/Filmcast E-Mails
-
The Real Meaning of CERTIFIED COPY
On your blog, it says you may discuss Certified Copy on the podcast. If so, I hope you include spoiler talk because I’d like to contribute to that conversation.
SPOILER - SPOILER - SPOILER for Certified Copy
When I see all the “theories” about this movie, it baffles me that people are treating this well-made relationship drama like it’s LOST or something.
It is, to me, clearly a film about a married couple who go on a pretend first date, but their existing issues take over the narrative and ruin it. The place they go on their date is also where they were married and had their honeymoon, but the “copy” of their happy honeymoon phase turns out not to be as good as the original. They can’t go home again, as it were.
You see many times how perfect the Woman wants the date to be, as she hopes it will fix some of their problems, and how annoyed she is when people deviate from the plan in her head. She is annoyed with her son at the beginning who teases her about the date and “why won’t you tell him your last name?” because the son believes the pretend first date to be a silly thing to do, and is only just barely playing along. She is annoyed a second time when the Man takes her sister’s side during the car ride, which is probably something she’s vented to him about many times through their relationship. She is annoyed once more when he asks her about having been to this location before, or whether she was married there, because he is too close to the truth, and not acting as a “stranger” well enough. And finally, when he gives an opinion about being happy to live a separate life from his family, that is way too close to how she really thinks he sees their family relationship (with his too-frequent travelling) and she is unable to continue the game. From then on, the game is off, and they simply argue.
Every time I read a new “theory” about this movie, I reflect upon it again, but I can’t see how any interpretation other than this one can seriously be argued.
It’s not a terribly complicated idea, really. It’s the kind of thing couples do on sitcoms all the time, like Modern Family, for example.
It’s a very good movie, but, once you see what’s going on, and how the Man’s book about copies vs. originals is a metaphor for their attempt to relive the happiest days of their early relationship, it is not all that complicated.
-
Tinker Tailor
Hi guys,
I listened to your Tinker Tailor discussion back in December but wasn’t able to catch up with the film until it (finally!) opened in my town last weekend.Interestingly perhaps, this film - and your various reactions to it - remind me a lot of Never Let Me Go; your complaints (Adam’s and Dave’s) about both films and the films themselves strike me as being incredibly similar, and hey, guess what? Here I am again to side with Devindra in a defense of Tinker Tailor, just as I defended Never Let Me Go, a while back, a defense you were kind enough to read on the podcast. :)They are very different films, of course; among other things, one has a very dense sort of plot and the other is relatively straightforward in its plot points - but there are distinct similarities: they are both British with British sensibilities, they are both quite slow films (Adam used the word “sluggish” to describe Tinker Tailor), they both have central characters who are difficult to read (Cathy and Smiley) and who might be characterized as unfeeling, and perhaps, most importantly, both films deal in anti-climax, something Adam and Dave, very much dislike in both films.But like Never Let Me Go, Tinker Tailor is purposeful in that anti-climax (as both Matt Singer and Devindra argued), an anti-climax that is necessary to the film if the film is to be successful in saying what it wants to say. Dave, you argued the the film is “purposefully esoteric,” something that’s “irritating if there’s no good pay-off” and you said you’d be ok with the “uncompromising demands” (as Devindra so nicely described them) the film puts on the audience if “the ending gave you more.”But I think the refusal to accept the anti-climax is like a refusal to accept the film on its own terms, a refusal to see what it’s trying (I think wonderfully successfully) to say in the way it needs to say it. (Just like Never Let Me Go.)As Matt noted, the ending is “supposed to feel anti-climactic because that’s what the movie is saying about being a spy” - essentially that there is no reward or catharsis in a successful mission, that the world they’ve so carefully constructed is a hollow one, despite the paranoia of it, despite the labyrinthine relationships because that’s exactly what the spying life is: hollow and unfulfilling. Do you think the film could have said that about spying if it gave us a big pay-off?Another point about