Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:17 pm
by remfan419
I was a student at Bowling Green State University when the Gish Theater was dedicated; indeed, I had the distinct pleasure of shaking Miss Gish's hand after her presentation. And in my all-too brief time at BGSU I spent many happy hours in the Gish Theater. The idea of changing the name of a theater because someone is somehow offended that an actor appeared in a movie someone else found offensive, a movie that neither party has seen in its entirety...well, I find that offensive. Makes me want to use language Miss Gish would've found offensive.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:42 am
by westegg
Self righteous fools.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:31 am
by wich2
We really have to find a common-sense balance about such things...
Move a monument to the founder of the Klan, that stands in the city park of a modern town?
Of course!
But remove the name of a revered actress, who happened to have roles in films made under contemporary standards?
Give me a break.
- Craig
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:24 pm
by Gumlegs
I notice that when someone brings up a Robert Byrd's past as, say, a Grand Kleagle (a recruitment officer of the Klu Klux Klan), the response is "Oh, he made up for that."
I'm working on how one atones, port mortem, for acting in a film released in 1915.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:34 pm
by GishFan
Didn't she supposedly kiss a dying black man in the lost film The Greatest Thing in Life? I didn't know her peronally, but from everything I've ever seen or her of her, she was anything but racist.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
I applaud Barbara Carr for her letter Wednesday about the Black Student Union at Bowling Green State University wanting the Gish Film Theater name removed from the Student Union. These students should know that the Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize has been awarded to several African Americans, including Spike Lee.
In 1915, D.W. Griffith produced The Birth of a Nation, a racist movie that put the Ku Klux Klan in a favorable light. Lillian Gish played a nurse from the North caring for wounded soldiers. Because of her appearance in the film, the Black Students Union has implied that she is a racist. The Birth of a Nation has never been shown in the Gish Film Theater.
It is appalling that this movement is afoot to defame the stellar film achievements of Lillian and Dorothy Gish, born and raised in Ohio. If these students succeed in their defamation of the characters of Lillian and Dorothy Gish, they will have destroyed important film history. Ralph Haven Wolfe founded the Gish Film Theater in Hanna Hall in 1976. Ms. Gish came to the BGSU campus at least four times to be honored.
If the Gish name is removed, it will indicate to the world that Bowling Green State University, as an institution dedicated to providing opportunities for differing views, has failed in that endeavor.
WALLY PRETZER
Bowling Green
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Didn't she supposedly kiss a dying black man in the lost film The Greatest Thing in Life? I didn't know her peronally, but from everything I've ever seen or her of her, she was anything but racist.
Actually, it was a white male officer that kisses a dying black solder who is calling out for his mother.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Why not just shut the theater down since it seems to be a back-handed attempt at censorship which should have no place in anything that is presumed to be a vehicle for appreciating the arts. The fact that one need only be an actor in a film someone dislikes the presumed politics of and be banned from being honored is ridiculous. Perhaps Dean Craig needs to go to the school's library and start pulling books by or on individuals members of his student body do not admire.
YES!
The fact that the dissenters haven't even seen the movie is ridiculous. Should we boycott all of Leonardo DiCaprio's movies because he played a racist slave-owner in Django Unchained? There are so many examples we could find throughout history of someone playing in a movie that offends someone. Unfortunately those in authority who should be disregarding such complaints as petty are too afraid or weakened by their own superiors that they can't disregard them.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:29 am
by Jim Roots
I know this is mostly off-topic, but whenever Woody Allen dies, will they include him in the Oscars memorial moment? Maybe just speed-up the roll-call when they get to his name? What about Mel Gibson? I won't even mention Kevin Spacey -- oops, I just did.
Jim
‘Snippy’ responses-to previous + subsequent posts
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:24 am
by Fred M. Stevens
I feel compelled to respond to some of the previous and subsequent posts in this thread. I'll re-print the posts to which I respond; some of them I will edit for the sake of brevity-but I will not include the user names with the posts, just in case the individual posters choose to alter their posts at some later date.
The fact that the dissenters haven't even seen the movie is ridiculous. Should we boycott all of Leonardo DiCaprio's movies because he played a racist slave-owner in Django Unchained? There are so many examples we could find throughout history of someone playing in a movie that offends someone. Unfortunately those in authority who should be disregarding such complaints as petty are too afraid or weakened by their own superiors that they can't disregard them.
