How Do We Deal with Old Movies?

[@EyebrowCinema]

What is an example of an old, problematic movie that you still enjoy?

[@samuelbarber6177]

Gone With The Wind. It’s uncool to admit that one likes that movie (and yes, I am white, I’m also not American) but I don’t have any shame for that my love of classic historical epics, I love Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh, I love the ‘30s technicolour and I love the subtle ways it takes digs at the Confederacy (I see it kind of as a parody). It’s also incredibly problematic with its depiction of American slavery as effectively being a benevolent institution, and the North being the old stereotype of thieving and plundering.

[@NeverSaySandwich1]

Your average person doesn't see it as problematic, they see it as a good movie

[@fortunatomartino8549]

Snopp Dog Pimp and Drug dealer

[@henryglennon3864]

The Beatles "Help" is one of the funniest comedies, and the best James Bond movie ever, but I wouldn't want to defend that opinion to an Indian Hindu in person.

[@gregoryarkadin1117]

Edward G. Robinson and Loretta Young in The Hatchet Man, Warner Oland and Sidney Toler in Charlie Chan's, Peter Lorre as Mr. Moto, Charlton Heston in Touch of Evil, Akim Tamiroff in General Died at Dawn - are all great.

[@magicjuulbus7140]

I don't have issues with somebody calling a film controversial, so long as the movies themselves are not censored and remain accessible in their uncut forms to everybody.

[@nathanreiber6819]

I do have an issue with people saying things like old films are "problematic."

[@nathanreiber6819]

Its essentially had no value becausenof how nondesceipt the statement is, but practically begs people to dismiss if not fully reject art of immeasurable quality simply brcause of its age.

[@richardmcleod1930]

There is really little to worry about as films of quality with talented Actors are simply non-existent today, and none are expected for the future as the medium simply does not exist any longer. 1939 was the apex in film making and although it has slowly diminished over time, we at least have 50 very good years of filmmaking. Don't expect it in the future, as certainly the Movie Palaces don't exist anymore and even shopping Mall Theaters are on the way out as streaming movies are the only way to go.@@nathanreiber6819

[@Senumunu]

the second you act like people calling movies controversial is just a statement in vacuum you have already given way for censorship there is no world where your statement holds true over time

[@blackbaron0]

Indeed. They don't have to be shown, and you don't have to like them. But no book burning please.

[@Lultschful]

Same way we've always dealt with controversial art. We discuss it, we respect it, we put it into the context of its time and we learn from it. What else?

[@wyattcole5452]

Treat it like the rest of art, just enjoy it and don’t let it influence you enough to negatively effect you

[@DafyddBrooks]

Amen :)

[@hakes2]

Thank you

[@KMHill]

All movies are a reflection of their time and none deserve to be shunned for that. Mirroring their time should be one of their most valued functions. What is problematic is the desire to banish such works and pretend they never existed. If we did that with everything in the past we don't approve of, we would have no sense of how far we have come (or have yet to come).

[@samuelbarber6177]

I think it can depend on the movie sometimes. There are some movies that are legitimately hateful and give bad messages. I personally think that if a film disagrees with our values, we should be able to point that out, whatever the period. Of course, context is necessary for fully understanding and appraising work but I still think it’s worth saying.

[@johnpoole3871]

Yeah I think we should work to preserve all art no matter how shitty its values are. And I agree the current streaming platform need to make everything marketable for a modern audience and making changes is certainly problematic.

[@Hack_The_Planet_]

@@samuelbarber6177I don’t think it depends at all actually, everything has value.

[@samuelbarber6177]

@@Hack_The_Planet_ oh sure, everything does have value, but I personally believe there are films like Triumph of the Will and The Birth of a Nation that deserve to be shunned for their horrible ideals. These may be extreme examples, but sometimes these films aren’t just problematic for a being just a tad racist by modern standouts, these two are actively dangerous.

[@Hack_The_Planet_]

@@samuelbarber6177 “actively dangerous” well no, not really. I don’t care if birth of a nation was made yesterday, you don’t own a monopoly on what is and isn’t morally righteous or what types of stories can and should be told. You are not the arbiter of what is good and what is evil.

[@speedracer2008]

I think we can acknowledge the flaws of a movie, yet still enjoy them.

[@bradfordlangston836]

We don't have to acknowledge anything. Watch them or don't watch them. It was a different time, not a worse one.

[@hyrumforstrom980]

@@bradfordlangston836That’s subjective, not worse for you perhaps. But for African Americans or Women it was a worse time.

[@johnpoole3871]

​@@bradfordlangston836Well he didn't say you have to, just that you can.

[@bradfordlangston836]

@@hyrumforstrom980 Those films were made in the most progressive era in history until that point. Should we go back and rewrite things every 20 years just to appease the very small proportion of the population who actually cares?

[@DONWASABIJUAN]

@@bradfordlangston836I’m so tired of people feeling the need to constantly try and find the worst in everything. It’s exhausting.

[@Jimbls]

Just handed an essay in on the The Searchers 5 minutes before this came out excellent timing

[@EyebrowCinema]

I love to be accidentally topical.

[@jessetrewarn7936]

Cool movie

[@ReubenEmmanuelVeloso]

Just so you know, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" (1994) was riffing "The Crying Game" (1992). The latter's theme playing as Ace was puking is the clue. There was no coincidence.

[@Aaron-zt5ee]

Exactly. If I recall, the Ace Ventura movie even plays music from the Crying Game in the reveal scene.

[@Magus12000BC]

Not to mention that she not only sexually assaults Ace to try to get what she wants out of him, but the entire police force that served under her as evidenced by everyone's reaction when Ace outs her at the end. Just because she was trans doesn't mean that she wasn't a manipulative, vindictive, and dishonest monster.

[@ThatJunkman]

Also she wasn’t trans. She was cross dressing in order to kill some one

[@simoneidson21]

@@Magus12000BCYes, however, that is a stereotype of trans women. That’s what people get all up in arms about. It’s like if you were to have white character get mugged by a stupid, weed smoking, fried chicken loving black thug

[@jvgreendarmok]

@@Magus12000BC Because that's how the filmmakers chose to depict a trans character.

[@spinlok3943]

We can preach from our high horse all day, but ultimately there are a lot of things in our current movies that we’re completely unconscious of that will be considered problematic 50 years from now.

[@jacobvarney23]

I’m not sure about that. I can’t think of things in popular movies today that could ever be problematic

[@spinlok3943]

@@jacobvarney23 Exactly, we’re completely unconscious about them now. I don’t know what they are either. But things could to change to where what’s normal for our time may be considered shocking or taboo in the future.

[@johnpoole3871]

Oh absolutely. Our great-grandchildren will likely be horrified by some of the things we think are fine. Just how it goes.

[@jacobvarney23]

@@spinlok3943 I still feel like the things that we frown upon today aren’t just “old.” I think it’s more about prejudice. If somebody made a racist movie today, it wouldn’t matter that it was new/modern; it would still be problematic.

