the uncensored "Fantasia"
William Sommerwerck
finally gotten around to providing separate "review spaces" for different
editions of the same film. I am thus the first (and only) person to "review"
the not-yet-released Blu-ray version of "Fantasia".
Here's the review. It has not yet been posted, because it contains at least
one keyword ("breasts") that triggers a manual, human review before posting.
(Reviews without such words are generally posted "immediately".)
Whether "Fantasia" is a great /movie/ (it's really a collection of shorts)
is debatable. However, none of its sequences is less than good * (including
the unfairly maligned "Pastoral"), and some are classics ("Sorcerer's
Apprentice", "Dance of the Hours", "Night on Bald Mountain"). We also get to
hear Stokowski at the peak of his conducting skills. ** No one has ever
conducted "Sorcerer" or "Night" -- or even the "Nutcracker" excerpts -- as
well. It's unfortunate "Fantasia" was a flop. Disney wanted it to run
indefinitely, with the periodic addition/replacement of segments. He
probably saw it as a public laboratory for experimentation. We'll never know
what might have come out of it.
I'm posting this "review" of a not-yet-existent release in the same spirit
as the premature "reviews" of the "Lord of the Rings" Blu-ray, which
excoriated it for being the theatrical release, not the extended cut.
Whether those reviews caused the loss of sales, or have encouraged Jackson,
et al, to speed up the release of the extended cut, we may never know. But
I'm hoping that my one-star review (and the hundreds I expect to follow)
will kick Disney into giving us the uncensored version of "Fantasia".
"Unca Walt" was neither particularly religious or political, and (for the
first 20 years of his career) was nowhere nearly as artistically
conservative or "square" as he appears today. He always wanted to do
something new and different, and was not (at least initially) worried about
what the audience thought. The criticism he received, from both the public
and snooty critics, had the gradual effect of artistically castrating his
work.
Mickey Mouse is the best example. The Mouse was such a lively, uninhibited
character that parents complained he was a bad influence, and Mickey
gradually became blandified to insipidity. The Duck never suffered from
this, probably because he was usually punished for his bad behavior.
Disney had no objection to bare breasts, and the original version of the
"centaurettes" *** in the "Pastoral" sequence had visible nipples. The Hays
Office /did/ object, and the horse/human hybrids were covered up with flower
necklaces. (Several of the briefly seen female demons in "Night on Bald
Mountain" remain uncovered.)
The principal censorship issue is the portrayal of a young black male
centaur buffing the hooves of a white adult female centaur. His facial
features and expressive movements are exaggerations of how people of that
era would have perceived a black bootblack. I find it amusing and even
charming, but I'm white. **** Other people do not, and after the late-50s
reissue of "Fantasia", the film was altered to cover up the character.
Neither the LaserDisc nor DVD editions have restored it.
It's about time Disney returned "Fantasia" to its original form, at least on
the upcoming Blu-ray, which is presumably aimed at adult buyers. Classic
live-action films don't seem subject to this sort of censorship. For
example, in "You Can't Take it With You", Eddie Anderson tells his
girlfriend that he doesn't want to move anywhere that's not close to a
welfare office! If there's anything worse than racism, it's pretending that
it never existed. Restoring controversial elements gives parents an
excellent opportunity to discuss social issues with their children.
The MPAA ratings board could help, by re-rating "Fantasia" PG for its scary
and "racially insensitive" moments.
"Fantasia" also has technical problems (including uneven film agitation)
that need to be fixed, but never have been. The BD edition would offer a
good reason to do so. I'd also like to see the inter-segment introductions
returned to their shorter versions, with Deems Taylor's original voice.
If you'd like to see the uncensored version of "Fantasia", please join with
me in posting a one-star review.
* Other than the insipid "Ave Maria", which brings the film to a blah dead
end.
** The DVD included pieces that were recorded, but didn't find their way
into the film. One is a breath-taking "Swan of Tuonela", which is almost
worth buying the set to hear. Stokowski had a remarkable conducting skill --
he could get the musicians to play Very Slowly, but without a loss of
expressiveness, or the music's forward movement collapsing. He used it with
great musical effectiveness.
*** Greek mythology does not include female centaurs. It isn't clear how
male centaurs reproduced.
**** I have no right to tell African-Americans how they should be portrayed
in films, or in any other medium. But I should point out that some black
people collect golliwog reproductions. Human beings (myself included) are
nothing if not inconsistent.
***** No one seems to object that the crows in "Dumbo" are, to some degree,
black caricatures, or that the head crow -- named Jim! -- is voiced by a
white actor (Cliff Edwards). The crows are so hip and "street-wise" -- and
each one has a distinct appearance and personality -- that the (possibly
intentionally) racist aspects are overlooked. Stromboli's garlic eating in
"Pinocchio" is an intentional slap at Italians, but it's never been altered
or censored, probably because the stereotype has largely disappeared, and
modern audiences don't see it as anything other than a corpulent character
stuffing his face with food.
--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
Kip Williams
> The principal censorship issue is the portrayal of a young black male
> centaur buffing the hooves of a white adult female centaur. His facial
> features and expressive movements are exaggerations of how people of that
> era would have perceived a black bootblack. I find it amusing and even
> charming, but I'm white. **** Other people do not, and after the late-50s
> reissue of "Fantasia", the film was altered to cover up the character.
> Neither the LaserDisc nor DVD editions have restored it.
I take it you've seen the clips of this character. From the hair, I've
assumed this to be female but underage.
> ***** No one seems to object that the crows in "Dumbo" are, to some degree,
> black caricatures, or that the head crow -- named Jim! -- is voiced by a
> white actor (Cliff Edwards).
They've objected.
I do agree that hiding the past is not a good idea. How can we learn
from it if it's locked away? It needs to be kept around, in parentheses
if necessary, footnoted, and -- as you said in some text I cut -- made
into a teaching moment.
I'm doing a unit at my daughter's school on Winsor McCay, and we had to
choose "Little Nemo" examples where you don't see much of the Imp. A
"Gertie" clip was chosen partly on the basis of not showing the live bit
with cigar smoke. Because our children must never know that men once
smoked cigars.
What was it again that happens when we don't learn from the past? Oh yeah.
Kip W
William Sommerwerck
>> centaur buffing the hooves of a white adult female centaur. His facial
>> features and expressive movements are exaggerations of how people
>> of that era would have perceived a black bootblack. I find it amusing
>> and even charming, but I'm white. **** Other people do not, and after
>> the late-50s reissue of "Fantasia", the film was altered to cover up
>> the character. Neither the LaserDisc nor DVD editions have restored it.
> I take it you've seen the clips of this character. From the hair, I've
> assumed this to be female but underage.
I think you're correct. If I remember rightly, /all/ the centaurettes are
"underage".
> I'm doing a unit at my daughter's school on Winsor McCay...
Winsor McCay's animated films are remarkable. In terms of "quality", he was
at least a decade ahead of Disney. Only a few have survived. I don't know if
the LV set ever made it to DVD.
Kerrison
wrote:
As usual, You Tube has a few brief moments of these uncensored
scenes ... I think the little character buffing the hooves was called
Buttercup in the original Fantasia souvenir booklet but am not
certain, though I'd say it was a "she" ...
Ward Hardman
wrote:
[snip]
> ***** No one seems to object that the crows in "Dumbo" are, to some degree,
> black caricatures, or that the head crow -- named Jim! -- is voiced by a
> white actor (Cliff Edwards). The crows are so hip and "street-wise" -- and
> each one has a distinct appearance and personality -- that the (possibly
> intentionally) racist aspects are overlooked.
[snip]
How about "Song of the South"? Have you ever seen this animation of
Joel Chandler Harris' "Uncle Remus" stories, or were you born too
late?