1. Need one see the whole film to get the general idea?
2. While the Django director's scripts have rightfully been scorned - for instance- for their use of racial slurs, I don't think many would argue that Django Unchained is nostalgic towards, or forgiving of, slavery or the KKK. 3. Gish appeared in a film that not only forgave racism, it promoted it. 4. And BOAN is not " a movie that offends someone" - it is a movie that offends, or should offend, everyone. 5. There is an adjective for authorities- whether school officials or politicians- who ignore the comments or complaints of their employers (their students and voters): authoritarian.
.....I didn't know her personally, but from everything I've ever seen or her of her, she was anything but racist.
I don't think the validity of the protests hinges on the racial attitudes of Lillian Gish, but here is a Gish quote from 1937, that- at the very least- hints at her racial insensitivity.
"I've seen clips of it."
You can’t judge a book by its cover, but one can get a pretty good idea from the Cliff’s Notes.
I hope they understand that's not the only movie she was in.
Those who support the name removal may or may not be cognizant of her more enlightened films (e.g. The Unforgiven)... the problem is Gish is best known today for having been in BOAN
Everybody thinks it's the only movie Griffith ever made.
I’m not sure many think that. But folks aware of BOAN and DWG think them racist, and the consensus for this opinion began forming in the 1910s
Look forward to the day that they come to my house wanting to look through my movie collection to decide which ones I can keep.
So long as our stashes contain no kiddy porn, any fears along those lines are likely groundless.
Seriously, this is just idiotic.
1. The film is terribly racist. It is, unfortunately, Gish's best known, and far-from-least seen, film. 2. Is it not less hurtful- perhaps especially to descendants of slaves- to celebrate her other films rather than her life? 3. Why not strip the name but each year have an annual Gish sister festival?
Pain and suffering has surely changed a lot since I went to University ...... Curiously, we were more concerned about big issues in the late 60's. Any actors who played Nazis look out.
1. As recent events have proven, today's students are as interested, if not more so, in big issues as those of your generation. 2. But, if even it were not so, students questioning and challenging authority- even on an issue so minor as theater naming rights- is a good thing. 3. There's a difference between playing Nazis and playing Nazis in a film supportive of Nazis
A letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade:
I am writing to voice my opposition to the renaming of the Gish Film Theater on the campus of Bowling Green State University. The body of work of the two sisters is so much more than one film Lillian appeared in in 1915. There is an award that the sisters established named the Dorothy and Lillian Gish Prize. To quote Lillian Gish, “It is my desire that the prize be awarded to a man or woman who has made an outstanding contribution to the beauty of the world and to mankind’s enjoyment and understanding of life.” Several African-Americans have been awarded this prize, including Spike Lee in 2013. He said at the time that he was influenced by two of Lillian Gish’s films, Night of the Hunter and Birth of a Nation. I urge BGSU not to remove the Gish name from the theater.
1. The problem is not the "body of work of the two sisters." 2. Lillian Gish died before the first award was given out; 3. Gish chose none of the recipients;
4. the ethnicity of the prize recipients ("so many of their best winners are African-Americans") has nothing to do with the protests. 5. Lillian Gish's greatest influence on the prize winners was the cash value of the prize. 6. If BOAN influenced Spike Lee, it was probably not thematically.
Some people are so devoid of self-validation that they foist their more enlightened values on less enlightened people who are long dead, to achieve self righteousness. A cheap trick.
No one is denying Gish's artistry nor, so far as I know, accusing her of being a racist- though she might have been. 2. It's just that the film was recognized as racist- perhaps especially by minorities- even at the time of its release. 3. I think the name change request was made because the Gish name is primarily, indelibly, linked to America's most racist film and to publicly honor her is offensive to many. 4. Even if there were a mass re-indoctrination- which mandated screenings of her more admirable films- Gish, racist or not, can escape her fate no more than the man who was wrongly credited for having shot Liberty Valance. (Speaking of which, John Wayne is one of my favorite performers, but need we mourn, nor be surprised by, the eventual re-branding of the John Wayne Airport?)
I think it's appalling that they would insult survivors of domestic violence by removing the name of the star of Broken Blossoms from the theater.
