Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 6:09:27 GMT
Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering. Yes, I was taught about this in school in the mid 80's. Yep, we got that lesson too. I like that it's stuck in the head after all these years, that's a good sign. Historically, though -- and this is my film major background speaking -- we're in a very fortunate era compared to those previous. Nowadays in the Information Age, it's very rare for a piece of media to be restricted by what's broadcast on television or shown in theatres. (To use a very mild example, no longer must we only know The Brain of Morbius by its cutdown 60-minute version on VHS.) We can thank the internet for that. If you want to buy something, you can get it from Amazon, visit the Internet Archive, borrow it from a friend or purchase it secondhand from an eBay seller. That flow of information is very difficult to stifle these days and, as a result, we're seeing series like She-Ra and the Princesses of Power which has a predominantly female cast and explores LGBTQIA+ themes. The latter a previously marginalised subject matter. The influence of things like the Hays Code has been visibly getting smaller and smaller. We've seen stories on poverty, mixed-race marriages and homosexuality since then. Positive representations in all three. Personally, I hope the focus remains on creating more media representing those marginalised groups, rather than leaning towards trying to simplify and "purify" past history. As someone part of the A in LGBTQIA+, I'd much prefer content that actively tries to include me rather than papering over the media that didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jun 11, 2020 8:47:49 GMT
I find it difficult to find sympathy for people from an oppressed community (homosexuality was Still illegal within Gatiss’ life time, albeit only early in his childhood) who employed symbolism known to be mocking of another oppressed community (black face). Especially when they known otherwise to be socially progressive and liberal (Gatiss, Walliams, Lucas, Fielding etc etc etc).
|
|
|
Post by stcoop on Jun 11, 2020 9:46:22 GMT
‘The Mighty Boosh’ gone form Netflix as well now. Once again, I wouldn't call it blackface in the racist sense (unlike 'Little Britain') but we are where we are.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 11, 2020 10:08:29 GMT
I find it difficult to find sympathy for people from an oppressed community (homosexuality was Still illegal within Gatiss’ life time, albeit only early in his childhood) who employed symbolism known to be mocking of another oppressed community (black face). Especially when they known otherwise to be socially progressive and liberal (Gatiss, Walliams, Lucas, Fielding etc etc etc). Maybe that's why they thought they could get away with it. The character of Herr Lipp also showed them making fun at the darker side of homosexuality. Catherine Tate's show regularly made fun of the homosexual stereotype. It was about as funny as toothache but it wasn't offensive in as much as I doubt Tate is homophobic. One of the interesting factors with Papa Lazarou is he makes himself white (and camp) in the final episode of Series 3 in the form of Keith Drop, another stereotype, which I personally found very funny. I'm a member of the LGBTQIA community by the way. I also think it's important to be able to laugh at ourselves. My sense of humour has saved my life. But, as johnhurtdoctor says, we still have the DVD's and I wouldn't have bought a sub to Netflix to watch League anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 11, 2020 10:26:41 GMT
So basically we have 2 choices.. Watch whatever you want on physical media uncensored, or just ignore whatever tv show/movie on any platform you subscribe to.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 11, 2020 10:28:48 GMT
So basically we have 2 choices.. Watch whatever you want on physical media uncensored, or just ignore whatever tv show/movie on any platform you subscribe to. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 11, 2020 10:56:01 GMT
So basically we have 2 choices.. Watch whatever you want on physical media uncensored, or just ignore whatever tv show/movie on any platform you subscribe to. Correct. Yep.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jun 11, 2020 21:02:41 GMT
Turns out League of Gentlemen is still on BBC IPlayer, so it may be a BritBox issue
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 11, 2020 23:27:17 GMT
Turns out League of Gentlemen is still on BBC IPlayer, so it may be a BritBox issue Look at the title of the thread again lol
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jun 12, 2020 10:00:00 GMT
Turns out League of Gentlemen is still on BBC IPlayer, so it may be a BritBox issue Look at the title of the thread again lol Lol i did. Im meaning that iPlayer seem to be the only place that hasnt taken it down
|
|
|
Post by polly on Jun 12, 2020 18:11:24 GMT
Whatever the reasons behind this, it just reinforces the lesson that streaming is not a replacement for ownership. If you love something, buy physical, so it can't be taken away or altered. Throwing away your discs in favor of platforms like Netflix just gives up what little control we consumers had...