Among other things, the depiction of Br'er Rabbit swatting the "tar
baby" when the sticky decoy refuses to return his greetings is held to
represent
- child abuse
- excessive violence
- anti-black racism
to say nothing about Uncle Remus looking like too much of an Uncle
Tom.
Too bad the film can't be re-tinted to show the "tar baby" daubed with
orange or green tar, but even today nobody knows any color for tar
other than black. (I remember driving on some sepia-toned roads in
the USA, but don't recall the locale. Anyone in this newsgroup live
in such an area?)
The Politically Correct crowd won't permit showing of anything that
could be held to be "derogatory" or "offensive" to any "group," no how
small such a group might be. If somebody suspects that he would find
"Song of the South" offensive, he can always refrain from buying or
viewing it. Self-censorship doesn't interfere with the rights of
others.
At least Disney was lucky that the "tar baby" was not called a "Moo
Ham Ed" doll. The animators would have been hunted down and murdered
by irate Muslims.
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
JAC
1970s -- one of the least likely times imaginable, given the
heightened nervousness about race right then, but there it was. I bet
it'll turn up on DVD eventually.
As noted, it's not true to say that "nobody objects to the crows in
DUMBO"; objections have been made. But defenses have also been made
too. Anyway, the movie is in little danger of being withheld from
availability.
On most of the short-animated-film Treasury collections, Disney has
been admirably inclusive (possibly partly at the urging of Leonard
Maltin), omitting nothing but putting those that might possibly (or
assuredly) seem objectionable in a Vault submenu so that nervous
parents can know what they're getting into.
Too bad they didn't do that with THE THREE LITTLE PIGS (maybe they
would, if they were doing it now). Instead, we get the familiar
"Fuller brush salesman" scene, though the "Jewish peddler" original
can be glimpsed during the "history" featurette in the set. Perhaps
that was the best the historians could do to get it at least
acknowledged at that moment.
Similarly, the history timeline included in the FANTASIA 3-DVD box
does give the years for when the hoof-shining centaur (whom I too
remember as a centaurette) was first elided by snipping out music,
then by pan-n-scanning so all the music could be retained. That looks
as if SOMEONE wanted to be honest about history, but got outvoted and
this was the best compromise that could be agreed on.
The full Deems Taylor bits in FANTASIA are one of those lose-lose
restoration dilemmas. Do we keep the complete version as original
released (which I definitely want a chance to see), but settle for a
voice impersonator? or go with only the authentic D.T., with shortened
speeches? I guess the answer is to include both cuts of the movie.
JAC
William Sommerwerck
> Joel Chandler Harris' "Uncle Remus" stories, or were you born too
> late?
> Among other things, the depiction of Br'er Rabbit swatting the "tar
> baby" when the sticky decoy refuses to return his greetings is held to
> represent
> - child abuse
> - excessive violence
> - anti-black racism
> to say nothing about Uncle Remus looking like too much of an Uncle Tom.
This film is another issue altogether. People forget that the stories are
NOT Harris's. They are his transcriptions of (presumably African) folk tales
told by slaves. (In the introduction, he says "If I have captured the way
they were actually told, then I have failed.) The film, though, IS racist,
in that it fails to put slavery -- or the source of the stories -- in any
context.
I saw the last theatrical showing about 15 years ago. It's unfortunate this
film has been "lost", because the animated sequences are terrific. With the
possible exception of Uncle Remus singing about a "zippity doo-dah day".
Slaves rarely, if ever, had anything better than a "doo-doo" day.
William Sommerwerck
> the early 1970s -- one of the least likely times imaginable, given
> the heightened nervousness about race right then, but there it was.
> I bet it'll turn up on DVD eventually.
I was available in Japan on LV at one time. It would be nice to see a full
"restoration" from the camera negatives, as the live-action shots look
pretty bad.
> Too bad they didn't do that with THE THREE LITTLE PIGS (maybe
> they would, if they were doing it now). Instead, we get the familiar
> "Fuller brush salesman" scene, though the "Jewish peddler" original
> can be glimpsed during the "history" featurette in the set. Perhaps
> that was the best the historians could do to get it at least
> acknowledged at that moment.
Yet another film that we should be able to see in its original form.
> The full Deems Taylor bits in FANTASIA are one of those lose-lose
> restoration dilemmas. Do we keep the complete version as original
> released (which I definitely want a chance to see), but settle for a
> voice impersonator? or go with only the authentic D.T., with shortened
> speeches? I guess the answer is to include both cuts of the movie.
The intros were shortened because they're much too long -- and boring.
Trimming them helps the film, so I see no reason not to use the shorter
versions.
I neglected to mention that "Fantasia" is an important movie to me, because
it got me interested in classical music.
William Sommerwerck
scenes ... I think the little character buffing the hooves was called
Buttercup in the original Fantasia souvenir booklet but am not
certain, though I'd say it was a "she" ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dnS0bgaf-o&NR=1
It's been a long time since I've seen it. It's more embarrassing than I
remembered. That's still no excuse for censoring it for adult viewing.
jrsnfld
wrote:
> Whether "Fantasia" is a great /movie/ (it's really a collection of shorts)
> is debatable.
I've watched (and listened to) it many times in the last month...I
have trouble believing its greatness is debatable.
> We also get to
> hear Stokowski at the peak of his conducting skills. ** No one has ever
> conducted "Sorcerer" or "Night" -- or even the "Nutcracker" excerpts -- as
> well.
While Stokowski is undeniably interesting in the Nutcracker excerpts,
he is hardly a uniquely great interpreter of this music, certainly not
compared to Mravinsky, Rostropovich, Rodzinski, and others.
The Sorcerer and Night are indeed special interpretations. The Bach
and Stravinsky are also memorable.
--Jeff
William Sommerwerck
>> of shorts) is debatable.
> I've watched (and listened to) it many times in the last month...
> I have trouble believing its greatness is debatable.
My point was that it is not a single, coherent story. It is one of the
high-water-marks in animation, and it's just plain fun.
Dontait...@aol.com
[snip]
> I do agree that hiding the past is not a good idea. How can we learn
> from it if it's locked away? It needs to be kept around, in parentheses
> if necessary, footnoted, and -- as you said in some text I cut -- made
> into a teaching moment.
>
> I'm doing a unit at my daughter's school on Winsor McCay, and we had to
> choose "Little Nemo" examples where you don't see much of the Imp. A
> "Gertie" clip was chosen partly on the basis of not showing the live bit
> with cigar smoke. Because our children must never know that men once
> smoked cigars.
Then there was the business not too many years ago about a statue in
Washington honoring Franklin D. Roosevelt. A photograph of him was
used as a model, as I recall. In the photo, Roosevelt was holding a
cigarette in its holder. It was something like a minor trademark.
There were numerous photos of him with them; in an age when possibly
the majority of Americans smoked, Roosevelt did too. But there was a
howl from some quarters that including the cigarette in the statue
would promote the evil habit, and so the cigarette was censored from
the memorial -- despite the distortion of historical fact.
John F. Kennedy smoked cigars. So did Winston Churchill and
Representative Henry Hyde. Chief Justice William Rehnquist smoked
cigarettes. The righteous, not to mention the censurious, will
possibly demand that such knowledge about men obviously deeply flawed
because they smoked be expunged in the future.
Don Tait
P.S. I don't know whether this is true or not. Someone here might.
But I think its entertaining.
There are numerous photos of President Kennedy just off of
airplanes, with his left hand in his suit coat pocket. I seem to
remember reading that someone around him said there was a reason for
that: just before getting off the plane, he would put out the cigar
he'd been smoking, decide that it was really out, and put it in that
pocket. He had his hand in there to make sure that it was out for
sure. He'd relight it later.
JAC
wrote:
> The intros were shortened because they're much too long -- and boring.
> Trimming them helps the film, so I see no reason not to use the shorter
> versions.
