Frankly, my dear,

[Leonhard]

And Leni Riefenstal was Jewish - correct?

Yes, (actually on second thought I'm not sure) though she was charged with being a nazi sympathiser after the war. I mean, she personally collaborated with The Führer, however she also denied knowing about the Holocaust. Her exact relation to the Nazi Party remains a matter of historical debate. What isn't a matter of debate is how great her movie was.

[Mountain Man]

You could never, and should never make that movie today...

Why not?

I'm just curious if you can come up with an answer that doesn't trample all over the right to free speech.

[seer]

Why not?

I'm just curious if you can come up with an answer that doesn't trample all over the right to free speech.

Well the movie "Downfall" was almost banned in Germany because it put Hitler in a sympathetic light - it was a good movie though...

[Leonhard]

Why not?

I'm just curious if you can come up with an answer that doesn't trample all over the right to free speech.

Not sure what rights would trampled on. Everyone has the right to make a bad movie if they have the money for it. I certainly didn't mean that it should be illegal to make a movie like that. But if Disney produced Song of the South today, they'd deserve the backlash they'd get.

[Zymologist]

Everyone has the right to make a bad movie if they have the money for it.

Unfortunately true, and something I'm reminded of every time I browse Netflix, or Amazon Prime, or Redbox, or whatever's in theaters, or trailers of whatever is coming out soon, or....

[Mountain Man]

Not sure what rights would trampled on. Everyone has the right to make a bad movie if they have the money for it. I certainly didn't mean that it should be illegal to make a movie like that. But if Disney produced Song of the South today, they'd deserve the backlash they'd get.

It's just that saying, "You could never, and should never make that movie today," is not much different than saying, "You could never, and should never exercise your freedom of speech today."

As for Song of the South, it was a progressive movie for its time and largely misunderstood today. For one thing, many people don't realize that it's set after the Civil War in reconstruction-era Georgia, and that Uncle Remus and the other black characters are freed slaves, which puts the characters and their relationships with each other in a different light.

[Leonhard]

It's just that saying, "You could never, and should never make that movie today," is not much different than saying, "You could never, and should never exercise your freedom of speech today."

You couldn't, because I really doubt any sponsor would kick money into it, you shouldn't because it would be bad. That's really all I meant.

[Terraceth]

Not sure what rights would trampled on. Everyone has the right to make a bad movie if they have the money for it. I certainly didn't mean that it should be illegal to make a movie like that. But if Disney produced Song of the South today, they'd deserve the backlash they'd get.

Song of the South is ironically more progressive and also less racist than Gone With the Wind was, which makes the fact Gone with the Wind is considered such a classic whereas Disney has tried their hardest to bury Song of the South. Someone could argue that the distinction is that Song of the South was a kid's film whereas Gone with the Wind was for adults, but there's nothing in Song of the South that's as offensive as the Indians in Peter Pan (just as much of a kid's film as Song of the South was).

[Jedidiah]

I have it on DVD and it's actually a very good movie, featuring a stunningly beautiful Vivian Leigh as Scarlet O'Hara. But it strongly reflects Confederate values re the status of blacks during the Civil War era. Hence it is insensitive, to say the least, that it be screened in the Deep South during the current 'troubles' re Confederate monuments and the resurgence of the White Supremacists.

Do you believe that a book or movie about the slavery era should describe what really existed at the time? Or should we not allow movies of that era to be made? Or should we white wash the whole era and pretend it did not happen?

[Tassman]

Do you believe that a book or movie about the slavery era should describe what really existed at the time? Or should we not allow movies of that era to be made? Or should we white wash the whole era and pretend it did not happen?

Gone with the Wind is an excellent movie. AFAIK it accurately depicts the mindset of the plantation owners towards their slaves and black house-staff during the Confederate era. What I’m questioning, given the current resurgence of the KKK and White Supremacists under Trump, is whether it is wise or sensitive to screen it in the Deep South at this time.

[rogue06]

Do you believe that a book or movie about the slavery era should describe what really existed at the time? Or should we not allow movies of that era to be made? Or should we white wash the whole era and pretend it did not happen?

Warning labels will likely be attached to future copies of the book and movie.

[seer]

What I’m questioning, given the current resurgence of the KKK and White Supremacists under Trump, is whether it is wise or sensitive to screen it in the Deep South at this time.

Where is you evidence of a resurgence of the KKK and White Supremacists? That there are more today than let's say from a few years ago?

[seer]

Warning labels will likely be attached to future copies of the book and movie.

‘Gone with the Wind’ screening canceled in Memphis amid online backlash


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gon...ash-2017-08-27

[Mountain Man]

Warning labels will likely be attached to future copies of the book and movie.

How long before liberals demand that warning labels be put on the Bible?

Seriously, this whole idea that people have a right not to be "offended" by contrary opinions and ideas is just stupid and is creating a generation of overly sensitive ignoramuses who are wholly unprepared for life in the real world.

This all reminds me of the "Tom and Jerry Golden Collection" fiasco from several years ago. MGM's plan was to release all of the Tom and Jerry cartoon shorts, restored and in their original, uncensored presentation. Volume 1 was released in October 2011 with the following disclaimer "hardcoded" as the first thing you see when playing the disc:

"These animated shorts are products of their time. Some of them may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros. view of today's society, these animated shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

I thought this was very tasteful and reasonable, and "Tom and Jerry" fans were delighted to finally have the cartoons as they were originally screened. Two-years later just before Volume 2 was released, MGM suddenly got cold feet for unknown reasons and cancelled the entire collection. I along with other fans of the celluloid cat and mouse are still greatly annoyed by this inexplicable about-face. I can only assume some "special interest" group put pressure on MGM and forced them to change their mind.

[Sparko]

Do you believe that a book or movie about the slavery era should describe what really existed at the time? Or should we not allow movies of that era to be made? Or should we white wash the whole era and pretend it did not happen?

Hollywood tries to pretend it never happened. If you watch period pieces made today, they always will stick in black characters and make it seem like they were not treated like second class citizens. They want to deny the racism of the past in movies and TV shows, yet at the same time, blame white people today for what the world was actually like back then and expect them to feel guilty and admit how racist they are themselves.