[@ImperialCaleb]

You're excuse making. People were not "unconscious" of racism, they were consciously participating in it. And there were people 50 years ago and older who knew racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc were wrong. Also consciously. Only in certain circumstances like during periods of heavy propaganda would I say people actually have excuses for believing a certain thing.

[@domwalker6526]

Old movies are pieces of our history. A visual time capsule we can jump in so you gotta have appreciation for them despite the content

[@Zed-fq3lj]

well said!👍

[@darlalathan6143]

No, old movies are some director's or screenwriter's political opinion, based on the culture they grew up in. What movie buffs appreciate is their technical skills or intended messages. Due to privilege, they don't notice the problematic material, hence they disagree with ethnic and sympathizer activists offended by the material because they live with bigotry daily.

[@Johnnysmithy24]

@@darlalathan6143🥱🥱🥱

[@taliamason7986]

​@@darlalathan6143Got nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with 'logic' and 'common sense' which clearly seems to be greatly lacking these days. When you observe art of a historical period, you are suppose to try as much as you can to observe from the lens of whatever historical period it came from. It isn't always easy to do but you just simply have to do it.

[@hurrdurr7861]

@@darlalathan6143 your pathetic totalitarian slacktivism leads nowhere.

[@Deivid-bn6yw]

One film that’s a surprise to me is Zulu (1964) It’s set in South Africa during the height of the British empire and stars Michael Caine as a British army general who has to defend the hospital of Rorkes drift with his 150 british soldiers against an army of 4000 Zulu warriors. It’s based on a true story and Although the film is mostly from the perspective of the Brits which gives the perception this is another pro colonisation war movie, it focuses on the battle and shows a great respect to both sides. Throughout the film the Zulu are ridiculed as nothing but savages or cowards yet many other characters defend them and their capabilities. The end of the film is very beautiful when just before the final battle the Zulu begin to sing as respect for the Brits bravery and ability to defend for so long and then the Brits too sing back to them. It’s also a very important film because it was shot on location not too far from the real battle and sort of began the film industry in South Africa. I really recommend it if you’re looking for a historical epic

[@Tolstoy111]

It's a remarkable film.

[@nickmitsialis]

@@Tolstoy111 And I absolutely didn't hear ANYBODY badmouth the Zulus courage and prowess.

[@cyryc]

watch The Naked Prey

[@nathanreiber6819]

you're right, the only good film before the year 2000 was the pro british imperialism propaganda film Zulu, all the other movies are racist and bad.

[@Tolstoy111]

@@nathanreiber6819 it’s not that at all. Did you see it?

[@ricardocantoral7672]

Glad to see so many sensible people responding. You simply take a film as it is, a product of it's time.

[@darlalathan6143]

He also acknowledged that modern viewers can't do that because they are products of their time who grew up with slightly more "politically correct" movies.

[@ricardocantoral7672]

@@darlalathan6143 I am 36 years old and I love classic films. I generally can take films from their era and see it was the times. However, there are limits. For example, a movie called City For Conquest starring James Cagney and Ann Sheridan. At one point, Sheridan is actually raped. This isn't my spin, she is actually raped. You don't see it but it's obvious what happens. Nothing is said of it and the film seems to imply she deserved it because she went for another guy instead of Cagney. So stuff like that, yeah. It's hard to take.

[@thac0twenty377]

​@ricardocantoral7672 wow. what makes someone deserve that? your statement is very problematic. no victim deserves to have that happen

[@shaneriggs6678]

​@@darlalathan6143 I absolutely hate modern viewers with a passion, I have always hated political correctness

[@woahdaddy.standbackman.902]

@@thac0twenty377 You're misreading what they're saying, they're not saying that a woman or anyone would ever deserve this, they're saying that that's what THE FILM was implying/conveying (which he said was "hard to take" for them as a viewer).

[@p1nh3dlarry72]

I was assigned to watch The Searchers for my first film class, and the number of people who called it racist and said it was horrible without a second thought or engaging with it further is concerning to me.

[@nope5657]

My mantra is and will always be: "Yes, older films are often problematic. And that's OK! Art is allowed to be messy and conflicted." We can discuss it, dissect it, etc. My only issue is when people get on a high horse about it and call for censorship/toss moral judgments at those who enjoy the films in question.

[@richardvillafana8111]

Mickey Rooney's portrayal of a Japanese man is cringe worthy, and I'm certainly glad his role was small. Having said that, I still enjoy Breakfast at Tiffany's.

[@Attmay]

The book is even more insensitive, calling him a racial slur the movie omits.

[@isaiahreaves9626]

I am a Black Gay classic film buff and fan. I cannot understand why anything has to be “dealt “ with or why anyone would expect films from another time to align with their values. Being upset about an older film is the equivalent of being angry that a photograph from 1890 isn’t in high resolution. One day someone will look back on us and critique our values. Such is a cycle of life. Do not let things by those who are dead upset you. There is a lot that can be learned from art of all ages. There’s also a real lack of context and education from those who claim to be enlightened. And lots of hypocrisy….as if our films today are not “problematic.” As if we are so arrogant as to believe that we are solving or helping anything with our own stagnant and stereotypical images.

[@jeffgreenberg5306]

well-stated!

[@stptr14]

“being upset about an older film is the equivalent of being angry that a photograph from 1890 isn’t in high resolution” please tell me people aren’t this dense.

[@Johnmrobinson-vb5vd]

Wonderfully said

[@Johnmrobinson-vb5vd]

​​@@stptr14he's right complaining that a film from 70 years ago isnt as proggsive as a modern film is stupid

[@BarnabyStipplethorpe]

I agree completely, well said!

[@YanatheJudasGoat]

I just wanted to say that I really like your nuanced approach to things. You're not really preaching anything and being condescending about these kind of controversial topics, you're really trying to get into the nitty-gritty and acknowledge different points of view in your videos. It is a real treat to be your subscriber.

[@thebestwingsfan]

Speaking of Sidney Poitier, he would also play a more troubling character in the film adaptation of A Raisin in the Sun. Someone who does several questionable things including supporting his wife to have an abortion because of their poverty lives and giving his father's life insurance check, the only substantial income they have, to a would be business partner who he planned to invest in a liquor store business with before he skipped town with the money. However, he is constantly stressed, almost to the point of losing it, because the only job he has is being a chauffeur to a rich white family where he feels like a tool. He can be pretty horrible at times but he's by no means a bad guy. The best word to describe him in A Raisin in the Sun is human.

[@flemit35]

I don't think white people should be criticizing Sidney Poitier choice of film roles, the advantages of showing capable intelligent moral characters and how showing him as a good person, unthreatening person who stands up for himself but isn't a threat obviously aided the progress of civil rights is obvious and was a choice Poitier and like minded black people were free to make. I will criticize the counter productiveness of constantly glorifying blackman as criminals, gangsters and pimps in the largely self made (but white financed) films of the 70s through to many depictions in film and RnB to this day is exactly pandering to the fears racists have.

[@DJAnubisMetalTavernRadio]

How do you deal with old movies? The same way i deal with new movies. If i dont find them something i would be interested in i simply dont watch. Freedom of choice is a such a beautiful thing as an American.