What about the issue of "not letting us see it the way it was made,"
so strongly pushed when it comes to bothersome ethnic and other
depictions not being censored? I want to see it the way they made it,
and if some of it was long or boring, that's part of the deal.
After all, the "trimming it helps the film" argument applies equally
well to the other bits that get elided for other reasons. "Cut it
because it's boring" isn't really better (to me) than "cut it because
it's offensive." Keep it all.
And I actually do prefer the full duration of the interstitial
segments. Some of the incidental bits always seemed abrupt or puzzling
to me in their more familiar forms.
JAC
wagnerfan
As do I - we should be able at this date to be able to see films like
this complete and be able put them in the proper perspective -is the
fear that watching it will turn current viewers into racists???? I
also feel that we should be able to watch Amos and Andy (easily
available through many sources) the situations are almost exactly the
same we see in the Honeymooners and other early situation comedies, we
forget the performers (who by the way are brilliant)are black in about
two minutes and enjoy these really funny programs. Wagner fan
William Sommerwerck
>> Trimming them helps the film, so I see no reason not to use the shorter
>> versions.
> What about the issue of "not letting us see it the way it was made,"
> so strongly pushed when it comes to bothersome ethnic and other
> depictions not being censored? I want to see it the way they made it,
> and if some of it was long or boring, that's part of the deal.
There's a huge difference between editing and censorship.
If the original soundtrack could be located, I wouldn't object to the
full-length intros. But I know what DT's voice sounds like, and the dubbing
is wholly unconvincing.
William Sommerwerck
> this complete and be able put them in the proper perspective -is the
> fear that watching it will turn current viewers into racists???? I
> also feel that we should be able to watch Amos and Andy (easily
> available through many sources) the situations are almost exactly the
> same we see in the Honeymooners and other early situation comedies, we
> forget the performers (who by the way are brilliant)are black in about
> two minutes and enjoy these really funny programs. Wagner fan
The TV version has been defended on the basis that it shows black people who
are more-or-less middle class.
One might say unkind things about "The Cosby Show", precisely because it
seems to ignore race altogether. (I could be wrong. I didn't care for it,
and rarely watched it.)
wagnerfan
wrote:
Ernestine Wade who wonderfully played Sapphire on the TV show was
aware of the protests but at the same time said that she couldn't
recall how many times she was stopped on the street by people who said
how much they enjoyed the shows and some were members of the NAACP!!!
Wagner fan
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Then there was the business not too many years ago about a statue in
> Washington honoring Franklin D. Roosevelt. A photograph of him was
> used as a model, as I recall. In the photo, Roosevelt was holding a
> cigarette in its holder. It was something like a minor trademark.
> There were numerous photos of him with them; in an age when possibly
> the majority of Americans smoked, Roosevelt did too. But there was a
> howl from some quarters that including the cigarette in the statue
> would promote the evil habit, and so the cigarette was censored from
> the memorial -- despite the distortion of historical fact.
But Don, it was "for the children"! How can you be so callous as not to
care that you might forever scar their tender little psyches, or tempt
them down unrighteous paths? I'm shocked, shocked!
Bob Harper
wagnerfan
"I'm shocked, shocked!"
I wonder how many film quotes have entered the extra-film world as
much as this has??? And it almost always gets a knowing laugh as a
response! Wagner fan
Dontait...@aol.com
Ah. Yes. Franklin D. Roosevelt, frozen in bronze, corrupting society
and our progeny by holding a vile, evil cigarette (as millions did in
his time). I agree. Roosevelt smoked, but history must be changed.
Just like the Soviet-era photos of top government leaders. As Stalin
had them murdered, they disappeared, air-brushed, from published
photos.
Don Tait
Allen
<snip>
> I neglected to mention that "Fantasia" is an important movie to me, because
> it got me interested in classical music.
>
I was 11 when it appeared in 1940 and already had a lively interest in
classical music, but it gave me an opportunity to hear some works that I
had only hear _about_--Sacre, Sorcerer's Apprentice, Night on Bald
Mountain are some that I remember hearing (for good or bad) for the
first time. A great experience for me! (there were some great movies
from those days--e.g., in 1939 The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the
Wind--which cost me a quarter rather than the dime I was used to paying;
fortunately, I was flush that day but I had to forgo my usual package of
Skylark wafers.
Allen
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
number_six
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many of those photos are now documented in a book called "The
Commissar Vanishes."
I was annoyed with Columbia (Sony?) when a Simon & Garfunkel box set
came out and Simon's cig was airbrushed from the cover photo. Hate
cigarettes, but don't like revisionism either.
number_six
If box figures were adjusted for inflation, the list of top 20
grossing films would look VERY different -- even with the increase in
population over time.
Gerard
> people who said
> how much they enjoyed the shows and some were members of the NAACP!!!
> Wagner fan
How remarkable is that?
Kip Williams
> This film is another issue altogether. People forget that the stories are
> NOT Harris's. They are his transcriptions of (presumably African) folk tales
> told by slaves. (In the introduction, he says "If I have captured the way
> they were actually told, then I have failed.) The film, though, IS racist,
> in that it fails to put slavery -- or the source of the stories -- in any
> context.
Perhaps that's because it takes place years after the Civil War.
Kip W
Kip Williams
>> Actually SONG OF THE SOUTH was rereleased to theaters in
>> the early 1970s -- one of the least likely times imaginable, given
>> the heightened nervousness about race right then, but there it was.
>> I bet it'll turn up on DVD eventually.
>
> I was available in Japan on LV at one time. It would be nice to see a full
> "restoration" from the camera negatives, as the live-action shots look
> pretty bad.
A comic dealer I knew used to go to Japan about once a year to buy
stuff. I told him repeatedly that I would buy that LD, but he never
bothered to bring it. I also asked for CDs by the Blue Comets (if I have
that name right after all this time) with similar results. And here I
thought he was in it for the money.
Kip W
Kip Williams
>> As do I - we should be able at this date to be able to see films like
>> this complete and be able put them in the proper perspective -is the
>> fear that watching it will turn current viewers into racists???? I
>> also feel that we should be able to watch Amos and Andy (easily
>> available through many sources) the situations are almost exactly the
>> same we see in the Honeymooners and other early situation comedies, we
>> forget the performers (who by the way are brilliant)are black in about
>> two minutes and enjoy these really funny programs. Wagner fan
>
> The TV version has been defended on the basis that it shows black people who
> are more-or-less middle class.
It's possible to find them on video, though I haven't made the effort. I
have an Amos & Andy movie from the days of the radio show that has all
the flaws of that version and then some. They're simply idiots, and
everything they do is shown as moronic and bumbling. The signs for their
cab company are lettered in such a way (with backwards letters tossed
in, and wrong spellings) that I had to wonder if they'd subcontracted
them out to Spanky and the gang.
I watched it wondering what the black cast members thought about the
clowns they were playing second fiddle to.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> My point was that it is not a single, coherent story. It is one of the
> high-water-marks in animation, and it's just plain fun.
The animation makes even the Bach transcription entertaining.
Kip W
O
<a57c77f8-5728-4d07...@q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
<Dontait...@aol.com> wrote:
It's an interesting topic, particularly so that Roosevelt himself tried
to hide his crippling disability from the public while he was in
office. There's no pictures of FDR in his wheelchair and he used heavy
braces to walk the few steps up to a podium to deliver a speech,
leaning on a cane and propped up by some aide. FDR tried to remove his
own disability from his life image, now others are trying to hide one
of his vices.
-Owen
Ludwig
DG on the other hand is happy to show Maurizio Pollini smoking a
cigarette:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414gCPLQseL._SS400_.jpg .
mark
wrote:
It would be interesting to read the comments of black posters to rmcr
on this subject...if there were any black posters.