the film’s dense plot: you all agreed that it tried to fit too much story into the film, that the film failed because it needed to be longer, a TV series perhaps. I believe that, combined with the “sluggish”ness, the difficult denseness of the plot, like the anti-climax, is, rather than being a failure, is intentional and beautifully tied to the idea that the film is about; the film is not primarily about the journey of uncovering of a mole - it’s not supposed to be what we expect from Hollywood, a thrilling adventure with clear villains and heroes. Finding a mole isn’t glamorous at all, it’s not exciting - it’s difficult, complex, and soul-destroying. It involves a lot of paperwork.Dave and Adam, you guys also complained about the fact that we never really got to know the characters, that we couldn’t really care about them by the end (and thus get a character kind of pay-off, too). I would argue that that element, that hidden-ness of the characters is also deliberate; so immersed are they in the soulless world of spying, they have become (or are becoming or must become), themselves, as hollow and passionless as their job demands - only so many chess-pieces on a board. You all noted that you could connect with Hardy’s character, that he was the only one who showed some emotion, and you indicated in your discussion that you wished the other characters would have had more to emotionally connect to, like Hardy’s. But the difference between Hardy’s character and the others makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? He is not one of those at the very top, one of those making the soulless decisions to end lives for the sake of information; he escapes that hollowness because, quite simply, he’s not the very best spy there is. He’s only on the fringes, and he thus escapes the emotional decay the others experience.The film does give us, however, hints of the humanity that is being suppressed in even the very best spies, and I think therein lies the tragedy and the beautifully constructed darkness of the film. Devindra noted these hints of humanity - if you are looking for them, you will see them. We get the scene in which Cumberbatch’s character must make a huge personal sacrifice - it’s a purposefully small and understated scene, no high-flying emotions and explosions, only a glimpse of Cumberbatch, sitting alone in his dark flat, weeping. It tells us so much, doesn’t it? And Smiley (one who’s been longer at the business than Cumberbatch, one who wouldn’t sit weeping, not even alone, we feel) - Smiley’s face and body work to be as emotionless as possible, and it’s less a matter of seeing the emotion itself than seeing the suppression of it. Did you see, for example, close to the end, the slight tremble of Smiley’s hand as he was walking into his home and he saw who was sitting in a chair there? The tremble betrays everything - he has been hollowed out, but vestiges of soul remain.And if we saw more soul, more emotion from Smiley than that, could the film accomplish what it wants to say about what Smiley’s life has been, about the effects of the intelligence institution?I honestly don’t think so, and so, if we take the film on its terms, we have to say it is, in fact, successful, wedding theme to character and story. You all say the acting and cinematography is brilliant, and if you might also admit it is successful in giving us characters who are consistent with the ideas and story it wants to convey, can you still say, Dave, that the film is “dangerously close to being a disaster”?You don’t have to like it, Adam and Dave - it is, indeed, a dreary film that is meant to be dreary, but I think if you are willing to engage with the ideas at its heart, you will at least appreciate it more than you indicated you do in your discussion of it. I, myself, find the ideas fascinating and truthful, and I think the film, in spite of its deeply British character, offers us something to think about in terms of our own failing institutions, in terms of our own government, even. I wouldn’t want to take the parallel too far, but it strikes me that the films this year have something in them that betrays our collective unease (think of Margin Call, Melancholia, Take Shelter, The Ides of March, Contagion, even something like Martha Marcy May Marlene or Planet of the Apes) - lots of films that demonstrate a dissatisfaction of the ideas and institutions we’ve taken for granted. Tinker Tailor does that, too.I’d love you to take a look at my write-up of Tinker Tailor here: http://ajournaloffilm.blogspot.com/2012/01/men-and-bits-of-paper-tinker-tailor.html and see if that might convince you, if my email hasn’t done so, to consider whether there’s more to the film than a unsatisfying and faulty adaptation that “fails horribly.” (I’ve not seen the mini-series or read the book, by the way, so I wasn’t operating from a position of prior knowledge when coming to the film.) Adam said that “Alfredson made exactly the movie he was trying to make”: I agree. And that movie is brilliant.All the best to you guys - I listen every week to your podcast as well as to the Tobolowsky Files (so glad, Dave, that the Seattle show was such a success! I was dearly hoping to get to it, but couldn’t).Cheers,Melissa in Bellingham, WA -