[@samuelbarber6177]

I think we should just talk about it. If a film or work offends us or plain don’t agree with its values, we shouldn’t discard it. Instead, an audience should be able to discuss and contextualise their issues with a film. To pick an extreme example, if we watch a film like The Triumph of Will, most would quite rightly disagree with its messages, and we should also be allowed to disagree with filmmaking practices of the past, such as Lawrence of Arabia, in which the English actor, Alec Guinness wears brown face to portray an Arab. It’s racist, and yet also a great performance in a great movie. To my mind, the worst thing we can do is ignore history or even outright ban it. Because when we stop discussing a work, we can no longer learn from it. That’s my two cents. I don’t think it’s easy, though. It’s uncomfortable. But that’s why I think it ought to be done.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

I don't think there's a problem with discussing those issues in a certain context, but they should always be kept in the background. After all, moral codes are transient while an artwork (hopefully) lasts forever. I simply see no point in disagreeing with a filmmaking process from the past. You think the practice of a studio always using white actors in makeup to play minority roles is racist, sure- and so do I. But that's because we are living in 2024 when standards have changed. If a studio started implementing that practice today then absolutely it would be racist and wrong and we should be voicing that. But in 1962 that practice was seen as perfectly acceptable. Who knows what attitude that is seen as perfectly acceptable today will be regarded as deeply problematic in 50 years' time? I guess what I'm saying is judging something made in the past by today's standards seems to me not only unfair, but (short of building a time machine) a complete waste of time, and not an especially interesting contribution to the analysis of an artwork. Like I said, there are exceptions- for example, if one is having a conversation specifically about, say, the marginalisation of minority actors in early Hollywood then of course we have to bring this sort of judgement in. But it definitely shouldn't be the first or most obvious conclusion drawn from watching a movie per se.

[@doktormabuse4794]

If you polled Arabs(living in Arab countries) whether they consider Alec Guinesses performance to be racist I doubt you would find many that agree with that conclusion. That comes partly from the fact that it wasn't "brown face" - he didn't partake in minstrel show intended to offend.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

@@doktormabuse4794 I think it's less about the performance itself being racist, and more about the general practice of studios denying roles to minority actors because only white actors were allowed to play major roles- which wasn't racist at the time (hence my point about not judging the past by the standards of the present), but definitely is by today's standards. I completely agree that the performance itself wasn't intended to mock and thus shouldn't be viewed as "racist" in the way that, say, Mickey Rooney's performance in Breakfast At Tiffany's (the entire point of which was to provide comedy based on racist Asian stereotypes) could be. As always, it's about context, which is something that is forgotten all too easily these days. For example, a lot of people expressed "offence" at RDJ's black face character in Tropic Thunder when the entire point of the character was to mock the ridiculous and insensitive lengths method actors will go to get a role, and thus couldn't be considered racist by any reasonable standards. Or the fact that the BBC no longer broadcasts the episode of Fawlty Towers where the n-word is used, despite the fact that the entire point of that scene is to mock the character that uses it for being an out-of-touch buffoon. That's the problem with society, we never seem to get the balance right- the pendulum swings from "white people mocking black culture by dressing up as black people is fine" to "you can't say an offensive word in any context even if you are using it to mock racism itself". Oh well, c'est la vie, in the absence of real problems people will always find something to complain about...

[@Attmay]

A white man playing a white man is racist how? After October 7, they have no business calling anyone racist. Not Bibi Netanyahu, not David Lean, not Howard Ashman, not anyone.

[@azohundred1353]

The Searchers is one of my favorite movies, and I love how you put it into proper context for a modern world, showing how we can learn from it and all its nuances. John Ford's Westerns in general are quite interesting to view as a study of a changing vision, as Peter Bogdanovich told him in his documentary, his Westerns got more cynical as time went on(from Stagecoach forward), but even before that as you showed, you could see Ford highlighting the country's past as far back as his silent westerns. Aside from his Westerns being great action-adventure movies(with John Wayne and Henry Fonda giving some of their best performances in them), they tended to wrestle with ideas typical of the time, even if in subtle ways. And of course, his socially conscious films like The Grapes Of Wrath show that these ideas were always on his mind, despite some of his movies having problematic elements(that should always be viewed with context for a better understanding and cinematic experience). John Ford is one of my all-time favorite directors for many of these reasons, and you articulated excellently why his films are worth studying in the 21st century. At the end of the day, the further we get from cinema's past, the more I think it becomes important to study them. History is vital to society and deserves to be remembered. Amazing video!

[@jesustovar2549]

You know, despite being a huge western fan, my Great Uncle was never a fan of John Wayne's manner of speaking, in fact he pointed to Henry Fonda as a good example of speech and acting. Don't get me wrong, he still enjoys his movies, one of the last we saw was Fort Apache.

[@azohundred1353]

​@@jesustovar2549I understand and respect that. Wayne did have a very distinctive drawl. In my humble opinion, I think Wayne was at his best in his more anti-heroic roles, such as Red River, The Searchers, and at a point in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, where his manner of speaking actually elevated those larger-than-life characters. Henry Fonda, was an amazing subtle actor, almost like Montgomery Clift before Clift was even around. You look at his performance in My Darling Clementine and he conveys so much realistically without having to overdo anything. Interestingly enough, when Henry Fonda and John Wayne starred together in Fort Apache, Henry played against type while Wayne played a more grounded character. Fort Apache is fantastic, by the way. One of my favorite Ford films.

[@WeWiLLRefuse]

The guy who wrote this book, Foster Hirsch, was my film professor a few years ago

[@HabitualJoker]

We should never ban or edit film. Film is a reflection of its time, just like all art is.

[@thecinematicmind]

I always believe inevitably we are all curious for the unseen to be shown at last.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

"It is looking at history from the pedestal of today's morality... it denies us the deeper insight into our voyage and shuts off our understanding of history completely. I think it is a dangerous path which blinds us to the obstacles of the past and how we overcame them"- Werner Herzog. I have never understood the concept of editing or rewriting (or even worse attempting to suppress) historical art or media to conform to today's values. There is nothing "problematic" about an offensive (by today's standards) attitude or perspective that was widely held in the past unless one tries to actually implement it on the present. Simply preserving it as a window into an era with a different set of moral and social values to ours is not only unproblematic, it is our duty to the legacy of history and to future generations. After all, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Whenever I watch a movie or read a book created a long time ago I do my best to place myself in the mindset of the creator and the wider era- it's the only way to truly appreciate it for what it is. I'm a staunch atheist, but when I watch, say, Tarkovsky's Stalker I have to place myself within the mindset of a devout Christian otherwise I will never truly understand what the film is trying to say. Likewise, if I read Ian Fleming I have to place myself within the mindset of an upper-class conservative misogynist for the time I'm reading the book- what would be the use in crying over language which may be (rightly, in my opinion) disapproved of today, but which 70 years ago- when the work was created- was perfectly acceptable? Scenes being cut and passages being edited out by contemporary sensitivity filters is the worst possible kind of iconoclasm, in my opinion. Anyway, rant over😊