I'll say this: racism never looks like racism from the viewpoint of
those engaging in the racism. I don't believe Walt Disney was a
racist. He simply peddled in racial stereotypes that were the norm of
the day for white people, just like FDR and his cigarettes were a norm
of the day in a country where 50% of adults smoked.
I don't believe either of those American icons ever did anything with
the intention of sticking it to a minority, were it blacks or non-
smokers. They were simply employing visual norms and signals of the
times that people back then understood...or thought they understood.
Which is why those symbols and images are totally unnecessary in our
time, where they will not only be not understood in their historical
context, but where they will rightfully give offense to many, for the
simple fact that we have matured as a people and a country. We no
longer accept racism as being OK, even as an "artistic" expression,
because it never was and it never will be an acceptable expression,
today's teabagging racists notwithstanding.
Were he alive today, I doubt very much that Walt Disney would allow
these racist images to appear in his films. Yes, he put them there in
the first place, but times change and people change with the times,
and there is no one who wanted his work to continue and to change with
the times more than Walt Disney, especially in the case of Fantasia.
I see no reason why the Disney Company should be under any obligation
to reissue these films with their racist images, anymore than a
composer should be forced to publish works that he wishes to destroy
because they don't measure up to his mature vision of his art.
It has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with basic human
decency, something that the lily white members of this NG fail to
realize.
BTW - I don't see what you're complaining about. The images you so
wish to see are readily available on You Tube, as others have pointed
out. Go view them there to your heart's content.
mark
wrote:
>
> **** I have no right to tell African-Americans how they should be portrayed
> in films, or in any other medium. But I should point out that some black
> people collect golliwog reproductions. Human beings (myself included) are
> nothing if not inconsistent.
>
My first job in NYC back in 1977 was working for the King Karol Record
Store. The store was owned by two old Jewish guys. They stocked a
large collection of LPs featuring speeches by Nazis: Hitler, Goebbels
and the rest. The only people who I ever saw purchasing these LPs were
old Jews. I doubt very much they were buying them to elicit fond
memories of the Nazis...and I see no inconsistency in their purchasing
such product.
Gerard
> On May 1, 5:31 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to read the comments of black posters to rmcr
> on this subject...if there were any black posters.
>
> I'll say this: racism never looks like racism from the viewpoint of
> those engaging in the racism. I don't believe Walt Disney was a
> racist. He simply peddled in racial stereotypes that were the norm of
> the day for white people, just like FDR and his cigarettes were a norm
> of the day in a country where 50% of adults smoked.
That only shows how strong racism was: it was considered to be the 'normal' and
'usual' attitude and way of thinking.
Comparing racism with smoking is a ridiculous idea.
>
> I don't believe either of those American icons ever did anything with
> the intention of sticking it to a minority, were it blacks or non-
> smokers. They were simply employing visual norms and signals of the
> times that people back then understood...or thought they understood.
They simply did not think, and they didn't see human beings as human beings.
It looks like you're defending that.
Comparing "blacks" with "non-smokers" is a ridiculous idea.
>
> Which is why those symbols and images are totally unnecessary in our
> time, where they will not only be not understood in their historical
> context, but where they will rightfully give offense to many, for the
> simple fact that we have matured as a people and a country. We no
> longer accept racism as being OK, even as an "artistic" expression,
> because it never was and it never will be an acceptable expression,
> today's teabagging racists notwithstanding.
>
> Were he alive today, I doubt very much that Walt Disney would allow
> these racist images to appear in his films.
Of course not: it would not sell and it would not be accepted.
> Yes, he put them there in
> the first place, but times change and people change with the times,
> and there is no one who wanted his work to continue and to change with
> the times more than Walt Disney, especially in the case of Fantasia.
>
> I see no reason why the Disney Company should be under any obligation
> to reissue these films with their racist images, anymore than a
> composer should be forced to publish works that he wishes to destroy
> because they don't measure up to his mature vision of his art.
This is not a good analogy, because Disney is not someone who is publishing
something that he wants to destroy. Disney is history.
>
> It has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with basic human
> decency, something that the lily white members of this NG fail to
> realize.
It has to do with shame because of that history. And with
making-a-better-selling-product.
>
> BTW - I don't see what you're complaining about.
It is not clear who you're referring to.
Who's complaining?
> The images you so
> wish to see are readily available on You Tube, as others have pointed
> out. Go view them there to your heart's content.
So they can stay removed from the DVDs and Blue-rays?
Gerard
As you don't know why they bought these products, what's the point?
Gerard
>
> I'll say this: racism never looks like racism from the viewpoint of
> those engaging in the racism.
This is fundamentally untrue.
All racist "theories" are based on very clear and open racism.
Many racists know very well that they are racists.
William Sommerwerck
> any obligation to reissue these films with their racist images,
> that he wishes to destroy because they don't measure up to
> his mature vision of his art.
Disney is playing Winston Smith. If society's POV has changed, you simply
alter the facts to make it look as if the POV never changed.
William Sommerwerck
>>> portrayed in films, or in any other medium. But I should point out
>>> that some black people collect golliwog reproductions. Human beings
>>> (myself included) are nothing if not inconsistent.
>> My first job in NYC back in 1977 was working for the King Karol Record
>> Store. The store was owned by two old Jewish guys. They stocked a
>> large collection of LPs featuring speeches by Nazis: Hitler, Goebbels
>> and the rest. The only people who I ever saw purchasing these LPs
>> were old Jews. I doubt very much they were buying them to elicit fond
>> memories of the Nazis... and I see no inconsistency in their purchasing
>> such product.
> As you don't know why they bought these products, what's the point?
There are two possibilities. One is that they wanted to destroy them. The
other is that they thought they ought to be preserved.
To the best of my knowledge, blacks were not buying golliwogs to destroy, as
the their purchases would only encourage continued production. I can ask, if
you like.
Gerard
Sure. Why not? (about asking)
But it's a different matter (than collecting speeches by Nazis).
William Sommerwerck
>> There are two possibilities. One is that they wanted to destroy them.
>> The other is that they thought they ought to be preserved.
>> To the best of my knowledge, blacks were not buying golliwogs to
>> destroy, as the their purchases would only encourage continued
>> production. I can ask, if you like.
> Sure. Why not? (about asking)
> But it's a different matter (than collecting speeches by Nazis).
I'm not sure I see any difference.
The Historian
> In article
> <a57c77f8-5728-4d07-8fd5-eee8622ce...@q32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
I understand FDR's motivation. You show something like that, and
that's what everyone thinks you are. FDR's condition was never a
secret to the American people, but it wasn't important.
Gerard
Ever heard about the holocaust?
Kip Williams
> I see no reason why the Disney Company should be under any obligation
> to reissue these films with their racist images, anymore than a
> composer should be forced to publish works that he wishes to destroy
> because they don't measure up to his mature vision of his art.
>
> It has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with basic human
> decency, something that the lily white members of this NG fail to
> realize.
So what else should be changed to protect us? Huckleberry Finn? "Little
Nemo" strips?
If we entirely forget how things were in the past, are we not then
leaving ourselves open to repeat it? I say the material should be
available with an explanation. Let people see and understand how
completely people in 'the good old days' were surrounded by casual,
unthinking racism, just as fish are surrounded by water.
Kip W
Kip Williams
Bill Cosby and Whoopi Goldberg are major collectors of racist
memorabilia. I don't think they want it to disappear down the memory
hole. (Bill Cosby, incidentally, was one of the first people I can
remember pointing out the pervasiveness of casual stereotyping in media.
It took me a while to realize that such stereotyping wasn't just
harmless joshing.)
Kip W
William Sommerwerck
Ever heard of slavery?
Gerard
And you see no difference!