The Last Shot of Hugo (SPOILERS)
Dave, Devindra, and Adam:
I just finished listening to your review of Hugo and the analysis of the last shot of the movie. Both Adam and Eric D. Snider felt like the final shot of the automaton is designed to play with the audience’s expectations, making the audience believe the automaton is going to come to life and when it doesn’t, it reinforces the reality of the story. While I think that is part of it, I believe there is more happening here.If you look at the two movies Scorsese has directed previously, Shutter Island and The Departed, he chose to end those films on one final shot of a symbol. In The Departed is was a rat, and in Shutter Island it was the island lighthouse. I believe the same thing is happening here with the final shot of the automaton. As you discussed in your review, Hugo celebrates the past while looking to the future and I believe the automaton is the perfect symbol of this. Robots are something that have always been thought of as futuristic. The automaton is a robot, and it is an old one that uses old technologies to run. Yet, those technologies are very intricate and advanced and able to accomplish tasks that would be impressive for the robots being constructed today. It is in that way that if feels both old and futuristic at the same time, and for that reason it feels like a really pertinent symbol of the themes and ideas of the film as a whole.Additionally, while coincidence is a major force in bringing everyone in the story together, that coincidence all centers around the automaton. It is the joining point for all the characters so it feels appropriate to end on it.As one final note, the automaton provides a sort of book end to the film which begins with a shot of gears moving that morphs into the Arc de Triomphe.Just wanted to share my thoughts. Keep up the amazing work you do.Thanks for your time, -
Subscribing to the /Filmcast
Hello,
I just subscribed to the /Filmcast for 2 bucks a month, and I’d meant to do it a lot sooner. When I had a horrible job reading mind numbing engineering report after report you guys really made a huge difference. I looked forward to Wednesdays just because that’s when I could download your podcast. It really helped me to get through each week. It may sound silly but in a big office it can feel like there is no intelligent discourse left, and listening to you guys always restored my faith in the world at large. When everything is miserable the littlest things make a big difference, and your podcast was far from a little thing for me. The only negative was that I could never jump into your discussion to argue or agree. Luckily, now I have a better job but I still listen faithfully.
Thanks so much for continuing to do what you do. -
Breaking Dawn
I wanted to write in about Breaking Dawn, which I know you don’t care about and nor should I. However I saw it this weekend, mainly out of morbid curiosity, because I’d heard some rough plot details about what happens in the movie and it sounded like there would be some insane spectacles to see.Even with my low expectations, Breaking Dawn was a huge disappointment because they didn’t show any of the insane plot points I’d heard about! <spoilers ahead>… If you make a movie where a girl gets F’d unconscious by her new husband, gets demon pregnant and requires a fang Caesarean operation… give the people what they want, actually show some of those insane or gory moments rather than a discretion shot or skipping the scene altogether. People know what happens in those scenes so being delicate about it seems like the most boring choice.I know Breaking Dawn isn’t really a movie, so I shouldn’t care, but I’m really curious why they chose that tactic and whether you guys saw the movie.Thanks, love the show… keep it up. :)Amy from Vancouver -
Armond White and the Democratization of Film Criticism
Dear Dave, Adam and Devindra,
I just listened to the /Filmcast After Dark featuring Armond White and I really enjoyed it. There were some things though with which I don’t necessarily have an issue, but about which I wish I had more clarity.
I liked how Adam challenged Armond about his comments on “Toy Story 3” when Armond said that most people were just bowing at the altar of Pixar and Adam asked about the reaction to “Cars 2” and then there was this incredibly deafening silence.