[@jesustovar2549]

Like, I don't blame Richard Wagner for being anti-semitic, being anti-semitic, racist and even xenophobic was pretty common for a long time (even Modest Mussorgsky had a piece that mocks jews in Pictures at an Exhibition), I still enjoy his major works, his contributions to arts, music, theatre, even cinema to a certain extent, the man was a revolutionary in it's field, and wasn't always celebrated even being alive, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have liked to see his beloved Germany devastated in WW2. Also, I know this might have some problems, but, J. K. Rowling, I still love Harry Potter, books and movies (honestly I'm a bit recent to the fandom), Jo's possition against trans people, might seem bertraying to some of his fans who are, but just like Wagner, I think Rowling is a woman from her time, she might tolerate lesbians, gays and bi-sexuals, but not trans, she has her limits of acceptance and tolerance, we all have it, even if might have to do wether we like something or someone, even my family would understand her possition, a great uncle of mine is also recent to the franchise, some of his favorite musicians are gay, but he dosen't approve that life style, even I might not understand it since I'm not, I respect since they're human beings and deserve to live, we just choose different paths. Please don't kill me in the comments, I have enough with attacking attitude in ANY comment section.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

​@@jesustovar2549 Precisely. It's so important to be able to empathise with those who have different views and lifestyles to us, even if we can't sympathise with them. Otherwise how can we ever hope to understand the world, never mind history? I have to say I have never heard a single thing Rowling has said that could be considered "anti-trans" by any reasonable person (and I've encountered numerous trans people themselves who say exactly the same). She may have said something since that is, idk because it's not a topic I'm especially interested in keeping up with, but her initial comments that sparked all the online outrage seemed like a pretty reasonable and moderate perspective to me whether one fully agrees with them or not. But it doesn't really matter, I'm digressing here. The point is, as you say, that whether one agrees with her perspective or not that shouldn't in any way tarnish the legacy of Harry Potter. I think Roman Polanski's crimes were utterly heinous and revolting, but Chinatown is still an amazing movie that I will continue to rewatch until I die.

[@jesustovar2549]

​@@oliverholmes-gunning5372Totally agree, that never stopped me or my Mom from appreciating a work like The Pianist, which even Polanski considers his best movie. Same with Woody Allen, I remembered I stopped watching his films after learning "that" but I'm more likely to believe it never happened, there's a video called "Woody Allen is innocent", hours of investigation. I'm not denying there are monsters in Hollywood, like Harvey Weinstein, or Dan Schneider (you've seen the documentary "Quiet on Set" already?).

[@SeasideDetective2]

I have trouble with the concept that ANY film - unless it's something like a snuff film or a pedophilic porn film - can be "moral" or "immoral." It's just make-believe, right? No one actually gets hurt. RIght?

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

@@SeasideDetective2 to a large extent I agree with you. I certainly don't think that "immorality" constitutes reasonable grounds to ban ANY piece of fiction, that's for sure. There is of course the caveat that sometimes films are deliberately made as propaganda (such as the films of Goebbels fuelling anti-Semitism under the Third Reich, or, for a slightly less extreme example, Top Gun Maverick being partially funded by the US Air Force as a recruiting tool), but does that make the movie itself immoral, or simply the filmmakers? I mean, Birth Of A Nation was essentially a recruitment advert for the KKK, but that doesn't stop it being a very technically accomplished piece of cinema in its own right that every film student should see. So yeah, I'm not sure if it's always a completely cut-and-dried issue but overall I'm definitely inclined to agree with you...

[@NelsonStJames]

Some people simply don’t have the emotional, cinematic, and historical intelligence to watch not just older films, but films that challenge them in any way. One need only to look at many of the “review” channels that are less about critique and review of art, and more about criticizing films for not being the films that reviewer would made. And as a result when the term problematic gets thrown around it’s really not necessarily about the film, but about their perception of the film whether they missed the point or not that the film is actually making.

[@BrickBardo9782]

My undergrad class must've been the only one that never laughed at that scream in The Searchers.

[@EyebrowCinema]

Lucky you. Laughter at old movie screenings drives me up the wall.

[@BrickBardo9782]

@@EyebrowCinema Oh, don't misunderstand me, I've had that happen. I held a double-feature screening of The Thing and Escape from LA once, and two people who showed up and said they "loved" The Thing laughed through the whole movie. It was infuriating.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

@@BrickBardo9782 I can't count the amount of times I've tried to show people one of my all-time favourite films, Double Indemnity, and they've laughed all the way through at Chandler's stylised noiresque dialogue calling it "quaint" and "old-timey". If you're not gonna try and get into the spirit of the idiom of the era when the movie was made, what's the point in watching it?!

[@BrickBardo9782]

@@oliverholmes-gunning5372 I think I would actually go insane right then and there if I heard someone laugh at Chandler dialogue.

[@oliverholmes-gunning5372]

@@BrickBardo9782 Some people don't deserve nice things😊

[@cassandroid]

The villain of Ace Ventura was not a “trans woman”, it was a man who stole a dead woman’s identity as part of an elaborate revenge scheme. There was no indication of genuine gender dysphoria in the film.

[@thac0twenty377]

nut people can't get angry seeing it that way

[@braidscabal3025]

Such many cases for modern AGP's.

[@cambodianz]

Art doesn’t owe you agreement. It’s ok for art to bother you. It’s ok for you to be offended, just keep in mind that the offense you take doesn’t matter. I really wish people would stop bringing their own baggage into artistic viewings. It’s poor engagement.

[@bensneb360]

I think this is one of those issues that always be discussing, but I like your nuanced and layered take on it… you’d make an amazing film professor

[@smischka]

Brilliant essay. Very nuanced interpretation that incorporates both current concerns and a historian’s resistance to forming anachronistic views of historical works. Great work, once again!

[@ashroskell]

Great essay. Loved every word. Thoughtful yet concise, forensic yet with a lightness of touch, comprehensive yet digestible, serious yet occasionally funny, unflinchingly critical yet generous and honest. Only a true cinephile could speak so wisely about the cinematic arts, reserving the wisest and most compelling message for the concluding sentence; “We need to actually watch them.” You are a superb ambassador for the industry, sir.

[@EyebrowCinema]

Thank you for your very generous words of support. It means a lot.

[@ashroskell]

@@EyebrowCinema : I meant every word. Really enjoyed it. Thank you for the entertainment. Makes me want to pull The Searchers off my shelf and rewatch it. I kept thinking of My Darling Clementine. One of my personal favourites from that era, yet with one truly, “Yikes!” out loud scene involving a drunken Native American. That, despite being a wonderfully original take on an American legend (for its time) with a deceptively complex script and beautifully sensitive performances from both male leads, always makes me find my knuckles in my mouth when the, “drunken Injun,” scene looms forth. Not so much what happens, but what the characters all say, and what the scene is meant to convey about Tombstone’s depicted state of lawlessness. The rest of the movie is kind of flawless, in a small c conservative values kind of way. And I just can’t help loving it.

[@EyebrowCinema]

@@ashroskell i also love My Darling Clementine (my 3rd favourite Ford) and I think you get to the heart of it well here.