William Sommerwerck
> leaving ourselves open to repeat it? I say the material should be
> available with an explanation. Let people see and understand how
> completely people in "the good old days" were surrounded by
> casual, unthinking racism, just as fish are surrounded by water.
It's interesting to see how "All in the Family" changed (at Carroll
O'Connor's insistence) between the first and second seasons.
The original Archie Bunker (modeled on a British character from a similar
sitcom) was a vicious racist and anti-Semite. The revised Archie doesn't
hate /anyone/. His casual bigotry is simply the "common-sense", unthinking
way he sees the world. This is much more effective as satire, because it's
the casual bigotry that's the real problem.
Stereotypes can work both ways. One of my favorite moments came when Archie
was going through the Yellow Pages for a lawyer -- and it /had/ to be a
Jewish lawyer, because they're the best. "How can you tell which are
Jewish?" asks Mike, and Archie runs down a list of stereotypically
European-Jewish first names.
Mike retorts with "Abraham Lincoln?" -- which is terrific, but Edith tops
it: "I didn't know Lincoln was Jewish."
> Bill Cosby and Whoopi Goldberg are major collectors of racist
> memorabilia.
"Lest we forget"?
William Sommerwerck
instantaneous switching between different views. It was, I think, originally
intended for pornography, and hasn't gotten much use, the "Star Trek" TV
series being the best-known example, where you can switch between the
original special effects and the new ones.
This could be used with "Fantasia". Its presence could be hidden in the user
booklet, where "the kiddies" would never find it.
By the way, the chain-smoking Walt Disney never smoked in public. He didn't
want to set a bad example for children.
O
<b2eb80f2-fa7a-40b6...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
The Historian <neil.the...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's an interesting topic, particularly so that Roosevelt himself tried
> > to hide his crippling disability from the public while he was in
> > office. �There's no pictures of FDR in his wheelchair and he used heavy
> > braces to walk the few steps up to a podium to deliver a speech,
> > leaning on a cane and propped up by some aide. �FDR tried to remove his
> > own disability from his life image, now others are trying to hide one
> > of his vices.
>
> I understand FDR's motivation. You show something like that, and
> that's what everyone thinks you are. FDR's condition was never a
> secret to the American people, but it wasn't important.
>
FDR couldn't control the news of his disability to get out, in fact, it
probably helped him in the way too much negative campaigning starts to
elicit sympathy. But what he could and did control, was the visual.
Even though the fireside chats weren't on television (thank you, Joe
Biden), he was always very particular, and the media abetted him in
this, to not show himself in any sort of weakness. He realized that
the visual image was much more devastating to him than spoken or
written remarks.
-Owen
Bob Lombard
There is a difference; the Jews buying Nazi speeches are obtaining
specific foci. The 'memorabilia' that Cosby and Goldberg collect
really don't have that significance. They are examples of a pervasive
malady, reference points from which to estimate progress (if there is
any).
bl
David Oberman
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ever heard about the holocaust?
What's that?
Remember the scene in Barry Levinson's LIBERTY HEIGHTS in which the
younger son dresses up like Hitler for Halloween? The grandmother is
about ready to have a coronary event, the mother is aghast & starts
yelling, & the older brother is nonchalantly bemused.
David Oberman
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>If we entirely forget how things were in the past, are we not then
>leaving ourselves open to repeat it? I say the material should be
>available with an explanation. Let people see and understand how
>completely people in 'the good old days' were surrounded by casual,
>unthinking racism, just as fish are surrounded by water.
I see your point.
My view is that if a company wants to release such stuff for any
reason, from monetary to public edification, it should be free to do
so. If such stuff is generally available, adults may decide for
themselves what they want to see or hear, & parents may decide for
their minor children &c. &c.
_______
Then there are the things,
Misunderstandings;
I know, in spite of what you say,
One thing that I really wanted:
I really wanted you.
This will leave you
Haunted in your mirror.
-- Stevie Nicks
Bob Harper
>
> I'll say this: racism never looks like racism from the viewpoint of
> those engaging in the racism. I don't believe Walt Disney was a
> racist. He simply peddled in racial stereotypes that were the norm of
> the day for white people, just like FDR and his cigarettes were a norm
> of the day in a country where 50% of adults smoked.
>
> I don't believe either of those American icons ever did anything with
> the intention of sticking it to a minority, were it blacks or non-
> smokers. They were simply employing visual norms and signals of the
> times that people back then understood...or thought they understood.
>
> Which is why those symbols and images are totally unnecessary in our
> time, where they will not only be not understood in their historical
> context, but where they will rightfully give offense to many, for the
> simple fact that we have matured as a people and a country. We no
> longer accept racism as being OK, even as an "artistic" expression,
> because it never was and it never will be an acceptable expression,
> today's teabagging racists notwithstanding.
They are, of course, horrible, unlike the liberals who obsess about race
and see racism everywhere except in their own oh-so-pure selves.
>
> Were he alive today, I doubt very much that Walt Disney would allow
> these racist images to appear in his films. Yes, he put them there in
> the first place, but times change and people change with the times,
> and there is no one who wanted his work to continue and to change with
> the times more than Walt Disney, especially in the case of Fantasia.
>
> I see no reason why the Disney Company should be under any obligation
> to reissue these films with their racist images, anymore than a
> composer should be forced to publish works that he wishes to destroy
> because they don't measure up to his mature vision of his art.
>
> It has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with basic human
> decency, something that the lily white members of this NG fail to
> realize.
>
> BTW - I don't see what you're complaining about. The images you so
> wish to see are readily available on You Tube, as others have pointed
> out. Go view them there to your heart's content.
George Orwell would be proud, or perhaps horrified.
Bob Harper
Gerard
What's that - "liberty heights"?
Bob Harper
A much more intelligent reaction than Mark's desire to shove everything
'offensive' down the Memory Hole.
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:f841a692-1250-49e8-a58f-
27a251...@o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
When I was younger and wore silly t-shirts during the summer, there was one I
wanted to buy, showing the face of Shostakovich. Unfortunately, it showed
him stuffing a cigarette to his mouth, and I found it distasteful, so I never
bought it.
Years later, I fulfilled a longtime ambition and went to a Halloween party as
Groucho Marx. I carried a cigar, but it was unlit and intact; not even a
visit from the mohel.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:c748b6bf-f5bb-46dc-9e10-
b0516e...@h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
> On May 1, 1:51�pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The intros were shortened because they're much too long -- and boring.
>> Trimming them helps the film, so I see no reason not to use the shorter
>> versions.
>
> What about the issue of "not letting us see it the way it was made,"
> so strongly pushed when it comes to bothersome ethnic and other
> depictions not being censored? I want to see it the way they made it,
> and if some of it was long or boring, that's part of the deal.
>
> After all, the "trimming it helps the film" argument applies equally
> well to the other bits that get elided for other reasons. "Cut it
> because it's boring" isn't really better (to me) than "cut it because
> it's offensive." Keep it all.
>
> And I actually do prefer the full duration of the interstitial
> segments. Some of the incidental bits always seemed abrupt or puzzling
> to me in their more familiar forms.
>
> JAC
A minor but related item: I eagerly bought the first volume of the "Rocky
and Bullwinkle" DVDs, hoping to see the old beloved program I saw as a kid.
Unfortunately, the meddling can be seen and heard from the very beginning:
the familiar theme song is completely missing (replaced with one of the
subsidiary themes, and an excuse that it is because "Jay Ward preferred it"
which sounds lame and which I strongly suspect is wholly false), the title of
the show has had words added, and Bill Conrad's voice replaced by that of an
impersonator (my guess would be Corey Burton).
I have watched it once, and have not bought any of the subsequent volumes. I
hate revisionism, even in a minor form such as this.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:0l7rt5pj31fd8ush2...@4ax.com:
I wonder if copies of that film have been seen by a certain royal family?