"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones. The Shadow Knows" William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
....I have in my still collection of characterizations of my grandfather a still of him in blackface that I /nor he would be proud of today, but in the 20's when he was trying to make a living in Vaudeville or Hollywood he may not have realized at that time what the ramifications of his role would be by the 30's and beyond. .........
No one is suggesting Gish, your grandfather, the Black BOAN actors, or their fans or kin are/were racist. It's just that Gish’s modern era semi-fame is almost entirely derived from BOAN
These revisionist types make me sick. Nothing like kicking the dead to achieve self satisfaction. Orwellian group think is alive and well.
1. No one is kicking Gish, just questioning the use of her name on a public building, given her association with America's best known balefully racist film. 2. And usually, if there’s any kicking going on, it is of the minorities and the oppressed. Old folks prefer punching down, not down... maybe it has something to do with arthritis.
There's no limit to stupidity, I guess.
Beware, we're all coming next for Marion Davies- the home-wrecking pal of the fake news war-mongerer!
I hope they understand her character in the film was fictional.
They do
Why not just shut the theater down since it seems to be a back-handed attempt at censorship which should have no place in anything that is presumed to be a vehicle for appreciating the arts. The fact that one need only be an actor in a film someone dislikes the presumed politics of and be banned from being honored is ridiculous. Perhaps Dean Craig needs to go to the school's library and start pulling books by or on individuals members of his student body do not admire...
1. I don’t think this is an attempt at censorship. 2. And, this is not merely a film “someone dislikes” - it is a film that, in its way, is more radioactive than The Conqueror.
I don't think anybody needs convincing of the nature of Birth of a Nation. The salient issues are all outside of the film proper: should an actress be judged by a role she took? Should an actress with a long career (one of the very longest, in fact) be judged by a single film made in her 20s? Should we rewrite history regularly based on newly discovered grievances? Should we take seriously the idea that someone is harmed by a facility bearing the name of an important actress because of one of her roles? Could any public figure with a long career survive such a standard? Do we owe anything to the past to understand it as a whole and not just mine it for gotchas?
1. If not convincing, folks do need reminding of the nature of BOAN.
2. Should actors be judged by roles they take? Yes, though there are often mitigating circumstances for actors and the characters they portray. (e.g. In General Spanky, Spanky and Alfalfa were just following orders, and, given their respective ages, should not be charged as adults). 3. The length of Gish’s career, and the fact that the rest of her films aren’t part of the BOAN cinematic universe, can be brought up by her defense team in the sentencing phase should she ever come to trial... 4. but I think these points are not the main issue here. 5. If "to rewrite history regularly" means adding more facts to the record, I support such emendations and additions. 6. Society should take seriously the idea that "someone is" (i.e. many are) offended by a facility that bears the name of a person - who, despite her importance- has become a symbol for that film. 7. Gish is best known today for her work in BOAN. 8. And, while you are not racist, your phrase “Should we take seriously the idea that someone is harmed ...” does, in this case, give off a sort of unintentional oppressor vs the oppressed vibe, as if pale geezers should be the sole final arbiters... 9. “Could any public figure with a long career survive such a standard?” Probably not- as if often the case, a statue may be more honor-worthy than the person the statue was meant to celebrate. 10. When famous folks become best/exclusively known for distasteful/awful actions/associations in their careers/private lives, there’s little chance for recovery.
I've seen the whole film several times over the years, and I wouldn't say that the clip you posted fully represents it. Have you seen it? I think it is a very good idea to expose oneself to things that are reprehensible. By watching Birth of a Nation, you get a better sense of why it is a horrible picture, and why it's also a great picture at the same time...... Interestingly enough, it wasn't the clips depicting black characters that are the most dangerous. It's the ones depicting the KKK. No one ever picks those clips to single out because the chase to the rescue sequence at the end is a genuinely exciting bit of film making. That was the part of the film that appealed to the wounded egos of reactionary Southerners at the time, not the scenes of black Senators with their feet on their desks..... I still don't know what Birth of a Nation has to do with Lillian Gish. She was just an actress doing what the director told her to do....... She did a lot for education in her lifetime. Bowling Green wasn't the only university that she helped to build film schools.