[@VilleHalonen]

I tried to articulate the reasons I loved this video -- hell, the entire channel -- but you just did it way better than I ever could. Thank you.

[@baker2880]

this is one of the best video essays i have seen on this issue. so glade i ran into you work!!

[@chronovore3726]

Engaging with old media is valuable in the same way as engaging with our past and our present. We are still a long way from accepting the reality or validity of our fellow citizens' viewpoints and that's largely without the presence of abject racism. I'm old enough to remember a very different world. Forgetting it, pretending it didn't exist, thumbing our privileged noses at it or trying to publicly disown it are all mistakes.

[@RenoReborn]

The movies we watch today will be considered problematic in 50 years time because we didn't acknowledge the specific issues of the future, hell, stuff from like 10 years ago is starting to be considered problematic because they don't overtly address Trans issues, despite the fact that films 10 years ago were considered progressive AF (for the time). We can acknowledge that the past was flawed whilst also recognizing that they, like us right now, were doing the best they could within the social and moral structures they found themselves within, we're talking about movies made during McCarthyism for god sake, the creatives had to censor themselves so hard and only the approved message was allowed otherwise you'd be investigated for Communism

[@MarkAfterDark]

A very nuanced take and I'm glad it came from you.

[@EyebrowCinema]

Thanks Mark!!

[@scms2528]

Cinema's biggest threat isn't corporate tentpoles, nor is it censorship of past classics. It's young people's preference of short-form content, be that KZbin or Tik Tok. That scares me more than anything.

[@Johnnysmithy24]

TRUE

[@chrisbarber2436]

KiDs ThEsE dAyS

[@grisflyt]

Not just young people: "Computer scientists and psychologists have been studying attention spans for about 20 years, over which time the average time that a person can focus on one thing has dropped from around 2½ minutes to around 45 seconds."

[@triplejazzmusicisall1883]

The human attention span has shrunk to now be almost non-existent and scientists have proved this. Your point is extremely valid. At some stage humans will need to retrain their brains to be able to wait, to think methodically and not be constantly in a state of hyper motion and flux. Technology is currently using us more than we are selectively and sensibly using it as a tool. Screens have become life itself in terms of entertainment and this is scary.

[@BackupChannel-nq6fg]

Tbf the earliest movies were short

[@braidscabal3025]

By watching and enjoying them.

[@TANG3RINE95]

Loved this video a lot. Your videos are some of my favourite on film!

[@josephvlogsdon]

I think one mistake is thinking that modern sensibilities are always correct. In some cases, the past might be right, and we might be wrong. We often forget that we will also be judged by future generations. I also think people who discard artistic nuance and complexity in the name of pious virtue are nothing more than anti-intellectual philistines masking their ignorance in moral superiority.

[@johnpoole3871]

Sute. It also depends on how personal these issues are for you. But he also challenges this view, that modern has better values, in the video.

[@ryszakowy]

we don't we secure them in unedited version to be watched, studied and understood labeling something as problematic and changing it not only destroys it but doesn't allow for reflection

[@1998Cebola]

No, calling something problematic is a result of reflection, r't'rd

[@Trekpanther]

There are some questions or points I wish would come up in these conversations more: 1. Question: "For an audience that is more likely than not watching films as a form of escapist entertainment, *should* it be expected of them to examine the film in the same way a professional movie critic or enthusiast or film student would?" Taking an example from the video, if someone is curious about watching early Hollywood movies for fun, why *should* they watch The Jazz Singer over the hundreds of other options available like Wings or Metropolis? They're not a student who might watch it because it's one of the first major talkies or a professor writing a book on the history of minstrel shows in film, they're just looking for an hour and half to relax on the couch and watch something on their TV. If they don't like seeing racist caricatures, then yeah I should not expect them to just watch The Jazz Singer just because the "film canon" holds it up and I wouldn't have recommended it to them over the hundreds of other choices. 2. Question: "Are the same critiques made today about an older film around when the movie came out in its time?" I am sure that this happened more than people think. For as much commentary I've seen dismissing folks dissing Gone With the Wind because of its depiction of slavery and hinted sympathy for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, that's not new; the NAACP and other black figures in 1939 publicly said the same thing when it was coming out! The critique was of its time as well. Same goes for the Mickey Rooney yellow-face bit in Breakfast at Tiffanys, that same critique was made by The Hollywood Reporter and Variety in 1961. To me that's why lines like "it's of its time" should not be utilized as a bludgeon to shut the conversation down because those critiques may have been noted at the time; you in 2024 probably never read it and/or didn't care to look for it when you're used to seeing publications that historically in those times are and still somewhat dominated by a white, straight, American/European, male power base who didn't care. Edit: I know you said it Eyebrow in your video, but I did want to note it in the comment anyway just for those who don't go that far. 3. Question: "Is the critique coming from a place where the person is/has been effect by similar jokes/depictions?" I get it, we've seen the tumblr/twitter trolls that'd say stupid shit because they don't care what comes out of their mouth, but not every writers or rando on Facebook that say "this is racist" is that troll. Watching several black or queer or non-American writers get as much hyperbolic vitriol over their substantially thought out critique, as though they should just shut up and let people enjoy the racist jokes is just mind boggling. Hell, the reason you might even be seeing more of this is because there are professional writers who aren't the same straight, white dudes who dominated the industry and are finally allowed by the industry to bring their own backgrounds in the analysis that same way Roger Ebert might be informed by his Catholic upbringing when reviewing Scorsese movies. 4. A point that's similar to the third question, but ultimately, why are folks, who are tar and feathering people for pointing out these problematic elements, doing so as though that critique actually carries a material threat? For example, I don't like Driving Miss Daisy at all and alot of my dislike has to do with how it handles the subject matter of race....however, me saying that does not mean that ergo I will (or even can lol) storm the Academy to melt down the Best Picture statue it won in 1989 or that I have the power to snap all the VHS/DVDs/Blurays/stream code of it from existence. I'm not David Zaslav who owns the right to that film, I'm not the COO for Max that does have material power to take it off streaming so...yeah my opinion is just that, it's not a declaration of woke war or whatever right-wingers want to treat it like. Why invest your time and energy into trying to "prove" these folks "wrong" like they have any material power (also, you don't either). For the record, I do have films I really like that are problematic, but I have to recognize at the end of the day, that is my *personal* taste and how much I can tolerate problematic shit. For example, one of my favorite movies of all time is James Cameron's The Abyss, but I have encountered people that have watched and hated it or refuse to watch it because a major female character gets alot of misogynistic attention towards her including getting slapped & screamed at during a resuscitation scene while her breasts are out. The thing is though, I don't go out of my way to chastise them or even persuade them if that's not what they want to see while they're trying to fucking relax. That's fine, I understand why and to be honest I still point out how that is a negative of the film publicly because I understand that critique is critique, not a teardown with an immediate material threat to the film itself. If I discover the person would rather watch something else, that's cool too, I don't force it or call them "wokescolds" for it.

[@xBINARYGODx]

Excellent points and post!

