of the holder.  I do not know if are White/Black/Asian/ Pacific Islander/ Native American/but if someone finds something race why do you care. @ban1o explain her views on Gone with Wind.  Accept her view points. She brings good points

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, ban1o said:

 there's literally a 14 page thread about people pissed a private theatre canceled a screening of Gone with The Win since people complained it was racist (which it is)  

I think it's silly that they cancelled the screening (yes, the movie's depiction of the antebellum south is troubling and dated today but it's still a classic movie included as an important part of film history that many would like to have the chance to see on the big screen still) but saying that white people rally behind racist movies is...ill-advised and inaccurate, to say the least. You're not gonna win over many people using that as your argument.

Edited August 28, 2017 by filmlover

[ban1o]

5 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

"The movie comes from a world with values and assumptions fundamentally different from our own--and yet, of course, so does all great classic fiction, starting with Homer and Shakespeare. A politically correct “GWTW” would not be worth making, and might largely be a lie."

 

Roger Ebert

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-gone-with-the-wind-1939

this is all fine and Dandy except black people literally protested and demonstrated against the film WHEN IT WAS RELEASED since it was racist as fuck. The NAACP criticized the film WHEN IT WAS RELEASED. So people thought it was racist as fuck back then too. (obviously not white people but when do they ever thing shit is) There's not politically correctness going on calling the film racist. This is like when people say slavery was considered right way back then ignoring the many black people/slaves that suffered through slavery and certainly didn't think it was "right" 

 

Anyway I'm done with this thread. People here are funny though. 14 page thread about a random theatre in Memphis making the decision to cancel a screening of an 80 year old racist film. 

[Barnack]

33 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

So people aren't allowed to boycott.

 

Isn't protest a form a free speech?

 

 

How did you get that from my message that explicitly state ?:

You certainly can and certainly should stick to the bill of rights (the right of free speech of one will not supersede the right of someone else to judge him or speech against him)

Edited August 28, 2017 by Barnack

[Kvikk Lunsj]

7 minutes ago, a2knet said:

But those theater owners can fear being bullied at the hands of protesters, and them and their family being given a hard time, tagged as racists on social media with their photographs uploaded, etc. Even being on the right side of the law and police coming to their aid, it can be a traumatic experience. Especially if they fear for their kids being given a tough time.

 

So a goodhearted theater owner who loves the movie for philosophical and artistic reasons may not want to show it and just give in to the moral police.

 

A theater might simply want to show movies that won some of the highest number Academy Awards (Titanic, Ben-Hur, ROTK, La La Land, GWTW are top 5 I think) and may not be able to do that.

 

Concern for their own families, can make good people give up and play along to avoid the bullies. That then emboldens these bullies and it keeps on increasing till a society looses significant amount expression.

There have refused to show many films in the past. GWTW is not made everyone.  Just this year there was a theater that refused to Beauty and Beast because of having a gay character. A movie that 82 years old is getting more of an outcry than Beauty of Beast, More people are complaining that Gone With The wind is not being shown and debating it about being races. That this movie should still be shown due to it historical value.  Then a theater refusing to show Beauty and Beast since according to the owner that it was immoral for having a gay character. Both theaters owner have a choice. They can risk being protested or they can risk earning money from ticket sales.

[Barnack]

23 minutes ago, ban1o said:

Y'all can watch it if you want but a theatre should be forced to show it

That is a strawmen and I'm pretty sure you know it, who talked about to force (or even advocate to start boycotting) the theater ?

 

It is obviously is right to not show it if he fear for is business, no one said otherwise in this thread.

 

21 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

Also ISIS, the KKK, the Mexican cartels use terrorism to limit free speech, which is not only against the law but also a tad different from a theater owner deciding they don't want to play a pro-confederate movie during a racially tense time. 

Certainly different (I had more the boycotter organizer in mind than the theater her), the example is to show that free speech limitation is not free from state repercussion for speaking, using obvious example were no one would have pointed out that journalist getting kill by cartels is not an attempt to limit their free speech because it is not a state or a law limiting them, a way to get pass through that argument. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Barnack

[grey ghost]

5 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

That's an exaggeration. Currently living in a conservative part of India, I can not say out loud that I am an atheist. And it's not cos of government but people in my society. IMO barnack is just pointing out that. Criticise, protest against things, but it doesn't get to a condition where People become afraid to say things on both sides. Whether it is criticising minorities or white people.

 

What will happen if you say you're an atheist?

 

Are people not allowed to criticize your beliefs? How is that free speech? 

 

You're free to criticize each other. That's how it works.

 

I believe, as a society, we have an obligation to make all forms of bigotry taboo.

 

Saying all white people or atheist are evil demons should be discouraged.

 

When bigotry is popular things get nasty. Some of the worst atrocities in human history were because bigotry was allowed to snowball.

 

If a neonazi feels bad when he is booed for saying all Jewish children belong in ovens we shouldn't be silent to spare his feelings (Are you fucking serious?). We should defend his freedom to say what he chooses to say while using our free speech to counter his horrific ideology. 

 

Not all beliefs deserve to be popular. I don't think you guys understand how dangerous this can be.

 

Free expression? Sure. 

 

Silence in the face of bigotry? Never.