I think shows like that would get boycotted into oblivion. Just thinking about some of the politically incorrect stuff on Night Court. Derogatory jokes about a gays and transgender, racial stereotypes were pretty prevalent in the writing.
Not a TV show obviously but I wonder if Blazing Saddles could even be made today.
Not a TV show obviously but I wonder if Blazing Saddles could even be made today.
I think it's similar to "All in the Family". The humour is about the dumb kind of comments Archie makes. We're really laughing at him, not with him, or empathizing with his point of view. In "Blazing Saddles" you have the strong protagonist, and you are laughing at the racists' stupidity. One movie that comes to mind is "Idiocracy". The smart people in the movie don't say anything really racist or bigoted, while the obviously moronic characters do.
I think it's similar to "All in the Family". The humour is about the dumb kind of comments Archie makes. We're really laughing at him, not with him, or empathizing with his point of view. In "Blazing Saddles" you have the strong protagonist, and you are laughing at the racists' stupidity. One movie that comes to mind is "Idiocracy". The smart people in the movie don't say anything really racist or bigoted, while the obviously moronic characters do.
All true. But Blazing Saddles still couldn't be made today. Even though it's clearly anti-racist, the language it uses and attitudes it satirizes have become taboo to portray, even when they're portrayed as idiotic.
A comedy about racism would extremely hard to get made today, full-stop. But back in the 60s and 70s they made comedies about everything - racism (Blazing Saddles, All in the Family), pedophilia (Lolita), Nazis (the Producers, Hogan's Heroes), etc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-01-2017 at 08:38 AM.
I think it's similar to "All in the Family". The humour is about the dumb kind of comments Archie makes. We're really laughing at him, not with him, or empathizing with his point of view. In "Blazing Saddles" you have the strong protagonist, and you are laughing at the racists' stupidity. One movie that comes to mind is "Idiocracy". The smart people in the movie don't say anything really racist or bigoted, while the obviously moronic characters do.
Conservatives who watched all in the family thought Archie was the hero and the show was making fun of liberals.
I think it's similar to "All in the Family". The humour is about the dumb kind of comments Archie makes. We're really laughing at him, not with him, or empathizing with his point of view. In "Blazing Saddles" you have the strong protagonist, and you are laughing at the racists' stupidity. One movie that comes to mind is "Idiocracy". The smart people in the movie don't say anything really racist or bigoted, while the obviously moronic characters do.
One pattern I notice is that it's a lot easier to have racial humour that talks about whites embracing and appropriating black culture than it is to show those who disparage it. While Atlanta definitely has an element of showing systemic racism, characters are more likely to interact with white folk who are more inappropriately pro black culture. Get Out had a similar commentary. I think that there's a safety that you can show that type of racial bias without being too confrontational.
From the couple episodes I've seen, Dear White People is a bit more balanced in showing both types; it'll also have a harder time reaching main stream because it does have a more uncomfortable tone.
-
Okay, unrelated Netflix recommendation; for the documentary crowd, Finding Vivian Maier is great, about a nanny who was posthumously discovered to be an absolutely brilliant street photographer.
All true. But Blazing Saddles still couldn't be made today. Even though it's clearly anti-racist, the language it uses and attitudes it satirizes have become taboo to portray, even when they're portrayed as idiotic.
A comedy about racism would extremely hard to get made today, full-stop. But back in the 60s and 70s they made comedies about everything - racism (Blazing Saddles, All in the Family), pedophilia (Lolita), Nazis (the Producers, Hogan's Heroes), etc.
I dunno.
You see some pretty edgy stuff today still. In "Million Ways to Die in the West" they play a shooting game that has the participant shoot at tin facsimiles of black people stealing watermelons from a field.
Tropic Thunder had a major character in blackface.
Gran Torino lets the racist epitaphs fly.
Last edited by Oil Stain; 09-02-2017 at 02:48 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oil Stain For This Useful Post:
Cliff, you either need to see more current movies or stop looking back at that era with the twisted view of nostalgia. Lolita was re-made in the late 90s and much more explicit then the original. The Reader in 2008 about a grown woman and a 15 year old boy. Many other movies about taboo subjects.