I also liked how Armond said that most critics know or at least most critics should know that works of art are generally not appreciated in their time and that art history teaches us that big hits fade, while least appreciated works usually stand as the best. Yes, that is generally true, but I didn’t think that the argument was whether or not “Toy Story 3” will stand the test of time as art to be appreciated forever. I thought the argument was whether or not it was a good piece of entertainment and craft-work that will connect emotionally with its viewers.
“Toy Story 3” didn’t play in limited release in art-house theaters only. It played on a massive wide release with the intention of being a piece of entertainment for families. I don’t think it was made with the intention of winning an Oscar and being considered great art for all time. If people want to think that way, I wouldn’t argue, but what Armond failed to mention is that art is also subjective. Art is not science. It can’t be measured and all together intellectualized or sometimes even reasoned. Art is mostly emotion and visceral. It’s about what people feel, not necessarily what they think, although thinking is important.
I understand Armond’s point about cultural heritage and cultural legacy. He builds almost every argument on comparing something with something else that came before it. It makes me curious as to what he would have said about “Toy Story 3,” if, for example, “Robots” and “Small Soldiers” didn’t exist. What if these two previous films hadn’t been made? Is his opinion of something always conditional on something else? Can nothing be judged or understood on its own and by its own terms and merits? Is Armond’s reviews nothing more than a series of similes, strung one after the other? Are some films only good because they came out first? If “Robots” had come out after “Toy Story 3,” what would his opinion of it be?
I know that there is a lot more when it comes to film criticism. One must know about film theory, film language, etc. You should know about various camera angles, film stock, lighting, editing techniques, mise en scene, acting techniques, sound and music techniques and etc. Some reviewers or critics or even “Gentlemen amateurs” don’t consider these things and that’s a problem, but I don’t know that I agree with what he said that “you cannot democratize expertise” and that not everybody can do it.
If his point is that film criticism should have standards, then I agree. Yes, it should have standards, but, what are those standards? Is one of the standards having a Master’s degree like Armond has because if so then I suppose someone say like Alfred Hitchcock could never be a film critic. He hasn’t a film degree. He never went to film school, so what could he possibly know about films? Armond said that he “studied” film, but so what? So do a lot of people, just not necessarily in the same way! Quentin Tarantino “studied” film as well. Was it at Columbia University? No. Was it at any university? No. It didn’t stop him from getting two Oscar nominations in directing. Same for Steven Soderbergh! How did they do it? For Tarantino, all he did was watch movies. To study films, nowadays, all you need is a NetFlix account. That alone doesn’t qualify you to be a film critic, but I just don’t agree with his democratization of expertise when it comes to film criticism or film-making for that matter.
No, I wouldn’t want someone who watches “ER” to think they can come in and be a doctor, but again understanding or even making movies nowadays doesn’t require that kind of scientific know-how. I don’t mean to demean films as an art. Nor do It mean to attack Armond. I actually enjoy his spirit and discussions, and I’m all for smarter conversations, or even more technical ones when it comes to films, but ultimately it seems, when it comes to film criticism, Armond wants to narrow the field not expand.
One question I would have loved to ask Armond and one which I suppose I can pose to you, Dave, Adam and Devindra, is whether or not an actual discussion about a film where you were talking with someone who disagreed with your opinion changed that opinion. In other words, in the course of a film discussion did someone change your mind about a film that at one point that you had a firm opinion about? I would be thoroughly surprised if that ever happened to Armond White, but who knows? He just seems like the kind of person that once he’s made an opinion about something, nothing will ever change it, even overwhelming evidence to the contrary.-Marlon from MD
-
A Scientist Weighs in on Contagion’s Accuracy
[Spoilers ahead. Here’s our review of Contagion]
/Filmcasters,
Per your curiosity regarding a scientific perspective on *Contagion*, I have an MS in Molecular Biology, and saw the film with a friend who has a PhD in the same field. We were impressed with the scientific language used to describe the virus and its spread, as well as the depictions of BSL 3 and 4 lab work. As far as we could tell, they got it mostly right.