[@1998Cebola]

Good comment!

[@markparkinson6947]

This was a very interesting video! Thank you for making it! Makes me want to check out the Searchers, as well as the other movies you mentioned!

[@lisprn-tt1tu]

After watching this video, KZbin algorithm recommended The Birth of a Nation (1915) for me...

[@erikramaekers63]

I probably get: Triumph of the Will.Sick propaganda but the camerawork and editing inspired Orson Welles.

[@kymbrown1614]

I didn't think I would enjoy this, but it was really well done. Thank you and I'm glad I kept watching.

[@AnonymousAccount514]

i went into teenage discord servers last night and i can tell you....racism is alive and well with the youth of today...this generation is NOT woke.

[@sonyslyer9946]

It’s ingrained in society sadly. Racism will continue always and the internet also really pushes it more with subtle ads and also accounts that aren’t banned.

[@zaphyra-]

you see racism all the time on Instagram reels too

[@roachmasta189]

This has quickly become my favorite channel on youtube precisely because of thoughtful well researched videos like this!

[@adamwallace7353]

Briefly covered John Ford as part of my postgraduate program. Pretty sure i was the only one in the class who actually liked The Searchers lmao.

[@rexdavidson4028]

Wow, man. It’s people like you that prove film-tube essays are an art form unto themselves.

[@soliopy]

Superb work! If I were a film professor I would include this video in the first unit of the course lol. Reading or watching classic works is the only way we can evaluate our past, and it has everything to do with understanding where we are today. Being willfully ignorant is not a virtue. Art has existed for the entirety of human history, beyond what we could ever categorize with simple concepts of good and evil. There's immensely important lessons and things to appreciate witnessing no matter where we examine in our past. It is always worth it to look.

[@porkins74]

I'm glad I was born 20 years before you. I was able to enjoy a lot of these movies without the problems you have with them and I can rewatch them all still without the problems you perceive them to have.

[@SamuelThomasFraser]

This attitude feels a little dicey to me, because it suggests either a lack of reflection after the fact upon elements that have aged poorly, but only stick out in hindsight, or a refusal to acknowledge problems that you know to exist now. Is it not more critically and intellectually honest to look at a piece of art and say, "I enjoy this, and here are some things about it that should have been done differently"? "I like this thing and it has no problems" is a very passive way of viewing a work, and it may shortchange the work if you as a viewer don't put as much effort into watching it as the artist did into making it.

[@moonbeans7042]

I think its just important for people to just engage critically with the media we consume. To not let the depictions of others to wash over us unchallenged. This doesnt mean discarding films or shows that we disagree with but to engage with and understand what we are watching. For instance most american police crime dramas are entertaining and interesting but you cant engage with them critically unless you accept they are presenting an idealised and slightly authoritarian viewpoint that often ignores the problems of discrimination and institutional corruption. Thats not to say you reject all cop dramas as being vile propaganda but that you dont sit there and absorb it uncritically as if its a totally truthful reenactment of the real world. For me personally the context of a work makes it more interesting so i dont mind looking at works with their positives and negatives on display or in my mind but i do understand why a lot of people just want the comfort of being able to just watch a bit of escapist entertainment without troubling themselves with context.

[@blouburkette]

Really, really excellent video.

[@villanova5234]

This channel deserves so much more attention. Well done on a bold, excellent and professional take on an important (tricky) topic. The Searchers is the first film I think of when having this discussion. Lawrence of Arabia? New doesn’t automatically mean “better” or “more correct”. Pretending like these films or moments don’t exist is also NOT the answer.

[@clarapilier]

How do we deal with old movies? We put them in context. The context in universe of the story itself. The context of the historical and material aspects of the making of the movie. How can that context be changed in the present and in the future to better represent the characters and stories we want to tell. Giving context doesn’t mean that you have to like the movie, it only means that you will have a better understanding as to why the story and the characters were made the way they were made. Nor does it mean that in doing so you are in any way you are endorsing the ideas of the movies or the way this ideas are being portrait.

[@darlalathan6143]

How about content ratings and trigger warnings, so sensitive viewers can avoid them?

[@cyrus2546]

@@darlalathan6143Those sensitive viewers should get some thicker skin. Life doesn’t have “trigger warnings”. Being uncomfortable is part of life.

[@Yony42]

At risk of sounding like I'm arguing in bad faith: Maybe many old movies that "mismanage" racism as a theme, do indeed show the growing pains of a white-dominated culture trying to figure itself out through entertainment, which is interesting. That is a legitimate and important part of history, and is still relevant today. I'm glad it shows people trying their best to change within the constraints of the era they lived in. I feel, though, that this subject is more of a sociological one than anything to do with the intrinsic value of art. White kids slowly decided that playing cowboys and indyuns "isn't that cool actually" is important, but I don't need to charitably analyze their home-video footage and find some artistic appreciation for that, just a historical one.

[@two_owls]

This video has taught me that Richard Widmark is the unsung hero of classic Hollywood. He's in like half the movie clips for this one! (And stars in Judgment at Nuremberg, one of my all time favorite oldies!)

[@EyebrowCinema]

Widmark is excellent. Would highly recommend Kiss of Death (1947) if you want to see more of him. It's a solid little noir elevated substantially by Widmark's sinister villain. His performance was also purportedly influenced by The Joker so that's neat.

[@two_owls]

@@JohnSmith-rm1po It pairs really well with Oppenheimer, another trial movie about industrialized mass slaughter. Both try to grapple with the complex morals permeating the history being fictionalized. They're also an interesting contrast, in that Judgment chose to show archival footage of the victims, while Oppenheimer chose not to.

[@zlodrim9284]

Judgment is such a great film, I've seen it 3-4 times over the last two years and am absolutely captivated by its screenplay. The whole cast is great, but Widmark really takes over it in the second half as Rolfe's rival in it. The scene in which they show the footage of the corpses is supposedly the first time the rest of the world was shown the horrors of the Nazi death camps, too, which is interesting. Nowadays, when holocaust denial is back in trend, given the rise of the right and fascist sentiments, I lament the fact that this film is sort of forgotten and isn't talked about anymore, especially given its treatment of the USA's foreign policy and aspiration as the new rising empire in the post-WW2 era. I think it is quite relevant and should be rediscovered and discussed again.

[@two_owls]

@@zlodrim9284 The level of criticism levelled at postwar US policy was a surprise first time I watched it. I mean, it was made only a few years after the height of McCarthyism! Stanley Kramer was a real one, that's for sure!

[@invidatauro8922]

I think a good way to consider the topic is to realize it is very likely all the movies made today can very easily be considered problematic in a few short decades

[@alexanderklepp]

This was a brilliantly done video.

[@fpedrosa2076]

Goodness, I hate this whole comment section. I hate it so, so much. Not the video, the video's great. It tackles a tough topic with nuance and thought, and I agree with its thesis overall. Great stuff! But the comment section... It's clear half the people here didn't even bother watching the whole thing. I doubt some got even past the title.

[@dogeshark204]

For real, I see so many people saying "How do we deal with them? Well you obviously watch them you liberal doofus!!!!" Guess what? The author of the video agrees with you.

