So, responding to each of Joe’s points: 1. My understanding is the HBO is working with recognized experts to develop not just didactic material but informed conversation among them. I applaud this approach, rather than punting to the Wikis. HBO is taking their responsibility to contextualize this seriously.
2. Highly (highly) unlikely. HBO is really not just making a knee jerk response to a Twitter storm, but is informed by some pretty serious scholars, film makers and film critics. Most of these people are decidedly not in favor of taking the film out of circulation. Were HBO to sit on the film and never return it, they would be pissing fb almost everybody who really cares about the issue, on any side. I do agree that it would have been preferable to announce some kind of time frame for bringing it back; I assume the uncertainties introduced by the pandemic and the resistance to police violence (both of which would impact the people involved in making the commentary) are the main reasons for the silence. 3. Strongly (strongly) disagree, based on many decades of talking to people who have watched and either loved or hated the film, with little understanding of the underlying issues. It really is hard to communicate the impact of GWTW. While there is that fraction of people under 40 who almost never watch a film made before they were born, even among young adults classic films have a large following. And this particular film/book has the largest following of all. I suppose the best analogy would be to LOTR - both a book and film (in this case both trilogies) That have deep and wide fandoms with huge cultural footprint. If at some point in the future there were elements of the story that were seen as offensive (indeed, for some that time is now), there may be seen value in pairing at least the films with some background on, say Catholicism and the British experience in both the Industrial Revolution and the two great wars of the early and mid 20th century. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 2:38 PM Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Disclaimer: I have never seen either Birth Of A Nation nor Gone With The > Wind, nor do I have any plan to do so at this time. With that out of the > way, and returning briefly to the specific decision: > > There was an earlier point made by PGage Wednesday night that the headline > was misleading, because WarnerMedia promised "it will return with a > discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very > depictions." > > To which my response is: > 1. Given that it would take about a day to create an intertitle that says > the first two sentences from the statement spoken to Variety in their item, > with a link to hbomax.com/gwtw, which could start with a link to the > Analysis section of the existing Wikipedia entry about the film and grow > from there, I fail to see how there's a need to pull the film (it ain't > like we didn't know this was a problem on June 8); > 2. The failure to provide a definitive return date given the reasonably > extensive content that a simple Google search returns on the topic leads me > to believe that the actual goal is to not return this film to the library > and let it go away; > 3. If a viewer is really committed to spending three-and-two-thirds hours > on an 81-year-old film, I'm guessing they know the metaphorical score > already. > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:40 AM 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV < >> tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> I've seen it two or three times (nearly getting into a fight the last >>> time I saw it in a theatre) and, its racial politics aside, find it a lousy >>> movie. It's bloated, all of the characters are static, ending up either >>> dead or exactly where they started psychologically, and the two male leads >>> obviously dislike their characters. McDaniel struggles bravely with her >>> role, but there really is little of value in the whole thing. >>> >> >> In the days before TV there was just the movie theater. And the movie >> playing there changed frequently, so if one missed a movie during its run >> it was conceivable that one would never see it. And over the course of time >> moviegoers would have seen many movies that they would have forgotten soon >> after they left the theater and a few that stuck with them for months or >> years afterward. GWTW is one of those movies that stuck with viewers and >> got into the lists of best movies over the decades. A lot of that had to do >> with people who loved the book and were happy to see how it was brought to >> the screen and a lot were swept away from the romance. Today, with access >> to the movie, as well as film criticism, only a click away, we can form a >> different impression of GWTW. When the question of repertory movie theaters >> booking GWTW came up a couple of years ago I realized that I saw the movie >> when it was a massive event on network TV back in 1978 or so. Then it was >> shown on two nights and broken up for commercials. So I got a DVD from a >> used book store and then watched the movie and a commentary track from a >> film historian. >> >> I agree with Dave's assessment. The script went through several hands and >> the movie went through different directors and it shows. They were over >> budget and rushed for time and a lot of sloppiness remains in the film. One >> scene that sticks out to me was a scene with Scarlett and Ashley in a barn. >> Through the whole scene Leslie Howard talks with an English accent. I can't >> understand why they would print that and not do another take. >> >> I've also seen Birth of a Nation and I realized while watching GWTW that >> a lot of Griffith's visual language was copied into it. Since there was a >> 24 year gap between the movies I'm not sure if it was expected that viewers >> would resonate with those cues or just that was the way the era was going >> to be depicted. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFpa8X9nVj8S1L4XwcUaTx6%3DaY4Zyyr22yoFAMTx%3Dzx-Q%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFpa8X9nVj8S1L4XwcUaTx6%3DaY4Zyyr22yoFAMTx%3Dzx-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BePWxsssUUXSxijO54PDmwoX1mPRGycLPZHt7Rtma9sNg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BePWxsssUUXSxijO54PDmwoX1mPRGycLPZHt7Rtma9sNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2BnTZuGKYePCs25_Rp2YQJfE6MC7pbCm-F6qHUiSksuyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