I felt some of your other comments also warranted a scientist’s response, however, especially those on Jude Law’s character, the last scene, and Matt Damon’s immunity.
Several of you seemed to find Jude Law’s character to be almost a cartoon villain, and were a dubious about whether his depiction was in line with the more procedural realism in the rest of the film. I’m sorry to say that, at least in medical science, it’s all too common for charlatans to frighten people with paranoid conspiracy theories and justify themselves by claiming to be skeptics with a duty to inform the public. Check out Andrew Wakefield’s claim that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine causes autism and bowel disorders; it’s a good example, but far from the only one. It’s also not uncommon for those charlatans to profit from their fear-mongering. To me, then, Law’s character, far from being a caricature, was another instance of Soderbergh’s commitment to realism.
In regards to the ending, which some of you described as “ham-fisted”: I agree that the bulldozers with the corporate logo on them might have been a teensy bit blatant. Again, though, there’s some science to consider. It’s been theorized that the appearance of some emerging diseases, such as HIV, Ebola, and SARS, might be related to environmental depredations - that people moving into wild areas, in many cases due to corporate projects like the one depicted in *Contagion*, are more likely to acquire and spread new diseases (for a good discussion of this, check out Laurie Garrett’s long but engrossing book *The Coming Plague*). So, like Jude Law’s character, I found that final scene another great example of realism, even if it was pretty ham-fisted.
Finally, someone asked why Matt Damon’s immunity was never pursued as a treatment option for others, and/or why a test wasn’t developed. First, the treatment question: the short answer is that, like immunity to HIV or malaria, it would probably be a genetic condition that couldn’t be given to others in the form of a medication. As for the test, if my previous guess is right, testing would require running some sort of genetic analysis - quick for the relatively small number women who want to know if they have the “breast cancer gene” or men who want to know if they’re going to get Huntington’s disease, but slow if you have to test everyone in the world (think of Baltar’s Cylon detector on BSG).
So, that’s my two cents on *Contagion*. Thanks for reading all the way to the end, and keep up the great work.-Joe from Columbus, OH
-
More Talk About Racist Cartoons
Hi guys, I wanted to weigh in on the issue of releasing the banned Warner Brothers cartoons. The ones that were racially insensative or racist, depending on your POV. And first off, you should know that I’m a 36 year old white middle class guy originally from South Carolina.
I think it goes nearly without saying that most of US…(artists, studiers of art consumers of art discussers of art)…will fall on the side of making these films available to view for study for discussion. We all know one of the great things about any art is its telling as much or more about the time in which it was made as the actual content. In this case however, I’d like to ask the questions what is harmed and what and what is gained?
What harm can it do to release these films? I have seen a couple of these films, as well as the Disney film Song of the South and they range from being I would say being of “poor taste” in the best of cases to being “flatly racist” and very offensive. I think a lot of harm would come from a release like this, and Im not sure what is gained is of any real value. If a Home Video release is made, it will be a huge internet news story. Huge. Really. Why? Because it generates Clicks and thats what matters. The attention gained from it will be absurdly disproportionate to the attention it warrents. There have been stories in the past on these films, take a glance through the talkbacks and comment sections on these online articles and be horrified by what qualifies as “discussion of art” The release of these films and the internet ferver that follows would absolutely devolve into a bitter, nasty, trashy, hatefest. For what gain? Who buys this disc? Racists, first off. But who else? Film teachers, film collectors, some of us who just love to talk about film. I value it, its a good thing to own, to watch, to contemplate, but I don’t think I’d actually buy it. My point is, the firestorm isn’t worth the little bit of gain.