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 15, 2020 19:45:19 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity. *nods* I'm all for content warnings. That quest for purity can prove rather dangerous. The Motion Picture Code (better known colloquially as the Hays Code) was created with the intention of "purging immorality" from Hollywood films. That meant violence, harsh language, eroticism and all the expected controversial themes, but it also extended into areas that became damaged by censure. Filmmakers couldn't present stories that contravened the "correct standards of living", this included depictions of poverty, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality, all of which were Code violations. All of which were used as excuses not to talk about the subject matters. Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering. I agree with content warnings, but to take up a slightly contrary position: anti-censorship can also be used to create revisionist history and kill conversations as much as censorship can. While the details you provide here are interesting Wolfie, too often I see call to 'not censor' something, like old movies or TV, as being more base and impulsive, born not out of historical respect but personal insult: like liking Gone with the Wind makes you some kind of accessory to slavery and systemic abuse of black people in the US. Except it doesn't, and no one who is pointing out the troubling aspects is saying it does. So, as far as people like that are concerned, better to just put a blanket 'don't censor' on it and not think about the media you consume lest it push you out of your comfort zone.
It's the same problem as the fallout of Talons a few years back - too many people thought with their nostalgia, seeing criticism as an attack on them, and not with, well, critical thought. Like GotW or Fawlty, acknowledging Talons has a giant red flag in it doesn't make the work worthless, or you a bad person for liking it - but pretending it doesn't exist because you personally like the story around said flag is dishonest. Even the old chestnut of 'well, people didn't know better' is actually contradicted by history - people had big problems with Gotw or Birth of A Nation when they came out. Asian actors had been working for years by the time Talons came out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 23:08:23 GMT
*nods* I'm all for content warnings. That quest for purity can prove rather dangerous. The Motion Picture Code (better known colloquially as the Hays Code) was created with the intention of "purging immorality" from Hollywood films. That meant violence, harsh language, eroticism and all the expected controversial themes, but it also extended into areas that became damaged by censure. Filmmakers couldn't present stories that contravened the "correct standards of living", this included depictions of poverty, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality, all of which were Code violations. All of which were used as excuses not to talk about the subject matters. Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering. I agree with content warnings, but to take up a slightly contrary position: anti-censorship can also be used to create revisionist history and kill conversations as much as censorship can. While the details you provide here are interesting Wolfie, too often I see call to 'not censor' something, like old movies or TV, as being more base and impulsive, born not out of historical respect but personal insult: like liking Gone with the Wind makes you some kind of accessory to slavery and systemic abuse of black people in the US. Except it doesn't, and no one who is pointing out the troubling aspects is saying it does. So, as far as people like that are concerned, better to just put a blanket 'don't censor' on it and not think about the media you consume lest it push you out of your comfort zone. It's the same problem as the fallout of Talons a few years back - too many people thought with their nostalgia, seeing criticism as an attack on them, and not with, well, critical thought. Like GotW or Fawlty, acknowledging Talons has a giant red flag in it doesn't make the work worthless, or you a bad person for liking it - but pretending it doesn't exist because you personally like the story around said flag is dishonest. Even the old chestnut of 'well, people didn't know better' is actually contradicted by history - people had big problems with Gotw or Birth of A Nation when they came out. Asian actors had been working for years by the time Talons came out.
Yeah, and that's a perfectly logical stance to take as well. A lot of it is best approached on a case-by-case basis. The anti-censorship mentality from a historical perspective comes from a desire to preserve the evidence of a practice, rather than the practice itself. Or should. But I agree, it shouldn't be employed unilaterally across every piece of media in a blanket rule, nor should it be used as an excuse not to discuss the issues, either way. There has to be a reasoned discussion behind the why of it. Why discard it? Why preserve it? What does it actually bring to that body of history? And I think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the personal, individual drives behind why this is such a contentious discussion in the first place. With a lot of these pieces of media, it's about being able to like something while admitting that it has flaws. To use a personal example, I love Marco Polo. It's one of my favourite First Doctor stories. I don't consider the yellowface employed there to be an integral element of my enjoyment of it. If you took that away, it could only improve it. I'd like to know why it was possible to get half-Asian Zienia Merton to play Ping Cho, but no one for the Court of the Khan or Tegana 1 himself. What was actually standing in the way of that? Was it a lack of time, a lack of wisdom, a lack of resources? Was it a cultural blindspot? A lack of channels to Asian acting communities? And if any of those threads are pulled... What lessons can we learn from them and take into the future, as a result? That's a critical discussion worth having. Something worth analysing beyond the like and dislike of personal taste. I think a lot of people get caught up on the word "critical" because it means something very different depending on the field being discussed. It's not used in the film theory sense to derogate or belittle a story. It's about analysis beyond the scope of an individual's like or dislike. Too often it's about a clash of opinion, rather than trying to find out -- well, why did this work out the way that it did? What were the mechanics behind it? (1 - The choice for Tegana feels informed, in part, by Derren Nesbitt's familiarity with William Russell, or vice versa. The pair appeared together at least a dozen times prior on The Adventures of Sir Lancelot, frequently with Nesbitt in a villainous role.)
|
|