1. I have seen the film. I chose the clip for it’s brevity and because it showed the racism without glorifying violence or the racist “heroes.” 2. I’m not saying the film was ill-made or ineffective. 3. It is easy to forget -I often do- that the popularity of the film was not confined to the South, and that African-Americans weren’t the only group that got the Klan’s diapers in a knot. 4. Gish, age 21, had been in 46 films, over 3 years, before BOAN was released. It is Griffith’s creation, but she was an adult with other career options. 5. I would agree she is owed a debt of thanks for her work on behalf of film preservation and education.
Unless someone can demonstrate how during the making of "The Birth of a Nation," Griffith was controlled by Lillian Gish, the outrage mob is mistaken in its target. I suspect the point is not the target but the outrage itself.
1. She didn’t create the film. But she did choose to be in it. 2. “Outrage” probably overstates the reaction. 3. She is not so much a target as she is the symbol of a racist film that perhaps directly inspired discrimination against- and the lynchings of- relatives of some of today’s protestors. 4. What harm is caused by the removal of the Gish name? No films are being banned or burned, no private citizen is being denied the right- offensive as it may be to many- to name his/her theaters after Gish, Griffith, or BOAN. 5. It is difficult to see a slippery slope, leading to something worse; I envisage, instead, a relatively inexpensive upside where the aggrieved- the customers of a public institution - are made to feel somewhat less unhappy.
Absolute baloney!
Our world has gone insane with all the preoccupations about who or what offends. I guess its endemic to the times we're living in, but that doesn't make it any less outrageous. Soon, we'll be burning books, and marching in lock-step to honor the latest demagogue. Such fools these mortals be!
1. One might have expected a different response from the “Head Honcho” of a theater in Decatur- the town of Lincoln’s first Illinois home. 2. Yes, I know that when one thinks of Abe today, what first comes to mind are his twin obsessions with log splitting and vampire slaying. 3. But when Abe wasn’t dabbling in his hobbies, he pursued civil rights expansion for folks whose rights are still denied today.
4. As Finley Peter Dunne wrote (in character as Mr Dooley)
“Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward.”
That seems a good approach in the Gish case - comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. 5. And, if your predicted day comes, when our books and films are burned or digitally wiped, we can gather in our Fahrenheit 451 hideouts and recite plots to each other
Renaming or destroying monuments and denying people the right to experience art that might be termed "incorrect" didn't work for Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban. You may be uncomfortable with the past, but it doesn't give anyone the right to wipe it out. George Orwell wrote "1984" for a reason.
1. The Bowling Greeners are not wiping out the past- they’re recalling it for us. 2. And, they're neither destroying monuments nor denying people the right to experience art. 3. However, such practices did work for Hitler and Stalin during their lifetimes, and, if the recent treaty talks are to be believed, it’ll have worked for the Taliban as well. 4. As for Orwell’s motivations for writing: Samuel Johnson wrote “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Present company excluded
For me, it all comes down to this: what's more likely, someone coming out of a screening of BoaN or GTWW thinking "You know what? I think I'll become a racist after all!" or "Gee, things were different then. Thank goodness we've moved on"? We would do better to learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than erase the bits that make us uncomfortable and risk repeating them. If changing the name of a theatre were likely to stop a single person from being racist, I'd be all for it. It's not, so I'm not. I'd rather work on practical means of erasing prejudice rather than fussing over symbolic gestures.
1. I wager most folks exited BOAN screenings, upon its release, just as racist going out as they did coming in, but 2. the film more likely normalized their racist beliefs. 3. Many others doubtlessly left the showings wondering how they could gain power by harnessing the film’s racism in politics, or in the Klan (which served as the de facto militia for those in power). 4. Recruiters for racist movements no longer need films- they have the internet. 5. Non-racist viewers of BOAN today might notice a difference between then and now, but they’d be delusional to think we’ve moved on: For example: Non-Whites- or non-Christians- citizens or refugees- some fleeing for their lives- are almost as destined to be interned or banned now as they were then. 6. For those who use Apple devices, or have enjoyed Pixar films, consider the fact that under the policies now in effect, Steve Jobs’ eventual birth father would never have been allowed entry. 7. No one is trying to erase history. 8. The name change request is not being made to stop people from being racist. 9. It is odd indeed when- knowingly or otherwise- the perpetrators of prejudice deem themselves the best/sole ones to solve the problems they may have created or tolerated (problems which they’re never quite sure even exist). 10. Equally strange it is when the sufferers’ proffered remedies for their oppression are dismissed as symbolic gestures.