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:hrk3t0$m7a$1...@news.eternal-
september.org:
> Stereotypes can work both ways. One of my favorite moments came when Archie
> was going through the Yellow Pages for a lawyer -- and it /had/ to be a
> Jewish lawyer, because they're the best. "How can you tell which are
> Jewish?" asks Mike, and Archie runs down a list of stereotypically
> European-Jewish first names.
>
> Mike retorts with "Abraham Lincoln?" -- which is terrific, but Edith tops
> it: "I didn't know Lincoln was Jewish."
One of my favorite episodes was the one where Archie's close friend Stretch
Cunningham (in typical TV show fashion, a close friend never before seen or
referred to, and never afterwards either) has died and Archie finds he has
been asked to speak at the funeral. A Jewish funeral.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:R26Dn.166735$EE6.1...@newsfe23.iad:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> This film is another issue altogether. People forget that the stories
>> are NOT Harris's. They are his transcriptions of (presumably African)
>> folk tales told by slaves. (In the introduction, he says "If I have
>> captured the way they were actually told, then I have failed.) The
>> film, though, IS racist, in that it fails to put slavery -- or the
>> source of the stories -- in any context.
>
> Perhaps that's because it takes place years after the Civil War.
And the blacks in the film are sharecroppers, who may indeed have had hard
lives, and who were still subject to terrible racism, but were still free.
David Oberman
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Oberman wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:57:50 +0200, "Gerard"
>> <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ever heard about the holocaust?
>>
>> What's that?
>>
>> Remember the scene in Barry Levinson's LIBERTY HEIGHTS in which the
>> younger son dresses up like Hitler for Halloween? The grandmother is
>> about ready to have a coronary event, the mother is aghast & starts
>> yelling, & the older brother is nonchalantly bemused.
>
>What's that - "liberty heights"?
Smarty pants.
William Sommerwerck
>> in which the younger son dresses up like Hitler for Halloween?
>> The grandmother is about ready to have a coronary event, the
>> mother is aghast & starts yelling, & the older brother is
>> nonchalantly bemused.
> What's that -- "liberty heights"?
Liberty Heights Avenue, or Liberty Road. It and Reisterstown Road were
highly Jewish areas. I lived on Meadowside, just a few feet off Liberty.
William Sommerwerck
> volumes. I hate revisionism, even in a minor form such as this.
That's a shame. It isn't clear why this was done, but copyright might have
had something to do with it.
Regardless, are you going to deny yourself the pleasure of the Wossamotta U
fight song?
"Wossamotta, hats off to you.
To thy colors -- ochre and Alice blue --
We shall e'er be faithful and true.
Hail, Wossamotta, hail
(Better we should be in jail!)
Hey, Wossamotta U!"
Now, the name of the school could be considered offensive to some --
"Wotsamatta you?" is pidgin Italian.
Gerard
Thanks.
Probably the name of the town is obvious ;-)
But had Barry Levinson his own Heights (with scenes in it)?
mark
>
> A much more intelligent reaction than Mark's desire to shove everything
> 'offensive' down the Memory Hole.
>
> Bob Harper
Au contraire, I believe there's a difference between remembering or
identifying what is offensive and actively promoting the offense,
which can serve to rehabilitate the offense as being peachy keen for
today's audiences.
Case in point - the blatant racism of today's tea bagging crowd. Such
overt displays of racism would have been unthinkable 5 years ago, but
when mainstream Republicans - including Congress critters - show up at
their rallies and endorse their racism by not calling them on it, we
see the results.
Don't worry, Bob. Decent people are more than capable of ensuring that
the historic racism that infested the USA will not be shoved down any
memory hole. They're not the ones trying vainly to rewrite history
these days.
William Sommerwerck
>> Road were highly Jewish areas. I lived on Meadowside, just
>> a few feet off Liberty.
> Probably the name of the town is obvious ;-)
It's common knowledge that Levinson is a Baltimoron. As John Waters is and
Frank Zappa was.
Bob Harper
> On May 2, 9:01 am, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> A much more intelligent reaction than Mark's desire to shove everything
>> 'offensive' down the Memory Hole.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Au contraire, I believe there's a difference between remembering or
> identifying what is offensive and actively promoting the offense,
> which can serve to rehabilitate the offense as being peachy keen for
> today's audiences.
>
> Case in point - the blatant racism of today's tea bagging crowd.
You seem obsessed with that slur.
Such
> overt displays of racism would have been unthinkable 5 years ago, but
> when mainstream Republicans - including Congress critters - show up at
> their rallies and endorse their racism by not calling them on it, we
> see the results.
You seem convinced that the Tea Party movement is driven principally by
'blatant' racism. I say that's nonsense, and that your incessant
repetition of it will not change that fact, but instead says more about
your obsession than about any truth in your statements. I assume you've
seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eib2di9bq4
I'd say Mr. Postell says it quite well. He seems a very decent fellow.
Or do all 'decent' people have to think in lock step with you and your ilk?
Bob Harper
Matthew�B.�Tepper
the following letters to be typed in
>> I have watched it once, and have not bought any of the subsequent
>> volumes. I hate revisionism, even in a minor form such as this.
>
> That's a shame. It isn't clear why this was done, but copyright might
> have had something to do with it.
Quite possibly; but then why lie about it? And if they lie about this one
thing, what else will they lie about, just as casually?
> Regardless, are you going to deny yourself the pleasure of the
> Wossamotta U fight song?
>
> "Wossamotta, hats off to you.
> To thy colors -- ochre and Alice blue --
> We shall e'er be faithful and true.
> Hail, Wossamotta, hail
> (Better we should be in jail!)
> Hey, Wossamotta U!"
Yes, I will indeed deny myself that, because it is in the fifth season
(according to Wikipedia, anyway), and if I bought the fifth season then I
would have to buy all of the ones in between ... which is precisely what I
do NOT want to do.
> Now, the name of the school could be considered offensive to some --
> "Wotsamatta you?" is pidgin Italian.
And more specifically, New Yorkese.
number_six
wrote:
> On May 1, 10:51 pm, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 12:23 pm, Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > On 5/1/10 11:39 AM, Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > Then there was the business not too many years ago about a statue in
> > > > > Washington honoring Franklin D. Roosevelt. A photograph of him was
> > > > > used as a model, as I recall. In the photo, Roosevelt was holding a
> > > > > cigarette in its holder. It was something like a minor trademark.
> > > > > There were numerous photos of him with them; in an age when possibly
> > > > > the majority of Americans smoked, Roosevelt did too. But there was a
> > > > > howl from some quarters that including the cigarette in the statue
> > > > > would promote the evil habit, and so the cigarette was censored from
> > > > > the memorial -- despite the distortion of historical fact.
>
> > > > But Don, it was "for the children"! How can you be so callous as not to
> > > > care that you might forever scar their tender little psyches, or tempt
> > > > them down unrighteous paths? I'm shocked, shocked!
>
> > > > Bob Harper
>
> > > Ah. Yes. Franklin D. Roosevelt, frozen in bronze, corrupting society
> > > and our progeny by holding a vile, evil cigarette (as millions did in
> > > his time). I agree. Roosevelt smoked, but history must be changed.
> > > Just like the Soviet-era photos of top government leaders. As Stalin
> > > had them murdered, they disappeared, air-brushed, from published
> > > photos.
>
> > > Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Many of those photos are now documented in a book called "The
> > Commissar Vanishes."
>
> > I was annoyed with Columbia (Sony?) when a Simon & Garfunkel box set
> > came out and Simon's cig was airbrushed from the cover photo. Hate
> > cigarettes, but don't like revisionism either.
>
> DG on the other hand is happy to show Maurizio Pollini smoking a
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed. And in tennis, I recall Adriano Panatta, who won the Italian
and French titles in '76, and led Italia to the Davis Cup, was a
smoker. May help explain why he only had one great year, despite his
talent.
