http://www.cracked.com/article/178_the-5-most-unintentionally-racist-movies-about-racism/
-
activista — 10 years ago(February 06, 2016 12:48 AM)
@joedogboy
So your racism is strong enough that you want to rewrite history in order to put modern PC values onto a film about a historical event.
Oh,pleasewhite people have always rewritten history to make themselves look like the victors. Y'all been doing that s*** from day one. Asking that the film be told from a black soldier's point of view isn't "PC", it would have made the film even more interesting,plain and simplebecause damn near everything in the movies is from the majority white point of view. You completely misunderstood what the other poster was sayingalso you rarely see any Civil War films exclusively from an African-American view,anyway. Ain't a damn thing "PC" about thatit's just from a different point of view that isn't the white point of view for once. How hard is that to understand. -
skrall-991-949327 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 06:11 PM)
activistaplease don't let your racism get in the way of making your OWN movie. This movie is about telling the story from the Colonel's perspective. Not saying the black soldiers had it easy, but Colonel Shaw risked a lot too.
Soshut the beep up about THIS movie and make the story YOU want told. OHso posting on the message board is your crowning achievement? Going to change the world by.well how exactly? Fighting with everyone? Don't just complain and criticize. That's the easy coward's way. DO SOMETHING. Lead by example, show the courage and sacrifice it takes to do this.
The soldiers depicted in this film had courage, braveryand most importantly ACTED on it. If you had HALF of what they had, the story you want toldwould be. There'd be no arguments about THIS film, you'd have your OWN.
But, that would take too much to do, right? -
dannieboy20906 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 06:18 PM)
Go do some research and present the memoirs of a Black soldier from the 54th Regiment. Then you have another problem, if it is a junior soldier you are going to get a limited view. The soldier can only write about what he sees.
Robert Gould Shaw had the advantageous position of being the commander. He saw the politics, the valor of his men, and the strategy. In the meantime, the viewpoint from the soldier's point of view was not short changed.
There is a racial historical error in the movie. The large majority of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (Colored) was made up of free men of color from Massachusetts. I don't know, but it is possible that most of them could read. There were more soldiers like Thomas than like the escaped slaves shown in the movie.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
Fire God — 10 years ago(December 03, 2015 11:06 PM)
This activista guy is dismissively sifting through a whole lot, including how powerful the narration of this movie was. Without the letters, you'd miss out on that and most of the information provided in this film. Glory gives you incredibly important and interesting characters, including Robert Shaw. Unfortunately, not even Shaw's letters give you enough of the specific black soldiers who were in the regiment in question, but at least this movie does provide plenty of heart and soul from the fictional black soldiers. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, among others, present incredibly inspirational Union participants who helped to make this movie the great achievement it was.
-
banders46 — 14 years ago(April 25, 2011 08:40 PM)
Yes, and similar objections have also been raised about the numerous movies set in apartheid-era South Africa (Cry Freedom and Dry White Season). I understand the sincerity of these objections, but movies (and all fictional stories, really) are about change and conflict. By bringing a white character into the world of black characters (or vice versa) in these various volatile situations, conflict naturally arises and characters learn about each other. If you threw out the Matthew Broderick character, or just treated him as a minor character, you'd still have a great story of courage and bravery, but it would be nearly as interesting, IMHO.
-
cvsandstuff — 13 years ago(November 09, 2012 03:23 PM)
You are kidding right?
It wouldn't be as interesting for people who are limited in terms of those that they are able to relate to.
The pattern is clear and irrefutable..
But Hollywood is ultimately about making money so it is what it is.. -
activista — 12 years ago(July 18, 2013 02:29 AM)
@cvsandstuff
Oh,so movies form a black person's view aren't interesting at all? White people can't relate to black people as just PEOPLE, seeing as we're shared the same continent for well over 500 damn years? What's so damn hard about that? Yeah, right,whatever. -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:01 PM)
The primary difference between "access" film characters such as the ones you mentioned, and Glory, is quite profound.
THIS IS A FILM ABOUT AMERICA BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS. THERE ACTUALLY WERE MILLIONS OF WHITE PEOPLE THIS WASN'T MEIJI JAPAN, HAVING A WHITE CHARACTER IN A WAR FOUGHT ALMOST ENTIRELY BY WHITE PEOPLE ISN'T RACIST, IT'S LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
There's this psychotic notion from the OP's author and apparently that old dead bastard Ebert, among many others. That portraying a white man in a sympathetic or even positive light in the Civil War or the entire slave era is somehow racist. THAT IS RACIST. The slaves didn't free themselves. Sorry. And it took black and white people working together for decades for abolition movement to make it to the White House and that's when all hell broke lose.
It is fantastically racist to look back, with an almost childish concept of reality, and simply conclude, "white=bad, black=good, so any portrayal of white people must be bad, or you're a racist". -
pendragon235 — 16 years ago(March 19, 2010 12:38 AM)
The author of the article shows his ignorance right from the off.
Ed Zwick, director of The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise as the last samurai) and Blood Diamond (starring Leonardo DiCaprio as an African)
Cruise's character was never a Samurai and not all Africans are black.