Must all statues be torn down because they have feet of clay?
Maybe we should just be content with enjoying good artistic work and commission fewer commemorative statues. Or switch to busts.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:29 am
by Mike Gebert
I don't think anybody needs convincing of the nature of Birth of a Nation.
The salient issues are all outside of the film proper: should an actress be judged by a role she took? Should an actress with a long career (one of the very longest, in fact) be judged by a single film made in her 20s? Should we rewrite history regularly based on newly discovered grievances? Should we take seriously the idea that someone is harmed by a facility bearing the name of an important actress because of one of her roles? Could any public figure with a long career survive such a standard? Do we owe anything to the past to understand it as a whole and not just mine it for gotchas?
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:42 am
by boblipton
But Mike, to not hold the past up to our current standards is to abandon the highest standards that ever have,or ever could exist.
Need one see the whole film to get the general idea?
I've seen the whole film several times over the years, and I wouldn't say that the clip you posted fully represents it. Have you seen it?
I think it is a very good idea to expose oneself to things that are reprehensible. By watching Birth of a Nation, you get a better sense of why it is a horrible picture, and why it's also a great picture at the same time. That dichotomy is important, and there's no way to understand it by just watching a cherry picked clip or two and judging by that.
Interestingly enough, it wasn't the clips depicting black characters that are the most dangerous. It's the ones depicting the KKK. No one ever picks those clips to single out because the chase to the rescue sequence at the end is a genuinely exciting bit of film making. That was the part of the film that appealed to the wounded egos of reactionary Southerners at the time, not the scenes of black Senators with their feet on their desks. It's a mistake to think that racism is just blackface and watermelons. It isn't at all about that stuff. Racism is an evil action that is taken, not just a symbol.
If someone wants to understand where racism comes from so they can recognize it when they see it, they have to be willing to face films like this head on. I'm sure it's a good idea to watch Jud Suss for the same reasons, even if it isn't as well crafted a film. Of course it's different if you are just looking for a fun picture to watch on a Saturday night with your brain turned off, but this is a film school. They shouldn't be addressing film like that.
I still don't know what Birth of a Nation has to do with Lillian Gish. She was just an actress doing what the director told her to do. It wasn't her movie, and if you've watched it, that is clear. This is D. W. Griffith's movie... and he paid dearly for making it. I can see not making it the Birth of a Nation Theater, and I can kind of see not making it the D W Griffith Theater (although that one might be debatable), but I see nothing wrong with a Lillian Gish Theater. She did a lot for education in her lifetime. Bowling Green wasn't the only university that she helped to build film schools.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:37 pm
by Gumlegs
Unless someone can demonstrate how during the making of "The Birth of a Nation," Griffith was controlled by Lillian Gish, the outrage mob is mistaken in its target.
I suspect the point is not the target but the outrage itself.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:43 pm
by TheAvon
Absolute baloney!
Our world has gone insane with all the preoccupations about who or what offends.
I guess its endemic to the times we're living in, but that doesn't make it any less outrageous.
Soon, we'll be burning books, and marching in lock-step to honor the latest demagogue.
Such fools these mortals be!
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:12 pm
by Scoundrel
Renaming or destroying monuments and denying people the right to experience art
that might be termed "incorrect" didn't work for Hitler, Stalin and the Taliban.
You may be uncomfortable with the past, but it doesn't give anyone the right to wipe it out.
Griffith filmed "INTOLERANCE" for a reason.
George Orwell wrote "1984" for a reason.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:30 pm
by Scoundrel
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:32 pm
by The Blackbird
You better get used to this kind of thing, because it's just going to get worse and worse. Some time back I started a similar thread on here after reading about a critic who wanted GONE WITH THE WIND "banned." I won't waste time going over my arguments against that again, for obvious reasons, but goodness knows the PC fanatics will become more and more militant. I'm certainly not defending BIRTH OF A NATION - if we could bring Griffith back from the dead it would be hilarious trying to hear him explain away title cards like the one that refers to the white man's "Aryan birthright," nor am I particularly defending Ms. Gish. Her equally hilarious attempts to defend the Griffith controversy are the stuff of legend. "Mr. Griffith LOVED the black people!" [Yes, of course he did, Ducky...]