Here's the redacted photo of Simon; check the positioning of his
fingers --
http://www.amazon.com/Old-Friends-Simon-Garfunkel/dp/B00005NEQP
Gerard
> > > Liberty Heights Avenue, or Liberty Road. It and Reisterstown
> > > Road were highly Jewish areas. I lived on Meadowside, just
> > > a few feet off Liberty.
>
> > Probably the name of the town is obvious ;-)
>
> It's common knowledge that Levinson is a Baltimoron.
Sure, for those who know it.
I'm sure that most people on earth never heard about him.
Steve de Mena
> On May 1, 11:36 pm, O<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>> It's an interesting topic, particularly so that Roosevelt himself tried
>> to hide his crippling disability from the public while he was in
>> office. There's no pictures of FDR in his wheelchair and he used heavy
>> braces to walk the few steps up to a podium to deliver a speech,
>> leaning on a cane and propped up by some aide. FDR tried to remove his
>> own disability from his life image, now others are trying to hide one
>> of his vices.
>
> I understand FDR's motivation. You show something like that, and
> that's what everyone thinks you are. FDR's condition was never a
> secret to the American people, but it wasn't important.
I have seen a picture of FDR in a wheelchair (and I think another is
known to exist):
Steve
Steve de Mena
> One of my favorite episodes was the one where Archie's close friend Stretch
> Cunningham (in typical TV show fashion, a close friend never before seen or
> referred to, and never afterwards either) has died and Archie finds he has
> been asked to speak at the funeral. A Jewish funeral.
James Cromwell played Stretch Cunningham. I think he was on the show
for years.
Steve
Steve de Mena
>> If we entirely forget how things were in the past, are we not then
>> leaving ourselves open to repeat it? I say the material should be
>> available with an explanation. Let people see and understand how
>> completely people in "the good old days" were surrounded by
>> casual, unthinking racism, just as fish are surrounded by water.
>
> O'Connor's insistence) between the first and second seasons.
>
> The original Archie Bunker (modeled on a British character from a similar
> sitcom) was a vicious racist and anti-Semite. The revised Archie doesn't
> hate /anyone/. His casual bigotry is simply the "common-sense", unthinking
> way he sees the world. This is much more effective as satire, because it's
> the casual bigotry that's the real problem.
Did the show really change between the first and second seasons?
Maybe I am too young to remember but I thought the character was
pretty consistent the first few years, with major changes later on,
especially during the spinoff (when Edith was gone).
Steve
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:aJSdnXc1XK51QUDW...@giganews.com:
I assume that's Fala on his lap; who's the little girl?
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7MOdnTpgN_X4fEDW...@giganews.com:
Huh, that's interesting -- I simply forgot about him. I can only guess
it's because I briefly did not own a television around the time those
episodes were aired. I did not bring one with me when I moved to San
Francisco in September 1973, and my parents gifted me with one on a visit
sometime the following year. From then on, for many years, their regular
Hanukkah present for me was a year's subscription to TV Guide.
The funny thing is that Cromwell's name was unfamiliar to me until I saw
him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him in many shows and movies.
number_six
> snip <
> The funny thing is that Cromwell's name was unfamiliar to me until I saw
> him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him in many shows and movies.
>
A fine actor -- equally convincing as a kindly farmer in Babe, and a
corrupt cop in LA Confidential.
I too had no recollection of him from All in the Family.
William Sommerwerck
>> to me until I saw him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him
>> in many shows and movies.
> A fine actor -- equally convincing as a kindly farmer in Babe,
> and a corrupt cop in LA Confidential.
> I too had no recollection of him from All in the Family.
Though I remember the character, I have no memory whatever of what he looked
like.
Had he been acting in 1967 (which, in theory, he could have been), and had
Gene Roddenberry anticipated that there would be a film with Zephram
Cochran, he could have played Cochran in the TV show. Unfortunately, the
role went to the dismal -- can't think of his name.
mark
I assume you've
> seen this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eib2di9bq4
> I'd say Mr. Postell says it quite well. He seems a very decent fellow.
> Or do all 'decent' people have to think in lock step with you and your ilk?
>
You've gotta hand it to the reporter who found the one black guy at
the tea bagger rally.
Your point?
William Sommerwerck
>> a similar sitcom) was a vicious racist and anti-Semite. The revised
>> Archie doesn't hate /anyone/. His casual bigotry is simply the
>> "common-sense", unthinking way he sees the world. This is much
>> more effective as satire, because it's the casual bigotry that's the
>> real problem.
> Did the show really change between the first and second seasons?
Yes, it did. Archie was originally a really nasty person. Jean Stapleton
played Edith more or less "straight" -- she is not the lovable dingbat she
becomes in the second season.
My favorite line in the first episode comes when Mike appears after having
shaved. "I liked him better with the beard", Archie remarks. Me, too.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
the following letters to be typed in
>>> The funny thing is that Cromwell's name was unfamiliar
>>> to me until I saw him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him
>>> in many shows and movies.
>
>> A fine actor -- equally convincing as a kindly farmer in Babe,
>> and a corrupt cop in LA Confidential.
>> I too had no recollection of him from All in the Family.
>
> Though I remember the character, I have no memory whatever of what he
> looked like.
>
> Had he been acting in 1967 (which, in theory, he could have been), and
> had Gene Roddenberry anticipated that there would be a film with Zephram
> Cochran, he could have played Cochran in the TV show.
IMDb shows no television credits for him prior to 1974.
He might be a good choice to play Louis Spohr, in a world where such a
thing might occur, on account of his height.
> Unfortunately, the role went to the dismal -- can't think of his name.
Glenn Corbett, as a quick Googling shows.
Kimba W Lion
>Here's the redacted photo of Simon; check the positioning of his
>fingers --
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Old-Friends-Simon-Garfunkel/dp/B00005NEQP
We live in very sick times.
I wouldn't be surprised if cigarettes are the reason GSN has abandoned all the
B&W shows in their library--because of the eeeevil images of Garry Moore or
Alan King holding a cigarette...
--
Intelligent Life Is All Around Us
http://intelligentlife.info/
pgaron
> On May 2, 1:35 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > snip <
> > The funny thing is that Cromwell's name was unfamiliar to me until I saw
> > him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him in many shows and movies.
>
> A fine actor -- equally convincing as a kindly farmer in Babe, and a
> corrupt cop in LA Confidential.
And as Jack Bauer's father in the 2007 season of "24" (the only weekly
TV drama or comedy show that I really like, and can bear to watch). I
was a little disappointed, however, that Donald Sutherland didn't get
the part.
pgaron
pgaron
wrote:
> Had he been acting in 1967 (which, in theory, he could have been), and had
> Gene Roddenberry anticipated that there would be a film with Zephram
> Cochran, he could have played Cochran in the TV show. Unfortunately, the
> role went to the dismal -- can't think of his name.
According to the IMDB, Cromwell was born in 1940 and began acting in
TV shows in 1974.
pgaron
pgaron
Forgot to add that he is one of those lucky few character actors who
has been steadily employed throughout his career.
pgaron
Bob Harper
You really can't let go of the nastiness, can you?
>
> Your point?
That you are wrong in your description of, and analysis of the
motivation of, the people who style themselves members of the
Tea-*Party*. That you are, in short, a bigot. From the Left, to be sure,
but then that's where the 'best' are found these days.
Bob Harper
Kip Williams
> On 5/2/10 3:29 PM, mark wrote:
>> You've gotta hand it to the reporter who found the one black guy at
>> the tea bagger rally.
>
> You really can't let go of the nastiness, can you?
That's the name they chose themselves. (I first typed "hose themselves,"
but that's wrong -- should have been "hosed".) They hotly defended it
for a while, too.