[@AinsleyHIowaauditionvideos]

Dude, tell me about it. I feel like some people find any video that doesn't say media with problematic elements should be thrown in the fires of hell and never watched again and immediately think they can then just engage with the polar opposite attitude of "it was a product of its time and when I watched it in 1980 I didn't find any problems with it, so if you do you're just whiny child!". It's painful how such a brilliant, nuanced video can be swarmed with people who refuse to think critically even when he's literally sounding it out for them.

[@florinivan6907]

The problem with dealing with old stuff is that there's no endgame. Everything gets old eventually and what happens when stuff that is new(er) gets put through the same lens?Stuff that maybe you like. If old stuff is open to banishment then newer stuff too. And without clear guidelines as to were does it end everything can be eventually banished. There's no final battle. Without that it just keeps going and going. No endgame is not sustainable.

[@alancranford3398]

I really like your answer to "how do we deal with old movies?" Actually watch them.

[@DwRockett]

I know how hard it is to talk about The Searchers and not quote the final line of Roger Ebert’s review of the film again (I was literally thinking of that line throughout the entire section), so I just gotta say, I see your effort there And for real, I kind of hope this video is shown to all first year film students now, so props for that

[@EyebrowCinema]

Ha! Thank you kindly.

[@zakuraiyadesu]

Love the videos, man. Keep it up!!!

[@bartmann81]

Once again an excellent essay, Daniel! Lot of food for thought, and above all a great plea for film education and discours about film. I still remember ho2 my great (Dutch-Asian) film teacher explained to me the racism, historical context and artistic significance of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, in a way that thought me to think more broadly about the subject in general. This is an example for me in my work to this very day, also when I discuss the work of problematic artists.

[@brianhotaling5849]

Do t worry, our grandchildren will contend that we are backwards-thinking monsters as well. A sense of perspective is always handy.

[@two_owls]

Or they'll lionize us for stuff we would think of as baffling. The present loves to flatten the past in all sorts of ways lol!

[@frederickburke9944]

more importantly, how do we go about undoing the sissification of our culture?

[@kevyn1016]

I'm convinced most of these commenters did NOT watch the video... Having a nuanced take is a good thing. We can still see the value of art with bigoted elements without sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, and the commenters saying "It doesn't matter just watch the movie" are being highly anti-intellectual in their media literacy.

[@braidscabal3025]

Nice 4chan copypasta.

[@stupendoushorrendous8258]

Oh shit, this video might've convinced me to watch The Searchers.

[@baanibarnes9711]

Very well put. I am generally aware of many of the points made but not to the depth you revealed, many thanks for opening my eyes a little wider.

[@JonConstruct]

30:00 Another John Ford film that wrestles with race in the Old West is Sergeant Rutledge (1960).

[@EyebrowCinema]

Great call. That's a really good, really underappreciated Ford.

[@LordPapula]

Excellent and well-informed work, @EyebrowCinema. Thank you.

[@nicholasbodo4327]

Judi Dench’s M in particular her role in Skyfall is everything Madelyn failed to be but as a mother figure rather than a love interest.

[@brianhotaling5849]

Excellent work on the HUAC!

[@samuelbarber6177]

Is it weird that I suddenly perked up as soon as yo mentioned The Untouchables? I watched that again semi recently and I love it. Never realised the Dirty Harry esque politics though. To my mind, The Untouchables is the kind of movie where the filmmakers probably didn’t consider politics and just made an action movie.

[@EyebrowCinema]

Not weird at all. The Untouchables exists in such a heightened realm that its politics are not foregrounded the way they are in Dirty Harry.

[@jesustovar2549]

The Untouchables is my favorite Brian De Palma's film and the one that made me like Kevin Costner, I also still like Dirty Harry mostly because I'm a Clint Eastwood fan.

[@jesustovar2549]

​@@EyebrowCinemaThe death of the villain in The Untouchables, being thrown from the building, I always found it hilarious, those cuts, but I still like the movie.

[@samuelbarber6177]

@@jesustovar2549 I love the movie as well. Great score, great action sequences, great characters (including my favourite cinematic interpretation of Al Capone). Damn solid picture. And Dirty Harry is pretty good as well.

[@jesustovar2549]

​@@samuelbarber6177Robert De Niro was born to play Al Capone, also Sean Connery is GOLD, well deserved Oscar, tho I wish he had won for In The Name of the Rose.

[@superby1]

This was an excellent video essay! There was a lot of nuance here on the films. It's refreshing. My take on films deemed problematic is to let them be. They were made in different times with different standards. Times are always changing and what's acceptable today might end up being problematic in the future when whatever new standards are in effect. It's why I don't see the point in crusading against old movies, because future generations might do the same to the things today's generation might hold dear.

[@DafyddBrooks]

Disney shouldn't be ashamed of Song of the South, its a wonderful movie.

[@TexBirdie]

It’s a good thing that we can look back & see how far we’ve come.

[@JEEDUHCHRI]

Problematic is a subjective experience.

[@johnpoole3871]

Indeed it is.

[@darlalathan6143]

Yes, it depends on which ethnic group the movie insults. If it is yours, you will be offended. If not, you won't notice.

[@JayCee-tp2gv]

@@darlalathan6143 Just because you are offended doesnt mean you are right.

[@malafakka8530]

​@@JayCee-tp2gvdoesn't mean they are wrong either.

[@peterfrank3365]

" _You can't make this movie today._ " This is repeated again and again, by variations... and sometimes, it's all they say. They don't speak of the movies' other qualities, just the problematic bits. There came a mindset that offensive equals quality, rather than the craft. I think this is the side effect of censorship, the "lazy" way of dealing with old movies. It leads to media illiteracy. It has some people to discuss a boogeyman that would take their item away, rather than discussing the item on their hand. Admittedly, some of these people might just already be bigots in the first place. Personally, movies are what widened my worldview. They got me out the path of bigotry. How do we deal with old movies? I think you did a pretty good job. Thanks.

[@DTBluesreviews]

My stance is you shouldn't judge a work by the sensibilities of today each film is a snapshot of the time it came out we have no right to change it to fit today

[@johnpoole3871]

Agreed, they shouldn't be changed.

[@ConnerNielsen6]

Thank you thank you thank you for this video!

[@sirchadiusmaximusiii]

The term problematic is problematic (and an elitists term). Art should never be censored and people are allowed their opinions, no matter if you (or I) agree with them or not. Don't like something? Don't watch it. "Being offended doesn't make you right" - Ricky Gervais

[@jeffnicholas6342]

Bringing in “the baggage of The Now” is helpful way for a viewer to approach older films. Knowing the historical context while acknowledging one is viewing them with a contemporary mindset requires a certain disconnect, but is ultimately worth it if one wants to study film

[@451kino2]

I only discovered your channel a few days ago and gotta say it's fantastic work and that video is no exeption. Thank tou for the quality content

[@EyebrowCinema]

Cheers! Glad you're enjoying the videos :)

[@hankcoykendall]

another excellent and well worded and expressed essay, i love it!

