 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Gware reminded me of an excellent funny film w/Peter Sellers, called The Party. It could not be made today, because it is not politically sensitive.I find it ironic that many funny or interesting films don't get made because they are not "PC" but the filth and violence are getting as wicked as ever. Perfect example, Last Temptation...not a big deal, but stirred up so much controversy, the Tin Drum as Well. But Mortal Combat and like films go right under the radar? Mafia films don't stir up as much controversy either...I'm NOT for censorship, I just don't see or get the logic.
Any thoughts?
mp
Follow Ups:
.
I've been waiting a long time for the remake. Maybe David Lynch could do it. Wouldn't you like to hear the sucking of the mud (in SURROUND-SOUND)as the limbless guy slithers under the wagon with the knife in his teeth? Never mind, I can hear it already.Ted
Political correctness aside, how do you fill out the cast?
But they managed to turn a bunch of people into hobbits, so I figure they could make Ben Stiller and Gwyneth Paltrow into pinhead geeks. That big guy from The Green Mile could be the limbless knife-wielder, and any number of current "stars" could be turned into chickens.Funny, it's been 30 years since I saw that movie, but I remember much of it quite vividly. I'd say that defines a Classic.
Ted
A great human interest story. - AH
I'm sure that casting the film wouldn't be a problem. Beetlejuice (see photo) and Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf got film roles after becoming minor celebrities from appearances on Howard Stern's radio show. John Carpenter used a man who'd lost both arms in an accident in the remake of The Thing .
I don't think disney even wants anyone to know about the cartoons they made with Donald Duck in a German concentration camp, or floating down a river on a Pacific island, in full army gear. He's on a mission to find and blow up the Japanese camp. Two enemy soldiers peer out of the jungle and say, "Ah! Let's shoot him in the back, the regular Japanese way."
I don't think they could make those today.Ted
NT
.
The lyrics of this little gem alone would have the B'nai Brith frothing at any Producers doorstep in 2002/3, Mel Brooks and Zero Mostel would be no doubt addressing a Congressional committee, probably the same one convened for "Gangsta Rap" and "CopKiller" lyrics
Thank God for freedom of speech in a less PC America, "The Producers" is built on a premise of such apalling bad taste that it's very very Good
Eric
Tokyo
nt
"A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France, a little slice of Turkey..."
Sorry, Jabberwock, couldn't resist
Indeed, with the smallest revision of the words "Springtime" could indeed be most relevant
Eric
Tokyo
KP
would nto be made today, unless the little girl steals the show from a white servant probably a female in today's world.mp
is a textbook exercise in cultural insensitivity, and also one of Sellers funniest films, he obviously relishes the role of the awkward Hrundi Bakshi, it's a Classic, some scenes are so funny you haven't time to stop laughing at the last gag before you're laughing at the next one!
It's hard to imagine, but the demure Claudine Longet, shot and killed her Ski champion lover Spider Sabich, a (1976) scandal that got huge national and international coverage
Eric
Tokyo
I saw this movie as a kid when I lived in Madrid. I thought it was the fuunniest movie ever.I rented it 20 years later, and was happy to find it was.
Some of the greatest physical comedy ever, Sellers at his best.
howdy, pardddner....
KP
but it would not be made today (not talking about film)
buckwheat would have protest groups in droves.mp
nt
nt
would definately not fly today. You are right. Now we get films like dances with wolves!mp
And the whities too...
With regard to native Americans, it depends on how you define "savages." In many respects they were/are a far more humane group of people than foolish "whities" can understand. Indeed, the "whities" easily out-savaged them. Hollywood can never show that in its full scope, because it's simply too damaging to the American self-image.
savages, just because many were fighters/warriors, so were we. I think the word has now come to mean that. I propose it was because the indians were MORE at the mercy of nature than the Europeans who squelched their culutre. That is the main difference between the two groups. The indians were more primative. Their community was more primitve by European standards. That, I feel is the reason for the term savage.mp
was very popular in 18th Century literature. The Indians were only Indians because Columbus got lost, and thought he'd found the mythical passage to India when he landed on American soil... now that's cultural imperialism for you!
Consider too that England and the English were only so named as Roman soldiers took a fancy to the warrior women of the British Isles and called them "Angles" (Angels), and that became "Angleland", Land Of the Angels, so even white folks got the Royal makeover tho' somewhat earlier...
Eric
Tokyo
this reminds me of a very good film i had forgotten about. it called 'black robe', and i recommend seeing it.it's about the european christian missionaries and the canadian indians. it compares and contrasts the two cultures. and it addresses the issue of 'savagery'.
if you don't get to see it, here are some conclusions it seems to arrive at:
1) indian culture was superior especially in the indian enviroment.
2) christian missionaries were misdirected.
3) indians really were savage by our sense of standards.
final score: indians 2, white man 1. :)
There is no superiority just differences.
whities as savages and not acceptable in the other direction.
I'm not making any judgement here by the way, the indians needed to be just as violent, another, more powerful, culture was overtaking them.
:o)
mp
I'm thinking less PC and more economics 101, plus the general dumbing down of...everything.Now that bean counters control studios, I think most of the breakthrough films of the 70's would never be made today - too risky. Unless a film opens big, studios don't want the "product" - what an awful word to desscribe a work of art, but Hollywood films aren't generally about ideas or passion for the medium, they're about the bottom line. Focus groups. Tie-ins. What's that you say - independent film? The major studios either own or disribute 90% of the independent, art and foreign films in USA.
I doubt Taxi Driver, Nashville, et al would get greenlit today.
They are spending more than ever on major studio films today, and studios have always strove to meet the desires of a mass audience to see their returns...
Have you seen the party recently...I doubt any but the most adventuresome risk taking indie producer/director would touch that film with a ten foot pole!
Gone with the Wind would be a completely different film if made today (maybe it would be more interesting!). Mildred Pierce probably would not be made today....hmm it might be a combination of factors but PC is definately one of them.mc
......a remake of "Gone With The Wind"?"Frankly my dear, I don't give a fuck!"
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
.
.
that is exactly why they are in the business....they don't do it because they have some sort of moral obligation to fund artistic endevours! That really hasn't changed much. Do you think Goldwyn or Metro cared about artistic creativity? They had movie making machines. What I posed was films that would cause a furvor today because of our new PC constraints. Also another problem is historic inaccuracies because of the same problem.Another example, shirly Temple movies, much loved and revered, would never be made today.
mp
A very interesting read that documents the classic era of American filmmaking that spanned the late '60's through the late '70's. Many great stories and insights on the rise (and fall) of the industry and the people who worked within it.
Bryan K.,
Music Lover & President-elect of C.C.A.C. (Concerned Citizens Against Cilantro)
...the old studio heads did have a passion for making movies, and they cared about quality. Even within limitations, there were some very heavy hitting artists at work within the old studio systems, and some of the intent got through to the screen.
educated. They assumed the audience would want to see a higher quality picture. They assumed the audience would want to see what they would want to see. And subsequently the world recieved a much higher quality of product in the past, generally speaking. The difference today is the overuse and abuse of the science of focus groups. Now studio heads rely on focus groups to determine if pictures should get made, and how they should be made.The studio exects are JUST as interested in money today as they were yesterday. I still claim that hasn't changed much. Many women actors claim that Goldwyn set them up with doctors who prescribed them amph. to lose weight? He didn't care about their health. They also bought and sold their contracts like cattle. They were money making machines, NOT patrons of the art.
Youy wanna real cause for the demise of the quality studio picture?
Your answer: FOCUS GROUPSmp
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