Of course, goodness knows, any argument I could make could well be short-circuited by the fact I happen to be a white guy whose people have NOT had to spend centuries being treated by another race like their personal toilet, and I'm fully cognizant of that. My point is that if you strip her name off of this theatre, where do you go from there? I'm sure she was pretty insensitive to the minorities. Sad, brutal truth is, who wasn't back then? I could make a list of movies featuring racially insensitive moments it would take you a week to read. Nor does opening this kind of floodgate apply solely to arts and entertainment. Henry Ford was a famous bigot, but nobody is saying it's time to change the name of his brand of car. How many U.S. Presidents were racists? [No jokes, please.] Their names are still plastered all over schools, etc., everywhere. Only recently it came out that Spiro T. Agnew wrote to the Saudi royal family in 1980 blaming his resignation firmly on America's Number One enemy: "the Jews."
Recently the world was reminded of a repulsive interview John Wayne gave to Playboy magazine (I only read it for the articles) in which he basically states his conviction the USA is better off in the hands of the white man than the black man, or words to that effect. Yes, it's brainless and hateful (that's the Duke for you) and such sentiments should be roundly condemned. What's a little silly about the story is that I've seen it titled by the media, "Renewed Outrage" over his old comments. Okay, they are aware that (a) the interview was fifty years ago, and that (b) Wayne has been dead forty years? I mean, I'm offended by his words too, but there's little more one can do now but shrug. What are people going to do, go down to Newport Beach, stand over his grave and yell at him? I've seen writers get hot and bothered about Peter Sellers' Charlie Chan routine in MURDER BY DEATH, ie. "This is disrespectful to the Chinese-American community!" For that matter, by that logic Sellers' entire career could be seen as one big racial slur.
The ironic side to the human race becoming less racist over time (assuming you agree that is indeed the case) is that each new generation will have a harder and harder time understanding why racist attitudes prevail so much in older culture. You can't fault them for that; obviously, it should be encouraged, but a big portion of modern society's insistence on holding everything ever done to today's standards is a hopeless cause. Nobody will win and I wonder how people who get incensed over stuff like a theatre named after Lillian Gish make it through life with their health intact when presumably they let their blood pressure boil over this frequently.
I've seen a little newsreel from the 1930's taking viewers on a tour through the south. One commentator said it was a good film except for one "rather questionable" shot of several black people picking cotton in a field. For crying out loud, that was a common sight at the time, obviously. I knew this kind of thing was getting out of hand when I watched John Oliver's show a little while back and he happened to be showing a clip from another 1930's newsreel talking about rivers in the Amazon that "had not been traversed by one white man." Aside of the fact that at the time that was probably a technically accurate statement, you and I know that kind of terminology was par for the course back then, but Oliver, who goodness knows is a sharp guy, was absolutely stunned by it! His eyes bugged out of his head and he shouted "Ho-ly ****!" Look, I'd like to share his sense of outrage, but this is just getting silly. Of course, he's had little girls doing numbers on his show and casually dropping the F-bomb in their lyrics while the audience cheered, so I don't see a whole lot of consistency here when it comes to what's offensive, but I hope for his sake he doesn't watch ANIMAL CRACKERS because when he gets to that bit where Margaret Dumont tells Groucho he's the "only white man who's covered every acre," he'll have a stroke.
Even movies about World War II, made during the war itself, are getting flack. Remember THE BIG NOISE, which ends with Laurel and Hardy bombing a Japanese submarine as it approaches the coast? Yes, it's of course as weird as seeing them personally take down Jack the Ripper, but one reviewer, sitting with his feet up in his comfortable easy chair, has labelled this ending "racially insensitive." Okay, imagine it's 1944. 3000 people have been massacred at Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Navy has been decimated. The war in the Pacific has been going very badly for the Allies and it's looked for a long time that, unbelievably, Japan just might actually win. Everyone on the West Coast has been fully expecting zeros to come strafing Hollywood and Vine for so long they can't remember when they were not. You are a buddy are out at Los Angeles Harbor. You see a Japanese sub coming to attack. You have on you a bomb that can stop them. When you go to throw it, your buddy stays your arm, telling you, "You can't do that. That would be racially insensitive!"