On the other hand. What harm has been caused by the ban from WB/Disney? Nothing. There’s no harm been caused thus far. The inability to see these films hasn’t prohibited anyone from understanding art, or from becoming a filmmaker or animator. It hasn’t prohibited art students from discussing racism in older works. And to head off what I see as the big argument, no one is destroying these films. They exist and are preserved, people scream about censorship, about book-burning, about destroying things that are unsavory. But thats not happening. Calm down. It doesn’t have to be released it to the world or else its an attempt to irradicate and sterilize our bad history.
The point is that Yes, it would be nice if students had access to these films and that real discussion and thoughtful examination could be had. If there were some kind of “on the sly” way to get them out there as if they’d been out forever then fine. But Im not sure there is. Releasing them into a salivating, ready-to-pounce, internet culture is a horrible idea. I would like to think that something as significant as this would not be just thrown to the “George Lucas raped my childhood” crowd on the film side and the “The Civil War was 150 years ago, stop whining” crowd on the political side.
One last point. We love to trash Disney and to some degree WB as a big corporation, but who can blame them in this case. There is no way to win here. Are they going to put these films out on disc? What will they cost? Are they going to make money off of this? They’d get killed for that. Do they donate the proceeds to some kind of charity? Do they give them out for free? Its a disaster no matter what they do. I actually believe the best the best and smartest thing they could do would be to pass the buck. I would take the films, do an sweet restoration to them and flat out donate them to the Smithsonian or some other entity that will preserve them and get them the hell out of my vault.
Right now, we simply do not live in a culture that is prepared to receive these movies in a reasonable way.
-Tom Andrews
Filmsandwich Podcast -
How Does One Start Watching Doctor Who?
So, you’re interested in watching Doctor Who, but are a bit unsure where to begin. That is quite understandable. Doctor Who can seem like a huge investment of time at a glance. The show began in 1963 and ran until its cancellation in 1989. During that time, the show saw seven different actors take on the role of the Doctor. It reappeared in 1996, as television movie, in an attempt to bring the show back into the mainstream. This movie featured a new actor as the Doctor, but failed to capture an audience, and it would be another nine years before the show would find its following. And it is here that many newcomers to Doctor Who start. In 2005, Doctor Who returned, with Russell T. Davies as head writer, and Christopher Eccleston in the lead role as the 9th version of the Doctor. This new series of Doctor Who, sometimes referred to as nuWho, could be seen as a reboot of the series. Yes, everything that happened from the show’s beginning in 1963 up to the television movie in 1996 was canon. However, the audience was now seeing the Doctor in a new light, through the eyes of his newest companion, a young woman named Rose Tyler. It is through her that a new viewer may learn about the Doctor’s past, character and motivations. Anytime a classic enemy from the show’s long history is reintroduced, they are explained to a companion who has no knowledge of them, much like new viewers. This is what makes the 2005 series a very good place to start with Doctor Who, for people who have very little knowledge of what the show is, or how it’s structure works. Yes, some of the writing in this first season is a bit poor, and that may turn some viewers off. However, I would certainly recommend that you stick with it. Christopher Eccleston gives a strong performance as the Doctor, and although his time was short, it really sets the stage for that character for the rest of the series. The second season of nuWho welcomed the actor David Tennant into the role of the Doctor, and like his companion Rose Tyler, the viewer sees that while the face of the man changes, his greatness lives on. With this new actor came better writing, better characters, and an overall better feel. This continued for the next 4 years, with Davies as head writer and Tennant as the Doctor, but like with many drama series, each consecutive season can be reliant on the events that occurred in the prior season, ie. characters and events are introduced and appear or are referred to again and again. This is why many new viewers do not start with the Tennant era, however some of science fiction’s greatest stories, and the show’s greatest character moments lie within his run, which I as a lover of the genre would hate to see someone (who is too) miss out on.
