Theater bans Gone With The Wind for being "Insensitive"

[Emerald kikyou]

3 minutes ago, Chaz said:

History is written by the winners. 

 

And Wikipedia, apparently.

And then re-written by their descendants to fit their new goals and ambitions. 

[a2k]

Was it a government funded or a for-profit screening? If it was funded by public grants it should be banned. But otherwise I wouldn't ban it.

 

I would feel uncomfortable watching the movie in a crowd and wouldn't visit the theater, but at home, just for one of the greatest ensemble acting ever and a spot on book to screen rendition, I watch the movie every now and then. So if someone is paying and watching it outside their homes too, I would let it happen. Who knows why they are watching it. A lot of cinephiles watch the movie for artistic reasons. And if people can watch it in private any way, what's the point of stopping it outside their homes as long as the screening is not publicly funded.

[grey ghost]

12 minutes ago, straggler said:

People are way too oversensitive. People have the ability to appreciate the good and the bad in art, to place things in their time period and to understand that some of the attitudes and viewpoints that are expressed in older films are dated. Criticize. Reassess. Reinterpret. All that. But the current mania of banning and limiting expression is shortsighted. I don't believe in burning books, banning films or destroying history, even the things I don't agree with. GWTW is a great film and a better novel, but one of a different time with different sensibilities. 

 

How do you feel about celebrating shameful historical events and people cause I oppose government censorship also.

[Noctis]

I think the point when I realized the Left went off the deep end in the States was when Linda Sarsour was given such a massive platform and one of the posters was of a woman wearing the hijab. Why on earth would the hijab be glorified when it's so blatantly misogynistic and its core principal is that a woman should be covered up so that she would not attract the gaze of a man? It emphasizes that women are sex objects...disgusting stupidity by the left when I saw that utter abomination Linda Sarsour (who had repeatedly stated she was in favor of Sharia) rallying women in her defense...

 

 

[Chaz]

4 minutes ago, Emerald kikyou said:

And then re-written by their descendants to fit their new goals and ambitions. 

A rascist is a rascist is a rascist. Views by that set have not changed much, but they are fewer in number. It will always exist, in every society that ever holds people. 

[Chaz]

2 minutes ago, Noctis said:

I think the point when I realized the Left went off the deep end in the States was when Linda Sarsour was given such a massive platform and one of the posters was of a woman wearing the hijab. Why on earth would the hijab be glorified when it's so blatantly misogynistic and its core principal is that a woman should be covered up so that she would not attract the gaze of a man? It emphasizes that women are sex objects...disgusting stupidity by the left when I saw that utter abomination Linda Sarsour (who had repeatedly stated she was in favor of Sharia) rallying women in her defense...

 

 

They have completely lost their minds.

 

It's mostly the white Left. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Chaz

[Noctis]

Just now, Chaz said:

They have completely lost their minds. 

I remember my sisters, cousins, and grandmother watching the rally on television (they're all secular Muslims and don't wear the hijab) and found it confusing why they glorified the hijab. 

[grey ghost]

9 minutes ago, Chaz said:

History is written by the winners. 

 

And Wikipedia, apparently.

 

 

The "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" is a historical document.

 

Read it for yourself using any historical website.

 

You're being willfully ignorant at this point.

[Chaz]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

 

The "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" is a historical document.

 

Read it for yourself using any historical website.

 

You're being willfully ignorant at this point.

.....

 

Of course it's a historical document. But you didn't just post the link, did you?

[Emerald kikyou]

2 minutes ago, Noctis said:

I remember my sisters, cousins, and grandmother watching the rally on television (they're all secular Muslims and don't wear the hijab) and found it confusing why they glorified the hijab. 

Others found it great because it's nice to be represented. Many Muslim women believe in Hijab and wear it because they want to.

[Mulder]

>someone from the south arguing that the confederacy wasn't about slavery.