[@HarperSanchez]

By watching them and enjoying them and being an adult.

[@godzillasenpai3685]

I notice most of the same ppl who say they dont watch old movies cuz theyre too problematic then have no problems watching modern movies with Pentagon funding and with CIA or Mossad agents on set as "advisors". Not that ur not allowed to like those either, i like many, but it is hypocritical

[@rorrt]

There was a press release when Disney+ launched. Where they omitted one film. Song of the South. The CEO of Disney said "this film doesn't reflect our values, or the values of society"... Which is why it's been omitted. But, anyone could have said. EVEN for 1946 the film was incredible out of date.. There was a great podcast on this called "Six Degrees of Song of the South".

[@Drums_of_Liberation]

Which was still a stupid decision when all they had to do was put a disclaimer like they did with Dumbo, Lady and the Tramp and other "problematic films." And look how long the parks milked Song of the South for it's attractions.

[@rorrt]

@@Drums_of_Liberation I agree. I used to watch it quite a lot when I was a kid. I had it on VHS. It has some good songs. And the live action with animation is one of the best it's been done by Disney. Hopefully one day it will be added, with a clear disclaimer.

[@cyrus2546]

Film Censorship is wrong period.

[@theapocalyvid]

On that note about content warnings -- I can personally attest to their usefulness as you describe them. I was watching "Gerald's Game" a while back, prepared for a difficult watch involving a woman being entrapped and reflecting on her life up to that point as a Stephen King adaptation. I was fine with that. However, around the midpoint of the story, there ended up being an immensely disturbing [edit: depiction] of child abuse which I was not explicitly prepared for, and I had to stop watching the movie out of horror of what I was seeing. I am perfectly capable of seeing the disturbing and grotesque when I am prepared for it, but art can deeply affect me, often for the worse, and I want to be ready for when that may happen.

[@alancranford3398]

I cringe at the over-used word "problematic." Another overused word is "unique." But if you want a pure and moral kulture, raining iron fists from above depends on maintaining power. Change must come from below, one person at a time. If you regard the negative film depiction of Nazis as "they deserve it," that's little different from disparaging "native" cultures. People are people. Speaking of homophobic, without gay men, the Nazi party wouldn't have taken over Germany. Socialists and communists shunned gay men. Nazis exploited them.

[@lmaoyz]

“I think that the reason why people call John Ford a fascist is that he is better at showing, for instance, what a settler was - when I saw The Searchers I understood better the attitude of the settlers in Algeria. I had really tried hard to understand them when I was in Paris during the Algerian war; when I saw the film by John Ford, the one that shows the settler and the Indian-hunter with a certain initial respect because he understands him. That is why people have said that he makes fascist films. In this sense, yes, but not in any other.” - Jean-Marie Straub

[@aaronmarkham4424]

I wonder what your take on Tropic Thunder is...oh wait it's quite obvious

[@salsathemonkey22]

Satire is hard to grasp when you feel the need to be angry at everything

[@thunderb4stard80]

KZbin needs this video. So many people just avoid old films or pass them off as boring or even just bad, usually due to racial, sexual or general derogatory terms, actions and tones. Also big up james bond as it is 100% the greatest franchise ever

[@splankhoon]

We don't have to 'deal' with old movies. You watch 'em and enjoy 'em or you don't. If we were to ponder over every aspect of screenwriting, whether certain producers, actors, directors, etc have despicable features and so on, there'd be no movie business whatsoever, not even today. If somethings rubs you the wrong way, you're allowed to feel uncomfortable.

[@neonatalpenguin]

CORRECT FUCKING ANSWER.

[@PaulA09631]

I know this might not be related to the video, but I wanted to ask about your thoughts on “media entrapment”(I don’t know the actual term so I’m using this as a placeholder) in the sense of pieces of media that kind of draw the audience in with things that appeal to their sensibilities(for example The Searchers in which you analyzed) and uses them to critique individuals that may hold certain positions/behaviors that the creator disagrees with.

[@mercurialhypersprite9556]

POLITICALLY CORRECT DOESN'T MEAN GOOD AND GOOD DOES NOT MEAN POLITICALLY CORRECT?! YOU'RE SAYING THE WORDS! YOU'RE SAYING ALL THE RIGHT WORDS! THE WORDS NO FILM KZbinR EVER KNOWS HOW TO SAY! W TAKE! W TAKE! YOU'RE CHANNEL IS THE BEST EVER! I tell ya buster. Soon if i ever come across Cinema video essay channel of my own with a better than nothing sub count, expect your socials to light up. I'd die to collab with you any way so how, my guy. GOD TIER.

[@nateds7326]

You know I was gonna make a comment that read something like this: "Heres a test to see if a western movie is racist: if you can replace every Native Character with a Tusken Raider without any changes to the plot, probably racist." But then in the middle of that I realized thats probably because Tusken Raiders in Star Wars are literally just stand ins for Native Americans, because George Lucas was drawing on old adventure serials and probably incorporated in some classic "cowboys and indians" stuff without thinking critically. Thats how deep this goes.

[@R0CKDRIG0]

"Without thinking critically" get off your high horse, what have you don't to pretend you have a conversation on what makes great art.

[@Xylus.]

You have to be able to look at everything with all its warts and blemishes. That said, pointing out the warts and blemishes is fair when evaluating what we can take from a movie, or any piece of art for that matter. I feel like a film appealing to our sense of "what is right" can contribute to its value, but I refuse to agree that a film's total value is primarily predicated on how it deals with morals and ethics. Art can have philosophical undertones, and you can't ignore them. But, you can appreciate a work for its technical aspects without agreeing with its message.

[@daniel_french]

The comparison to the blacklist era is very much valid. How many open Trump supporters in Hollywood still have work? They'd get cancelled immediately. I'm not American. I'm just an outsider baffled by the "woke" American mind virus.

[@reaverfang377]

You are nuts if you think Hollywood is progressive, Trump Supporters are too aggressive and Malicious to appease advertisers not because Hollywood is 'Woke' also Hollywood purposefully peels back progress all the time. Please diversify your sources.

[@ChristophersRants]

When critiquing films, it is paramount to emphasize the content rather than solely fixating on external context or the extent of its perceived progressiveness. Beyond conforming to social or identity metrics, a film's worth should be gauged through a multifaceted lens. Essential queries such as its ability to captivate the audience, the strength of its narrative, the visual excellence in cinematography, and the convincing performances by the actors should serve as the cornerstone of evaluation. By centering the assessment around these fundamental aspects, we pivot towards a more balanced and nuanced approach, one that delves deep into the artistic and storytelling quality of the film. This shift fosters a more holistic appraisal, steering the conversation away from superficial checkboxes and towards a richer exploration of the film's inherent merit and creative ingenuity.

[@bentramer682]

I don't think we should "deal with them" we should just be aware of the social climate at the time and be aware of the changes to said climate. Also we should understand that not everyone from the time was like that and the sometimes narrow world view of the films came from a society that was truly just as multifaceted as today. We just thankfully have a much louder cultural outlet today than back then