None of the characters in this final episode were acting IN character. And countless careless sloppy errors -- like the string quartet that was being performed is 27-32 minutes long. Why was Sofia just changing her clothes and cutting her hair at the time of the final curtain call? So many other slips. Even the music became silly, overly dramatic, maudlin, sentimental. Just dumbed-down for modern dulled-out sensibilities The series started out nothing short of brilliant. One of the best shows I've seen. Staggering in its message about totalitarianism, absolute power corrupting absolutely, sly innuendo about our current times. It was so intelligent and almost unbelievable that such brilliance and political astuteness would be produced and circulated on mainstream network like Show Time. However--GIANT however--halfway through the season it became a mawkish sentimental washed-out version of itself. The protagonist suddenly became a shambling caricature of himself--as if some producer or sponsor or something with a modern "socially conscientious" sensibility and a lot of power and influence decided to modernize the story--and objected to the man being taken seriously. So they make him a bit of a clown. And all of a sudden the women are righteous, "empowered," bossy, domineering, sexually aggressive (with the man being thrown around and ridiculed for having sexual ardor). The introduction of at 1/2 the cast being people of color was goofy, disingenuous, patronizing, ham-handed, and gratuitous but that's not my problem with the series. It's that it began with great dignity, subtlety, and import and turned into a mediocre soap opera.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Shiva Baby
(2020)
Dreadful amateurish bore
12 July 2021
Ugh. How did it get so much mileage? How? It's a niche film, to the extreme. Stupid. Poorly made. Claustrophobic not by design as much as one person did everything in making this film and they clearly considered themselves and their every thought as brilliant but it is suffocatingly self-indulgent -- self-dramatizing, lame. Thank God it was short.
Miss Scarlet & the Duke
(2020– )
A pain in the anachronisms....
31 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Watched 4 episodes of this series. Sadly disappointing. Could have been a super fun and innovative series set in the 1880s, but is rife with aggressive anachronisms and societal attitudes from 2021.
Modern-day attitudes are overlaid on the past when actually, if a woman acted like Miss Scarlet does, especially having no family and apparently few or no friends, she would be committed to an asylum. Sigh...
I'd eagerly awaited the debit of this show, as did my Mom (who is 90). We were chagrined to see how the main character is acting like a narcissistic brat from 2021, pouting, acting put-upon, flouting social conventions. However, the series pretends that in 1880 there were absolutely no social conventions any different from now--while in reality that era was extremely oppressive, and people's roles were rigidly defined and nonnegotiable.
But here is Miss Scarlet flitting around, mouthing off to everyone, having bristly easily offended sensibilities, but also being able to shoot a gun like a pro, always knowing more than any man, uncannily able to see everything that men overlook, and matter of fact and unflinching when told about a secret society of men who meet on the downlow due to their proclivities. In reality, a young, unmarried woman of that time would not likely even know what he was talking about--nor would a man in his situation ever confide in someone he barely knew about such a then-taboo orientation.
The actress (and character) is mostly emotionless and expressionless except for the type of direct come-hither suggestive stare through through the eyelids that in--in reality--in the 1880s only "ladies of the evening" would have given powerful men, as she does brazenly to the police chief. My 90-year-old Mom laughed: "I'm old enough to remember that women didn't even behave this way in the 1930s, let alone the age of my grandmothers!"
Like so many of these series and movies, the sets are spectacular and 100% historically perfect, as are hair and costumes (tho the clothes are often worn in a far more more casual and jaunty manner than people ever would have worn them--which matches everyone's badazz attitudes in the show).
However, the painstaking care taken for physical representation of the historical era is 180° opposite from the ultramodern progressive attitudes, actions, and words in the script.
Are the writers untalented? Ignorant? So tethered to their own age and sensibility that they don't grasp that society, societal norms, strictures, and behaviors of people 140 years ago are totally different from today? Or is this a crusade to hopefully make viewers believe that the world was far more "progressive" in the past than everyone knows it actually was? Do they perceive viewers to be so profoundly lame, dumb, or narcissistic that we wouldn't watch a series unless we see and hear "people like us" and that we need hammerhanded lessons about current social issues, rather than being more subtle and realistic?
If there were in fact a young woman whose father had taught her how to be a top-flight "private detective" (was that even a term then? probably not) and if she were running her own agency, it is imposible she would be the sappy fop with a plucky indignant demeanor of Miss Scarlet.
This could have been such a fun show.
Are the writers that untalented and tethered to their own age and sensibility that they don't grasp that society, societal norms, strictures, and behaviors of people 140 years ago are totally different from today? Do they think we the viewers are so lame, dumb, or narcissistic that we wouldn't watch these shows unless there were hammerhanded lessons about current social issues, rather than being more subtle and creating a realistic character? If there were a young woman whose father had taught her how to be a "private detective" and run her own agency, she would not be the sappy fop with a plucky indignant demeanor of this woman. Ugh. This could have been such a fun show.
Modern-day attitudes are overlaid on the past when actually, if a woman acted like Miss Scarlet does, especially having no family and apparently few or no friends, she would be committed to an asylum. Sigh...
I'd eagerly awaited the debit of this show, as did my Mom (who is 90). We were chagrined to see how the main character is acting like a narcissistic brat from 2021, pouting, acting put-upon, flouting social conventions. However, the series pretends that in 1880 there were absolutely no social conventions any different from now--while in reality that era was extremely oppressive, and people's roles were rigidly defined and nonnegotiable.
But here is Miss Scarlet flitting around, mouthing off to everyone, having bristly easily offended sensibilities, but also being able to shoot a gun like a pro, always knowing more than any man, uncannily able to see everything that men overlook, and matter of fact and unflinching when told about a secret society of men who meet on the downlow due to their proclivities. In reality, a young, unmarried woman of that time would not likely even know what he was talking about--nor would a man in his situation ever confide in someone he barely knew about such a then-taboo orientation.
The actress (and character) is mostly emotionless and expressionless except for the type of direct come-hither suggestive stare through through the eyelids that in--in reality--in the 1880s only "ladies of the evening" would have given powerful men, as she does brazenly to the police chief. My 90-year-old Mom laughed: "I'm old enough to remember that women didn't even behave this way in the 1930s, let alone the age of my grandmothers!"
Like so many of these series and movies, the sets are spectacular and 100% historically perfect, as are hair and costumes (tho the clothes are often worn in a far more more casual and jaunty manner than people ever would have worn them--which matches everyone's badazz attitudes in the show).
However, the painstaking care taken for physical representation of the historical era is 180° opposite from the ultramodern progressive attitudes, actions, and words in the script.
Are the writers untalented? Ignorant? So tethered to their own age and sensibility that they don't grasp that society, societal norms, strictures, and behaviors of people 140 years ago are totally different from today? Or is this a crusade to hopefully make viewers believe that the world was far more "progressive" in the past than everyone knows it actually was? Do they perceive viewers to be so profoundly lame, dumb, or narcissistic that we wouldn't watch a series unless we see and hear "people like us" and that we need hammerhanded lessons about current social issues, rather than being more subtle and realistic?
If there were in fact a young woman whose father had taught her how to be a top-flight "private detective" (was that even a term then? probably not) and if she were running her own agency, it is imposible she would be the sappy fop with a plucky indignant demeanor of Miss Scarlet.
This could have been such a fun show.
Are the writers that untalented and tethered to their own age and sensibility that they don't grasp that society, societal norms, strictures, and behaviors of people 140 years ago are totally different from today? Do they think we the viewers are so lame, dumb, or narcissistic that we wouldn't watch these shows unless there were hammerhanded lessons about current social issues, rather than being more subtle and creating a realistic character? If there were a young woman whose father had taught her how to be a "private detective" and run her own agency, she would not be the sappy fop with a plucky indignant demeanor of this woman. Ugh. This could have been such a fun show.
General Magic
(2018)
intriguing topic but absolutely egregious sound quality
11 July 2019
I don't understand how someone could allow their labor of love to be released with totally messed up audio quality. Everyone involved w/General Magic the film, as well as the original company, must be self-sabotaging, or have no self-awareness, believing their passion will surmount horrific user experience. Almost all interviews inaudible. And that hideous schmaltzy "music" - kinds of tragic.
Sally4Ever
(2018)
Not offensive not edgy not funny not cringey not...much of anything compelling
1 December 2018
Was prepared for something unique, bold, interesting, weird, provocative, well-acted, well-written, witty, or at least somewhat funny. Sally4Ever was none of those things. Many reviews are passionately advocating for it--and many are passionately decrying it. Me...? Just meh. Maybe meh minus.
You know that phenomenon when a really good series has just gone on for too long, and the writer, director, actors no longer seem to be into it? the writer becomes contemptuous of the characters (and maybe even the actors playing them), the actors don't like their characters or each other, the writing is cynical...I don't mean "dark" or sardonic, but cynical, as in not trying very hard and knowing some will watch anyway and some may even throw laurels, no matter how far past its shelf life it is, or how much it's being phoned in.
That's the entire quality of Sally4Ever. Julia Davis may have been edgy, shocking, hilarious, and brilliant once. But this effort is as engaging as being stuck in 5-day rain storm in a tacky too-small cottage with a stale smell, tiresome self-centered people who are simultaneously overly pleased with and don't like themselves and don't like each other or much of anything else, tattered People magazine from 10 years ago, and frozen dinners as the only source of sustenance. Scenes of toes being stuck up orifices or boobs jiggling against each other aren't even compelling--not beautiful, sexy, fun, startling, or even visually interesting. In all, it half-heartedly ironically tries, but goes limp--and even the writer's rage and misanthropy cannot bring it to life.
You know that phenomenon when a really good series has just gone on for too long, and the writer, director, actors no longer seem to be into it? the writer becomes contemptuous of the characters (and maybe even the actors playing them), the actors don't like their characters or each other, the writing is cynical...I don't mean "dark" or sardonic, but cynical, as in not trying very hard and knowing some will watch anyway and some may even throw laurels, no matter how far past its shelf life it is, or how much it's being phoned in.
That's the entire quality of Sally4Ever. Julia Davis may have been edgy, shocking, hilarious, and brilliant once. But this effort is as engaging as being stuck in 5-day rain storm in a tacky too-small cottage with a stale smell, tiresome self-centered people who are simultaneously overly pleased with and don't like themselves and don't like each other or much of anything else, tattered People magazine from 10 years ago, and frozen dinners as the only source of sustenance. Scenes of toes being stuck up orifices or boobs jiggling against each other aren't even compelling--not beautiful, sexy, fun, startling, or even visually interesting. In all, it half-heartedly ironically tries, but goes limp--and even the writer's rage and misanthropy cannot bring it to life.
Rabbit, Run
(1970)
Some films age well, others...well...Rabbit Run
28 June 2017
Some films pass the test of time. Others feel incredibly stale, dated, and stultifying. This film, I would wager, felt stale as soon as it hit the theatres. James Caan's and most of the other actors' acting is stiff, forced, and one dimensional, and the screen adaptation of a worthwhile book also is awkward and artificial, in the way that films that don't pass the test of time are.
As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.
As another reviewer remarked, the film was made 10 years too late--the mores and morals of the year 1960 had already completely shifted by 1970, so the film doesn't even make sense, and the film making and directorial style feel unpleasantly anachronistic.
The Brown Bunny
(2003)
Could be re-edited, but fairly brilliant
8 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Director/writer/protagonist Vincent Gallo may be a tool (or at least his Hollywood persona is), but Brown Bunny is a seriously nice piece of work. Its drawbacks: (1) a little loose in terms of editing, and sadly, (2) a viewing public that isn't accustomed to adapting to an auteur's pacing--instead expecting a film's pacing to pander to our own short, fickle attention spans. This film can be appreciated when taken on its own terms. It's rich, beautiful, subtle, and profound. I'd heard only about the infamous oral scene, and tales of what a hateful hipster Gallo is, and therefore initially had no interest in Brown Bunny. But I saw it in the DVD store and decided to give it a shot. As said, it could have used a bit more editorial pruning--and it did require me to will myself to be patient and keep an open mind--but I'm glad I made it through. It's definitely not for everyone. Vincent Gallo is the Anton Newcombe of the film world. An infuriating human being who also makes wholly unique, haphazard--but authentically genius-caliber--art.
The Cliffhanger
(2003)
Pretty interesting...glad they made it
21 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
11 Chicago film makers and 18 actors came together, each director creating one scene that connects to the scene immediately preceding it, carrying the plot forward and passing the "baton" to the next director.
Not really a spoiler, but to be on the safe side, the premise is that a number of people (their relationships to each other become increasingly clear as the scenes unfold) have gotten involved with the making of porn/snuff films--perhaps unwittingly or against their will--and some want "out." A mysterious evil bastard named Charlie is pulling the strings behind the scenes, and may mean to do harm to some of the characters to keep them quiet about a particular incident.
It's a cool idea, and a truly solid effort. Since it's low budget, and each director had only 1 week(!) to produce their piece, there's an amateur/student feel to some of the acting, production quality, writing, dialog, and plot--but that varies from scene to scene, director to director. Some of the direction and cinematography is quite impressive, and some show a lot of promise. The quality of acting varies too, and a few actors stand out. Overall, it's a cool, earnest piece, and worth renting.
I got it from the public library in Portland, Maine--am happy that they purchased it and thereby supported this creative effort. Can't believe that not even the film makers or actors have rated this film--and I'm the only one. Good job everyone--hope to see more of your work.
Not really a spoiler, but to be on the safe side, the premise is that a number of people (their relationships to each other become increasingly clear as the scenes unfold) have gotten involved with the making of porn/snuff films--perhaps unwittingly or against their will--and some want "out." A mysterious evil bastard named Charlie is pulling the strings behind the scenes, and may mean to do harm to some of the characters to keep them quiet about a particular incident.
It's a cool idea, and a truly solid effort. Since it's low budget, and each director had only 1 week(!) to produce their piece, there's an amateur/student feel to some of the acting, production quality, writing, dialog, and plot--but that varies from scene to scene, director to director. Some of the direction and cinematography is quite impressive, and some show a lot of promise. The quality of acting varies too, and a few actors stand out. Overall, it's a cool, earnest piece, and worth renting.
I got it from the public library in Portland, Maine--am happy that they purchased it and thereby supported this creative effort. Can't believe that not even the film makers or actors have rated this film--and I'm the only one. Good job everyone--hope to see more of your work.
March of the Penguins
(2005)
Beautiful cinematography, but...
29 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"In the harshest place on Earth, love finds a way..."
Make that: In the harshest of climates, animals will do what they have to do to perpetuate their species..."
March of the Penguins is "beautiful," and interestingly shot by photographers who have clearly ingested their share of psychedelic drugs, but the narrative and schmaltzy melodramatic music is ill-making. The narrative centers around anthropomorphized penguin family values. It's also very hazy (or mute) on facts.
Thousands of Emperor penguins trudge interminably to their mating/nesting area--70 long miles away...from...? Well, from some other place they also live. But that's apparently not important to this story. There are lots of shots of the trudging. At first it's amusing--from a distance the penguins look like monks or vagrants in trenchcoats--but after a short time it's monotonous.
So, once they walk 70 miles, the penguins get down the task of finding a mate. That is, many of them do. The narrator tells us that there are more females than males. How many more? We aren't told. Why do some females get to mate and others don't? Is it age? Is it aggression? Is it overall physical fitness? Dunno--didn't say. Morgan Freeman implies that the males and females hook up because some cosmic soul-mateishness is at work. So, these soul-connected birds mate for life? Um, no.
But ANYWAY, the male and female pairs snuggle and make sounds at each other (like most any creatures about to mate, frankly), and we're told they are "in love, about to start their very own family" Freeman coos that they are "monogamous," when actually that just means, for that one particular mating season, they mate only with one other penguin. Not a lot of hopping from bird to bird, as it were. Much schmaltzy music and Morgan Freeman narrative about this wondrous romance between the birds. OK. So what happens with the females without mates? Don't ask me. I guess they watch, and shiver?
Some period of time after they mate--how long? ehhhh? how long do they hang out and mate? ummm?--the female lays one egg and then passes it over to the male who must balance the egg on his feet for 4 months while the females go off to Club Med, eat a lot of fish, and recuperate. The females first must trudge 70 miles back to the ocean to do so. They have lost 40% of their body weight. So how many make it? Got me! Freeman didn't say. We're just treated to wobbling penguins going on and on and on and...
So when the females eventually get back to the breeding ground they show a bird with a tear in its eye upon seeing its little one for the first time. Come on! Morgan Freeman tells us that when the now literally half-starved males, who haven't eaten in 4 months, must leave their newly hatched check to go back the 70 miles to the ocean it's "the hardest thing they will ever have to do after having bonded with their little babies." The images don't bear it out. You just see the male roll the egg over to the female and start the 70-mile trudge again.
And after all this stuff of love and family values...the females don't seem all that interested in the "babies," and when an unnamed predator (I think it must have been an albatross) starts sniping at the chicks the mothers just kind of look on, dumb as chickens. No one tries to intervene or even squawks. The males come back, and Freeman speaks of happy reunions, but the images don't bear that out. The penguins all just sort of wander around or huddle in big groups. Then they show all the penguins trudging the damn 70 miles again--with the now-mangy-looking adolescent chicks falling behind (how many make it? do the predators get many of them? dunno)--the adults leave them, and Freeman tells us that the chicks will now "take to the sea for 5 years until they can begin their journey to find love and start their own families." What? They can't just take to the sea! They live on land. What do they do for 5 years? Not important, since you probably can't imbue it with human emotion.
Never explained is why they walk 70 damn miles in the first place? What would happen if they stayed at their seaside resort? What about global warming melting their habitat? Has that affected the Emperor penguin population at all (it has, but the film neglects that probably because it would offend those in denial about global warming).
I'd rent it when it comes out on DVD, with the sound off.
The "making of" extras will be fascinating. As said, the cinematography is astonishing, and the filmmakers apparently went to unprecedented ends to get some of the rare shots you see here.
Make that: In the harshest of climates, animals will do what they have to do to perpetuate their species..."
March of the Penguins is "beautiful," and interestingly shot by photographers who have clearly ingested their share of psychedelic drugs, but the narrative and schmaltzy melodramatic music is ill-making. The narrative centers around anthropomorphized penguin family values. It's also very hazy (or mute) on facts.
Thousands of Emperor penguins trudge interminably to their mating/nesting area--70 long miles away...from...? Well, from some other place they also live. But that's apparently not important to this story. There are lots of shots of the trudging. At first it's amusing--from a distance the penguins look like monks or vagrants in trenchcoats--but after a short time it's monotonous.
So, once they walk 70 miles, the penguins get down the task of finding a mate. That is, many of them do. The narrator tells us that there are more females than males. How many more? We aren't told. Why do some females get to mate and others don't? Is it age? Is it aggression? Is it overall physical fitness? Dunno--didn't say. Morgan Freeman implies that the males and females hook up because some cosmic soul-mateishness is at work. So, these soul-connected birds mate for life? Um, no.
But ANYWAY, the male and female pairs snuggle and make sounds at each other (like most any creatures about to mate, frankly), and we're told they are "in love, about to start their very own family" Freeman coos that they are "monogamous," when actually that just means, for that one particular mating season, they mate only with one other penguin. Not a lot of hopping from bird to bird, as it were. Much schmaltzy music and Morgan Freeman narrative about this wondrous romance between the birds. OK. So what happens with the females without mates? Don't ask me. I guess they watch, and shiver?
Some period of time after they mate--how long? ehhhh? how long do they hang out and mate? ummm?--the female lays one egg and then passes it over to the male who must balance the egg on his feet for 4 months while the females go off to Club Med, eat a lot of fish, and recuperate. The females first must trudge 70 miles back to the ocean to do so. They have lost 40% of their body weight. So how many make it? Got me! Freeman didn't say. We're just treated to wobbling penguins going on and on and on and...
So when the females eventually get back to the breeding ground they show a bird with a tear in its eye upon seeing its little one for the first time. Come on! Morgan Freeman tells us that when the now literally half-starved males, who haven't eaten in 4 months, must leave their newly hatched check to go back the 70 miles to the ocean it's "the hardest thing they will ever have to do after having bonded with their little babies." The images don't bear it out. You just see the male roll the egg over to the female and start the 70-mile trudge again.
And after all this stuff of love and family values...the females don't seem all that interested in the "babies," and when an unnamed predator (I think it must have been an albatross) starts sniping at the chicks the mothers just kind of look on, dumb as chickens. No one tries to intervene or even squawks. The males come back, and Freeman speaks of happy reunions, but the images don't bear that out. The penguins all just sort of wander around or huddle in big groups. Then they show all the penguins trudging the damn 70 miles again--with the now-mangy-looking adolescent chicks falling behind (how many make it? do the predators get many of them? dunno)--the adults leave them, and Freeman tells us that the chicks will now "take to the sea for 5 years until they can begin their journey to find love and start their own families." What? They can't just take to the sea! They live on land. What do they do for 5 years? Not important, since you probably can't imbue it with human emotion.
Never explained is why they walk 70 damn miles in the first place? What would happen if they stayed at their seaside resort? What about global warming melting their habitat? Has that affected the Emperor penguin population at all (it has, but the film neglects that probably because it would offend those in denial about global warming).
I'd rent it when it comes out on DVD, with the sound off.
The "making of" extras will be fascinating. As said, the cinematography is astonishing, and the filmmakers apparently went to unprecedented ends to get some of the rare shots you see here.
The Year That Trembled
(2002)
Not unlike sitting through back-to-back episodes of American Dreams...with less energy
20 August 2005
Important depiction of a time arguably as turbulent as our current. However, links (or even intimations of them) from past to present are lacking in this film. A faded standalone snapshot, the mood unimpassioned, (ironic given the manic, "trembling" tenor of those times). No room is made or left over for extrapolation or lessons learned--a great opportunity missed. Instead we're dished up startlingly superficial and hackneyed treatment of the era, ineffective character development, and lackluster performances from most of the cast. Further, the film is riddled with anachronisms and suffers from romanticism and historical revisionism--so it comes off as shallow and clichéd. Perhaps this film was made by people too young to understand the flavor of those times. If not, perhaps the filmmakers are part of a well-meaning but removed elite, who took their very best shot at depicting the lives and dramas of their characters, but the closest they could come was creating an approximated, somewhat patronizing, overly polite, "as-if" characterization--which naturally lacks passion, flow, human depth and complexity, and realism. In sum, it's like watching back to back episodes of the mundane NBC drama "American Dreams" (albeit, with a more liberal lean, fortunately), without the energy level. Just about that insightful, realistic, and compelling. In sum, clearly an earnest effort, tho emotionally blunted overall.
The Littlest Rebel
(1935)
Horribly racist--Shirley&Bojangles brilliant--difficult to watch
3 July 2005
Where to start...?
Made in 1935, this bizarre story of the Civil War is told upside down. It's difficult to imagine what the studio was thinking when it made this film. I wonder what the movie-going public thought at the time. I can't imagine people north of the Mason-Dixon line would have appreciated it very much. Perhaps the studio was pandering to a Southern audience who was still smarting from the reality that their way of life was forever altered by the Civil War--and this film recreates (or perpetuates) a fantasy of the South's lovely, gentile way of life, in which everyone knew his place, and it all worked just fine.
In any case, in this movie, confederates and white Southerners are depicted as noble, intelligent, kind, good, and very much entitled to owning slaves. They are presented as quick-witted, distinguished, and morally superior to the Northerners. Not one of them has a Southern accent.
Northerners/Yankees, on the other hand, are made out to be dumb, vulgar, cruel, and inhumane--inexplicably oppressing the kindly Confederates. As viewers we're astonished when one of the bedeviled Northern Aggressors (some Southerners *still* in 2005 refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression) cuts Shirley's father a break and helps him out.
The slave characters are drawn 2 ways. The first is being so numb-skulled, mush-mouthed, and knuckle-dragging as to appear mentally disabled--and it's clear that this grotesque caricature is supposed to be screamingly funny. It's not. It's stomach-churn-caliber material.
The second way slaves are depicted is just brimming with love for their massahs, beside themselves with delight in their obedience to them--and even worse, trying to subvert the bad Yankees, since the slaves don't want to be freed.
Shirely Temple's black face disguise, her masquerading as a "pickinniny" (a small black slave child) is one of the more repugnant things I've ever seen in a movie.
Almost as bad is her character's regard for the slaves as idiot children--scolding them when she sees them stepping out of line (shaking her adorable little finger at them) and alternately treating them like her cute little pets.
A very uncomfortable film to watch. And aside from the dreadful racist historical context--oddly enough--Shirley Temple is quite glorious and the musical numbers are lively and fun.
Made in 1935, this bizarre story of the Civil War is told upside down. It's difficult to imagine what the studio was thinking when it made this film. I wonder what the movie-going public thought at the time. I can't imagine people north of the Mason-Dixon line would have appreciated it very much. Perhaps the studio was pandering to a Southern audience who was still smarting from the reality that their way of life was forever altered by the Civil War--and this film recreates (or perpetuates) a fantasy of the South's lovely, gentile way of life, in which everyone knew his place, and it all worked just fine.
In any case, in this movie, confederates and white Southerners are depicted as noble, intelligent, kind, good, and very much entitled to owning slaves. They are presented as quick-witted, distinguished, and morally superior to the Northerners. Not one of them has a Southern accent.
Northerners/Yankees, on the other hand, are made out to be dumb, vulgar, cruel, and inhumane--inexplicably oppressing the kindly Confederates. As viewers we're astonished when one of the bedeviled Northern Aggressors (some Southerners *still* in 2005 refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression) cuts Shirley's father a break and helps him out.
The slave characters are drawn 2 ways. The first is being so numb-skulled, mush-mouthed, and knuckle-dragging as to appear mentally disabled--and it's clear that this grotesque caricature is supposed to be screamingly funny. It's not. It's stomach-churn-caliber material.
The second way slaves are depicted is just brimming with love for their massahs, beside themselves with delight in their obedience to them--and even worse, trying to subvert the bad Yankees, since the slaves don't want to be freed.
Shirely Temple's black face disguise, her masquerading as a "pickinniny" (a small black slave child) is one of the more repugnant things I've ever seen in a movie.
Almost as bad is her character's regard for the slaves as idiot children--scolding them when she sees them stepping out of line (shaking her adorable little finger at them) and alternately treating them like her cute little pets.
A very uncomfortable film to watch. And aside from the dreadful racist historical context--oddly enough--Shirley Temple is quite glorious and the musical numbers are lively and fun.
Tell Your Friends