Where have I heard this before

[grey ghost]

14 minutes ago, Noctis said:

I still find it hysterical when I see a Muslim woman wearing the hijab dancing in prom (women dancing in hijab is usually reserved for weddings or between close family members). There are hundreds of millions of Muslim women who don't wear the hijab yet that's NEVER properly represented in any blockbuster film. But, no, we see a Pakistani girl wearing the hijab jamming it up with her white boys in SMH. LOL

 

I do love the States. I think most of the people are pretty nice, but my God, so many (definitely not all) are so incredibly insular when it comes to the geopolitical situations and the nuances of society in other countries...particularly when it comes to the East.

I can promise you a girl with a hijab has danced in public in NYC before, lol.

[Noctis]

2 minutes ago, Emerald kikyou said:

Others found it great because it's nice to be represented. Many Muslim women believe in Hijab and wear it because they want to.

 

Of course they do. But a hijab will never be progressive for women. It objectifies her. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Noctis

[Noctis]

2 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

I can promise you a girl with a hijab has danced in public in NYC before, lol.

Yes, they have. I'm sure. Some of them do it, but it's ALWAYS one wearing the hijab presented. Most people think that all Muslims in the East wear the hijab when that is so not true.

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, Chaz said:

.....

 

Of course it's a historical document. But you didn't just post the link, did you?

 

What was inaccurate about the link?

 

You have no clue, do you?

 

If you think the wiki article is inaccurate then prove it.

 

Search engines are very easy use.

 

 

[Emerald kikyou]

Just now, Noctis said:

 

Of course they do. But a hijab will never be progressive for women. It objectifies her. 

That's your opinion. I disagree though.

[Chaz]

3 minutes ago, Mulder said:

>someone from the south arguing that the confederacy wasn't about slavery.

Where have I heard this before

Yessssss call me a rascist white supremacist 

 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

gone with the wind is no where near as bad as hmmm... any of the other texts being mentioned in this thread. even birth of a nation. this thread got absurd real fast.

Yeah I feel like a bunch of other movies about the "Old South" even more offensive will slide under the radar and run on TCM or wherever without much controversy, because they are not nearly as well known. 

 

A couple of years ago a discussion about GWTW came up on another movie forum I visit, and the international posters really didn't see it as glorifying the South so much, they were like, "What are you talking about, it shows the South losing, Scarlett the protagonist realizes the past is gone pretty quickly, all the other white characters sit around pining for the good old days and get nothing done." They felt like if people viewed GWTW as a documentary, that was on them for being idiots. I think the imagery of the happy/docile slaves, the slave girls fanning the sleeping white ladies, the dialects, the things about GWTW that people find most inflammatory, don't resonate as much for people less familiar with those stereotypes, because a person's not from America or is young and oblivious to how those images have been used throughout history. Or a person just looks at the movie as an artifact of a time and place in how it portrays black and white characters.

 

I don't think those angry guys were marching in Polo shirts with tiki torches because of 80 year old movies, especially such a female-oriented one like GWTW.  As a black person I've come to understand that some white people will simply never identify with someone who doesn't look like them and as such will always look for a way to justify the transgressions of their ancestors. "That's the way things were" or "maybe they had slaves, but they treated them well", etc. It doesn't make slavery any less awful to have engaged in, because they didn't beat or rape anyone! But you have some people who feel it does and will always have more empathy for their predecessors than mine, and I don't know how much that is going to change no matter how many movies you ban or statues that get torn down.

 

Disclaimer, obviously I am not saying all people who are white try to justify slavery or the Civil War!

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by BoxOfficeChica

[Chaz]

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

What was inaccurate about the link?

 

You have no clue, do you?

 

If you think the wiki article is inaccurate then prove it.

 

Search engines are very easy use.

 

 

GIRL. I didn't say SHIT about your Wikipedia link. I was referring to YOUR words. 

[Mulder]

1 minute ago, Chaz said:

Yessssss call me a rascist white supremacist 

 

I like how I literally say nothing about that and you instantly jump to that. Freudian slip much? Also the confederacy was for state's rights. But here's a little thought experiment for you, the state's right to what exactly?