And of course, it's not hard to find the black guy at a rally. They
always let him stand up front where the camera can see him.
Kip W
Allen
> Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:aJSdnXc1XK51QUDW...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 5/2/10 5:44 AM, The Historian wrote:
>>> On May 1, 11:36 pm, O<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>>>> It's an interesting topic, particularly so that Roosevelt himself tried
>>>> to hide his crippling disability from the public while he was in
>>>> office. There's no pictures of FDR in his wheelchair and he used heavy
>>>> braces to walk the few steps up to a podium to deliver a speech,
>>>> leaning on a cane and propped up by some aide. FDR tried to remove his
>>>> own disability from his life image, now others are trying to hide one
>>>> of his vices.
>>> I understand FDR's motivation. You show something like that, and
>>> that's what everyone thinks you are. FDR's condition was never a
>>> secret to the American people, but it wasn't important.
>> I have seen a picture of FDR in a wheelchair (and I think another is
>> known to exist):
>>
>> http://bit.ly/ct7X4V
>
> I assume that's Fala on his lap; who's the little girl?
>
little girl is one of his granddaughters. And I have a feeling that
this picture is from Warm Springs. Incidentally, I had many friends who
had polio, including a few who died. I had either a mild case or perhaps
viral meningitis when I was seven, which because of resulting permanent
neurological problems kept me from performing music. Polio was a
terrible disease and everyone who was even remotely touched by it gave
heartfelt thanks when it was stamped out.
Allen
Allen
marketed under the name "Rocky and His Friends". I couldn't believe that
someone had come up with something that was entertaining to both
children and adults. One of the truly greats of TV history--not exactly
a crowded category.
Allen
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
That's because the liberals are always asking where he is.
-Owen
Allen
comvention, but I am amazed at the number of women. Don't they realize
that in the times they want to go back to, women's only functions were
to feed and breed--and, oh yes, keep their mouths shut.
Allen
Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:9PKdnf0MkI85ukPW...@giganews.com:
> I first became exposed to Bullwinkle when segments were being test marketed
> under the name "Rocky and His Friends". I couldn't believe that someone had
> come up with something that was entertaining to both children and adults.
> One of the truly greats of TV history--not exactly a crowded category.
I don't know from test marketing, but as I recall, that was the original
title of the series.
Steve de Mena
> Steve de Mena<st...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:aJSdnXc1XK51QUDW...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 5/2/10 5:44 AM, The Historian wrote:
>>> On May 1, 11:36 pm, O<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's an interesting topic, particularly so that Roosevelt himself tried
>>>> to hide his crippling disability from the public while he was in
>>>> office. There's no pictures of FDR in his wheelchair and he used heavy
>>>> braces to walk the few steps up to a podium to deliver a speech,
>>>> leaning on a cane and propped up by some aide. FDR tried to remove his
>>>> own disability from his life image, now others are trying to hide one
>>>> of his vices.
>>>
>>> I understand FDR's motivation. You show something like that, and
>>> that's what everyone thinks you are. FDR's condition was never a
>>> secret to the American people, but it wasn't important.
>>
>> I have seen a picture of FDR in a wheelchair (and I think another is
>> known to exist):
>>
>> http://bit.ly/ct7X4V
>
> I assume that's Fala on his lap; who's the little girl?
I think the picture was taken for a March of Dimes (founded in 1938 by
FDR) campaign. So I assume she was the "poster girl" for the
campaign. Oh, I think this was why Roosevelt was put on the back of
the dime (coin).
Steve
Steve de Mena
>>
>>> snip<
>>> The funny thing is that Cromwell's name was unfamiliar to me until I saw
>>> him in "Babe." Since then, I've seen him in many shows and movies.
>>
>> A fine actor -- equally convincing as a kindly farmer in Babe, and a
>> corrupt cop in LA Confidential.
>
> And as Jack Bauer's father in the 2007 season of "24" (the only weekly
> TV drama or comedy show that I really like, and can bear to watch). I
> was a little disappointed, however, that Donald Sutherland didn't get
> the part.
>
> pgaron
I've suspected they (Kiefer & his dad) don't really get along.
Steve
Beaver Lad
> marketed under the name "Rocky and His Friends". I couldn't believe that
> someone had come up with something that was entertaining to both
> children and adults. One of the truly greats of TV history--not exactly
> a crowded category.
> Allen
===================
I saw it when it was new, too�and liked it.
Years later, when I met my wife-to-be, she revealed that she too had
been a fan, and said that she'd still be watching Rocky and Bullwinkle,
if it was on. This is one of the reasons I decided to marry her.
Thirty-two years later...
I'm dismayed and disappointed by the alterations in the DVD set, and
will not be adding it to my list of Musts.
mark
>
> That you are wrong in your description of, and analysis of the
> motivation of, the people who style themselves members of the
> Tea-*Party*. That you are, in short, a bigot. From the Left, to be sure,
> but then that's where the 'best' are found these days.
>
Is it wrong to be bigoted against racists? One of the hallmarks of
being a bigot is being intolerant, and I am intolerant of racists.
Another hallmark of being a bigot is an irrational hatred of people
for traits they were born with and had no control over, ie: hating
people for being a woman, a black, a Jew a gay person. No one is born
a racist. It's learned, just like no one is born a Christian or a
Muslim, it's usually imposed by one's parents. Ergo, one can hardly be
bigoted against tea baggers as they weren't born tea baggers. One can
be intolerant of their racism without being a bigot, and I am. I see
nothing irrational in being intolerant of the racism of the tea
baggers.
BTW - I find it interesting that it's mostly the Republican/religious
types in this thread who are bitching about Disney not restoring
racist footage to their films. That seems in line with the imaginary
reverse discrimination/I want my country back/projection that the tea
baggers are constantly whining over. I guess a leopard doesn't change
its spots.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:020520101944159481%beav...@febloo.ralnig:
> I saw it when it ["Rocky and His Friends"] was new, too�and liked it.
>
> Years later, when I met my wife-to-be, she revealed that she too had
> been a fan, and said that she'd still be watching Rocky and Bullwinkle,
> if it was on. This is one of the reasons I decided to marry her.
> Thirty-two years later...
>
> I'm dismayed and disappointed by the alterations in the DVD set, and
> will not be adding it to my list of Musts.
Don't just take my word -- read the Amazon.com reviews, many of which
confirm my complaints in detail.
The cynic in me (and believe it or not, I can be cynical from time to time,
like ALL the time) wonders if there will be a later "improved" version on
Blu-Ray in which they will set most of these problems right, and then when
some later format comes along a super-duper "more improved" one, and....
Mr. Mike
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I've just posted the following review to Amazon. It appears Amazon has
>finally gotten around to providing separate "review spaces" for different
>editions of the same film. I am thus the first (and only) person to "review"
>the not-yet-released Blu-ray version of "Fantasia".
I really don't understand why people post "reviews" of DVDs and so
forth at amazon.com prior to the item actually being released (I have
long railed against Hawaii Five-O DVDs being "reviewed" in this
fashion.)
If I read an amazon.com "review," I expect it will tell me something
about the item -- for example, is anything missing, what is the
video/sound quality like, etc.-- so I can use the review to help me
make up my mind as to whether I want to buy it or not.
Gerard
??
Is tea not a typical woman-thing in the US?
Don't they have a little more time to be at parties (than the husbands who are
supposed to make the money they need to spend)?
Why should the women think different?
Gerard
Just curious: why is he 'something' *from the left* ?
I didn't read all his posts (mostly not those in OT threads), and I didn't see
anything "left" in his views.
In this thread he was more or less saying:
"being racist was the norm, so racism was OK because we all did it; we _all_
were racists; so we were no racists; so Disney was no racist".
This seems to me a typical view of someone who defends racism.
"Not a "left" view, I thought.