Tarantino's and Django Unchained laugh at your assertion movies about race and language like that can't be made today. All of Tarantino's films are essentially comedies IMO. Comedies like White Chicks and Borat pushed that envelope as well. Borat is just as out there with it as Blazing Saddles was.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JFK For This Useful Post:
You see some pretty edgy stuff today still. In "Million Ways to Die in the West" they play a shooting game that has the participant shoot at tin facsimiles of black people stealing watermelons from a field.
Tropic Thunder had a major character in blackface.
Gran Torino lets the racist epitaphs fly.
Yeah I think pretty much every adult cartoon significantly eclipses any sort of racist satire from the past. Some of that may have been viewed as more controversial than today given the state of race relations and what was viewed as "proper" entertainment, but it certainly used much more extremely in things like Family Guy.
In fact, I would argue that if Blazing Saddles was made today it would be much worse as the satire had to be much more subtle in those days to not insult the people who actually carried those views (usually people in powerful positions). It's subtlety in satire that seems to have seen a drop, at least in North American media.
I just watched the OA. Wtf? Did anyone else watch it and if so, can you please tell me what it was about.
I think it was kinda pseudo-deep, meaning that it was strange enough to make you think that maybe there was all this hidden meaning and connection behind everything, but I'm not convinced there was anything deep.
Spoilering just in case:
Spoiler!
It's essentially the sci-fi cliche of where aliens come to earth to save humanity, but they only tell a few people the key to this salvation, and nobody really believes them (Cassandra complex). Except these may not be aliens in the conventional sense or some sort of interdimensional mystic force. But rather than focusing on the big picture, it focuses on this study of imprisonment and victimization. Another cliche: the scientist who wants to understand, but simply can't because he is a person of fact and not of faith.
All of which would be okay, that could be a refreshing take in the focus on the intimate rather than big picture; except that the pacing sucked. Is Prairie going to get her peeps together this episode so she can continue to spend the whole night telling them another chapter of her story in which she's still imprisoned? Yup. Midway through it really started to bore me, which is too bad because I think there were some interesting ideas.
I think there's a difficult thing in superheroish origin stories of which this is one: it's an awful cliche to show someone's powers right away. (I don't remember what it was but there was another series that came out around the same time and the hero discovered in the first episode after returning from an apparent abduction that he could throw cars around and alter the path of bullets. Boring arc. ) It can be really rewarding to take the viewer on this long journey of the hero's self-discovery of their powers. Here, there's the opposite problem: Prairie's journey of discovery is surrounded by dull and depressing elements.
Fringe nailed this problem better than any other show I can recall. The self-discovery was a really long arc, but the show was still telling great stories at the same time.
Anyway, I'm hopeful that now that they've got all the backstory exposition out of the way, season 2 might be better.
"Silence" was pretty bad for Martin Scorsese film. The cinematography made my eyes hurt. There were some interesting themes examined, but it was a little too long and paralleling "Apocalypse Now" in many ways.
I think it was kinda pseudo-deep, meaning that it was strange enough to make you think that maybe there was all this hidden meaning and connection behind everything, but I'm not convinced there was anything deep.
Question for you. Is Prairie really what she thinks she is, or is she just mentally ill? You seem to think she isn't crazy. I'm not sure there's any good reason to prefer that view.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I watched the documentary on bitcoin last night. Was pretty good, learned some stuff from it.
I find it funny the one guy went to jail for selling bitcoins to someone who then sold them to people who used them to buy drugs. Like they say in the movie, how is it any different than a bank machine giving money to someone to buy drugs? I mean there is likely more to the story but that seemed dumb to me.
I watched the documentary on bitcoin last night. Was pretty good, learned some stuff from it.
I find it funny the one guy went to jail for selling bitcoins to someone who then sold them to people who used them to buy drugs. Like they say in the movie, how is it any different than a bank machine giving money to someone to buy drugs? I mean there is likely more to the story but that seemed dumb to me.
Documentaries are like some guy spouting out at the bar, they can tell an engaging story, but it's never the whole story and drama always trumps truth and accuracy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pseudoreality For This Useful Post:
