Mob censorship at the movies
Some years ago, a retransmission stalemate led to my cable provider and Turner Classic Movies parting ways. This meant I was deprived of one of my favorite pastimes, which is watching classic films hosted by some pretty knowledgeable albeit sometimes annoying hosts.
How many times did I have to sit through one of Ben Mankiewicz’s insufferable soliloquies regarding the Hollywood Ten, for example?
All told, it was worth sitting through the platitudes just to hear tidbits of insider Hollywood lore and watch movies not shown uninterrupted elsewhere. I truly miss those days.
But I take my classic cinema where I can find it, and spent this past weekend on a deep-dive into the screwball comedies of Preston Sturges on the Criterion Channel streaming service. Great stuff, but current events caused a pondering whether these films will survive the recent cultural purges we’ve been experiencing.
The 1940s, the decade when Sturges’ movies were made, weren’t exactly politically correct by today’s standards. In fact, by these same standards, some scenes are blatantly offensive, and rightly interpreted. But I appreciate movie channels and streaming services that leave the choice of taking offense to the viewer alone, and allow me the option of disregarding a movie entirely over racist depictions in several scenes.
To quote Bob Dylan: “I was so much older then,
I’m younger than that now.” In other words, I’m aware through 21st century eyes of those things that might prompt indignation, but also perceive the error of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Since this fish wrap hits the doorstep the day after St. Patrick’s Day, I can assure readers the traditional depiction of the Irish in film is pretty offensive. We’re not all foul-mouthed brawlers, gamblers and superstitious drunks — the bulk of Hollywood depictions notwithstanding.
Speaking of Sturges, I’m not the first person to notice similarities between his masterpiece “Sullivan’s Travels” and Woody Allen’s “Stardust Memories” and “Manhattan.” Sturges cast Veronica Lake in this latter film, and her cinematic look was replicated by Mariel Hemingway in Allen’s “Manhattan,” a work that was praised upon its release but tainted decades afterward by the ignominy brought by its auteur’s apparent penchant for extremely young women as well as his alleged crimes of a sexual nature.
So, there you have it: I’m not sure Sturges was a racist or not in real life, but his art contains many instances thereof. Likewise, I’m not sure Allen committed the crimes he’s accused of, but some of his movies suggest it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
What is the moral calculus to be followed in these instances? Should we prove our own moral superiority by tossing these films altogether? Remove offensive scenes from these films, risking the destruction of the original movies’ structural integrity in the case of Sturges, or the elimination of a complete body of work regarding Allen?
I’ll watch what I wish to view, thank you very much. I have no patience with society’s Grundys who tell me I shouldn’t enjoy “The Wire” due to racial stereotyping because its cast is predominantly Black and the characters they portray mostly criminals (this actually happened). This completely misses the point of what the entire series was attempting to achieve. Besides, imagine the hullabaloo, say, if the show’s Stringer Bell character was portrayed by someone other than a Black actor?
Since when has it been acceptable to foist one group’s will upon another group (or individual) when it comes to culture? Certainly there are exceptions when such censorship is a net positive, I’ll grant you, but in the main
I’d say grownups should be equipped to make their own intelligent choices of whether they’re willing to risk offense or even embrace that which offends others.
Such cultural determinations should be made by individuals, not mobs.