Now perhaps you’ve seen an episode or two during the Davies era, and didn’t care for it enough to invest in watching the seasons featuring Eccleston and Tennant, but you’ve heard very good things about the 5th series and would like to start with that? Well, here is my take. The fifth season (aired in 2010) is much like the 2005 season, it featured a major overall. BAFTA award winner Steven Moffat, who had written episodes of the series since 2005, was now the head writer. Matt Smith (age 27 at the time) took on the role as the Doctor, the youngest actor to portray him. The show sported a new facelift, with the best production values the series has ever seen in its near 50 year history, thanks to its growing success over the past five years. And again the show focused on a newcomer to these adventures with Karen Gillan as companion Amy Pond. This is why many have found the 2010 season to be a great jumping off point. Matt Smith’s portrayal combines a youthful spirit with the wise experience of a character who is over 900 years old. Amy learns about the Doctor, but without feeling too repetitive. And Steven Moffat’s life long love of the show shines through with every episode he writes and his overall care of the series. It is a great place to start, the show is at the best its ever been. If you choose to begin here, I have faith that you will fall in love with it. However, allow me to make a small suggestion. As I mentioned, Steven Moffat had written for the show since its return from hiatus in 2005. He wrote for each season and actually left hints within those stories for future events that would take place when he took over the series. Specifically in the episodes Blink from season 3, and a two part story in season 4 beginning withSilence in the Library and ending with Forest of the Dead. Both are absolutely brilliant stories, and I recommend you watch them before starting the fifth season (which is the first featuring Matt Smith), as they will prepare you for what to expect, and introduce you to some characters and enemies who will appear later on.
So with all of that, what do you do? Short answer, either begin with the first season in 2005 and go from there, or start with the three episodes mentioned and then continue with the2010 fifth season. There is no reason to feel burdened by the classic series that ran from 1963-1996, while great, it is not necessary for you to enjoy the new series. Hopefully you’ll fall in love the series, and if that happens, there will be hundreds of past adventures to satisfy your cravings of all things DOCTOR WHO.
I hope this helps. I love the /filmcast, it has become an indispensable part of my movie going/television experience. I wish you continued growth and success.-Brandon
-
A History of Racism
Hey guys I thought I’d drop you guys a line about something I’ve learned about recently. What are your opinions on studios releasing from their archives former works that are racist or otherwise offensive to mainstream audiences? I got thinking about this when I heard that Warner Brothers would be releasing a blu ray version of the complete Looney Toons collection but that this collection would not be including the Censored Eleven, eleven animated shorts that were animated between 1930-1945 that include extreemly racist depictions of African and Asian Americans. http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6918
But apparently at the New York Comicon in 2010 it was announced that somewhere somehow in 2011 these shorts were going to be released in DVD format for the first time since they were banned by the studio in 1968.
Now personally I am not the sort of person who really really needs to see a set of racist animated shorts but the idea that films that some mega-studio doesn’t like could simply be lost forever or the fact that any mention or discussion of them could be removed from the historical record at the whim of some corporation trying to control its image ( I.E. Disney with The Song of the South) seems like something that should be discussed.
Also there appears to be some debate as to whether some of the Censored Eleven are actually offensive at all as in the case of Tin Pan Alley Cats and Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs as apparently the director of these shorts was very active in the jazz scene and brought in specific jazz muscians to be the models for the characters and was attempting the shorts to be a celebration of their music. Both of films by the way, are often listed amoung the greatest animated films ever made but haven’t been avaible for public viewing since 1968.
I’ve found that access to some of the shorts is availble on youtube right now. Here you can watch some yourselves: http://www.museumofuncutfunk.com/The_Museum_of_Uncut_Funk/The_Censored_Eleven_-_Banned_Cartoons.html Here is a short history of the Censored Eleven from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censored_eleven I first heard about this whole thing last week and would be very interested to hear your opinions. Also I understand that this is kinda long so feel free to cut it up where nessisary if you decide to bring it up.
Eirik (Eye-rick) in San Mateo CA