As for
Glory
, Broderick may have the most screen time, but it's quality, not quantity that matter and Freeman and especially Washington own the movie with their performances. -
hachmom-1 — 16 years ago(March 30, 2010 07:01 AM)
I do know that some reviewers pointed out at the time (i particularly remember roger eberts review) that the film paid to much attention to the white soldiers and not enough to the black soldiersbut its a long step from considering this a flaw in the story to considering it racism unintenional or otherwise. Personally i dont think it is a flaw, it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing, and it gives you something to hang the story on. Just like the memorial to Shaw in Boston, where you see Shaw leading his men but you also see the individual faces of his soldiers.
It is not our abilities that make us who we areit is our choices -
nubbytubbybiatchesgalore — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 04:34 AM)
it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing
actually, it's the story of the 54th massachusetts infantry. and the movie is based only in part on his letters. the movie is also based on two books concerning the entire 54h mass infantry.
the fact that you think this is shaw's story and not the story of the infantry itself is the point of the cracked article. the movie could just as easily opened and ended with denzel's character (or any other black character) and given his death the movie's emotional climax, instead of opening and ending with broderick's character. the movie makes broderick's death and his sacrifice more important than the death of anyone else. and it makes it seem like they only had the courage to attack the hill because of broderick's inspirational sacrifice, as though they didn't have enough incentive to kill these defenders of slavery already.
but that was 1989, and studios thought white people needed a white hero for the lead or no one would watch. so really, it's the studio (or the american public, if the studios were right), that are racist, more than the movie itself. the fact that you wouldn't see a movie like this made today (unless the black soldiers are make believe naavi in a james cameron movie) shows that the studios took notice of the criticism.
a movie about black people fighting for their freedom doesn't need a white moses leading them out of bondage as the main character.
as the cracked article says, the movie is unintentionally racist. paternalistic or condescending might be a better word though.
and the movie is actually racist in other ways, showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns, or when they loot the south carolina town. and what was with the mentally challenged black guy. just because he's illiterate doesn't mean you have to play him like he has the mind of five year old. i digress -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:10 PM)
You are a racist. Plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with focusing on and positively portraying a white man who actually existed and fought and died in the Civil War. He did lead a regiment of African Americans. It happened. Call him "white Moses" all you want. IT IS REALITY. "doesn't need a white Moses" - see this is fiction. Write a fictional story, and exclude all the races you want, because you're a racist.
Every point you've made is complete crap.
"Paternalistic"? Liar. Not a single character portrayed saw Broderick's character in a fatherly way. Adversary, hindrance, boss, ally, friend even, but no one saw him as a father.
Name one way in which the film was condescending to black people. Seriously, try.
"showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns" You mean showing HUMANS acting like kids when they first get their guns. Racist.
" or when they loot the south carolina town" WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE LOOTERS BEING WHITE AND DOING FAR WORSE MORON.
i digress
You never made a point to begin with. You just listed baseless conclusions and then vaguely referenced scenes. -
SpiltPersonality — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 09:42 PM)
Cruise's character was never a Samurai
Amen to that - the Last Samurai was clearly Katsumoto. I think that the author of that article seems to automatically think that the actor with the highest billing is the subject of the title.
Making Uma Thurman "Bill", Tom Skerritt "the Alien" and Kelly McGillis "the Accused".
Seems an odd way of looking at things. I would have thought taking your brain with you to the theatre would be a good start - especially if you intend to write a review.
SpiltPersonality -
guaili — 14 years ago(May 20, 2011 10:47 PM)
Actually, remember that "samurai" can be both singular and plural. I believe in the case of The Last Samurai, it is used in the plural and refers to the last group of real samurai in Japan, as opposed to singling out a specific character, be it Algren or Katsumoto.
-
SpiltPersonality — 14 years ago(May 22, 2011 05:35 AM)
True, however I would have thought that to create a title inclusive of a group would have been something like
the Last of the Samurai
.
The last of anything is (to my mind) a singular not a group thing unless it is made clear, but you're certainly right - the title can definitely be taken the way you've done so.
SpiltPersonality -
indy_go_blue44 — 15 years ago(June 16, 2010 10:22 PM)
I think this is one of the best movies ever made giving an honest depiction of blacks and their struggle to be accepted as MEN. They're not made banjo-playing wooly pated children nor presented as especially heroic prior to the time that they're allowed to PROVE their heroism in the heat of battle. They could have broke and run when the rebel cavalry charged like many a white regiment before them; they didn't nor did they hold back when the main battle began.
The main characters were flawed but realistically so; their growth was realistic also. IMO even the unbilled characters were treated with extreme dignity and respect; even the drill sargeant beating up on Thomas was given meaning (such brutality was not at all uncommon; ask any marine about Parris Island) when he commented about "let him grow up some more."
It's also very rare that a private soldier is the focal point of a story (Red Badge of Courage is about the only one I can think of off hand.) Certainly they could have presented more camp life or "drill, drill, drill" or hauling logs but would that have been as interesting as Shaw dealing with problems at a higher level, such as trying to get uniforms or getting his men into combat and away from being a labor battalion?
But I suppose somebody somewhere has to cry racism about something. If anything, this movie increased this white man's respect for what these black men did for their country and OUR freedom. -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:12 PM)
Right moron, because in an era of vast poverty and poor education, they should all have been wearing suits and speaking the Queen's English. You're so blind you didn't see everyone in the film was correctly portrayed to period. You're done racist. Toast.
-
KingVidor — 15 years ago(July 23, 2010 10:51 PM)
The Cracked article is the kind of garbage white dorks with little life experience write to show how hipster and "down with the struggle" they are. Immature, ignorant, poser bulls.
Ask me about my total lack of interest.