I'm still amazed we haven't seen some movement out there to get TCM taken off the air because they keep showing these racist old movies. I still maintain you can't turn a page in history if you insist on pretending the page never existed. I've been called "obtuse" for NOT being on board for the "controversy" over the Apu character on THE SIMPSONS suddenly being a racist insult after thirty years, even though to me it laughably fails to appreciate the entire point of the series with every character being a barbed lampoon of some bad element of society. Strangely I didn't see sudden outrage being raised against Bumblebee Man (Mexican), Krusty the Clown (Jewish), Smithers (gay) and so on, which proves to me all the more that people just jump on bandwagons. I was actually kind of disgusted when the show essentially caved in and quickly whipped up an apologetic episode begging fans to cut them some slack because the show was created so long ago. Never mind the fact that the Simpsons family actually treats Apu's culture with respect and that the guy who runs the convenience store near me is himself practically a clone of Apu himself. Some people still wanted Apu replaced on the show (er, with what, a guy who doesn't talk with an accent?) and, presumably, Hank Azaria run out of Hollywood. How much longer before the Beatles are criticized for all four of them being white? It really is true: some people just have no sense of humour anymore. Say we want to surrender to their point of view and eschew our love of old films, radio and tv shows that contain, for example, humour that's racially insensitive and the comics who made them? That would be Laurel and Hardy, the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, Abbott and Costello, Wheeler and Woolsey, Bob Hope, Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Langdon, Arbuckle, Hamilton, Semon, Benny Hill, Durante, Brendel, Cantor, Raymond Griffith, W.C. Fields, Jack Benny, Fred Allen, Robert Benchley, the Andy Hardy movies, and Jerry Lewis right out the window for a start.
The sad thing is the pushier people get in insisting basically everybody else has something to "answer for" for not being a morally righteous as they are, the more other people will just get more resentful and lash back in reflex. We've already seen what that kind of thing has lead to, and if society isn't careful this will just become a never-ending circle in the future...
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:32 pm
by Brooksie
For me, it all comes down to this: what's more likely, someone coming out of a screening of BoaN or GTWW thinking "You know what? I think I'll become a racist after all!" or "Gee, things were different then. Thank goodness we've moved on"? We would do better to learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than erase the bits that make us uncomfortable and risk repeating them.
If changing the name of a theatre were likely to stop a single person from being racist, I'd be all for it. It's not, so I'm not. I'd rather work on practical means of erasing prejudice rather than fussing over symbolic gestures.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:52 pm
by milefilms
I just want to mention that I suspect very few, if any, of us joining in this conversation, are a person of color. I'm not either. But I have had many, many discussions on microaggressions and they are a real thing. When you are faced with them on a daily basis, you become more aware of the casual to overt racism that is prevalent in our world. (A theater owner apologized to me recently that he couldn't play the 25th-anniversary release of Schindler's List, for example, because he had too many better options.)
For African American students at BGSU to bring up this conversation is an act of bravery. Sticking your neck out in a conformist society always is. Whether they are right to feel this way is not something that any of us can judge. It can be an amazing dialogue that done in the right atmosphere -- and there's no better than a college! -- that can influence people to lead better lives. Many years ago, I had a friend at the college who helped found the Gish theater. He is/was an excellent educator and a terrific person. I am hoping the conversation will have lasting educational value. If they decide to change the name, and I'd be a little sad, it will do absolutely nothing to change the legacy of the Gish sisters for better or worse. And, by the way, as a trouble maker myself, I prefer Dorothy.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
You better get used to this kind of thing, because it's just going to get worse and worse. Some time back I started a similar thread on here after reading about a critic who wanted GONE WITH THE WIND "banned." I won't waste time going over my arguments against that again, for obvious reasons, but goodness knows the PC fanatics will become more and more militant.
You posted 1500 words on this. Just saying.
And what you refer to was 1 - yes, ONE - theatre not showing GWTW for a change. People jumped to the defence of something that wasn't under attack. GWTW - still not exactly hard to find, is it? (Most people on this board live in the USA - plenty of uncorrectness still about, although I'm sure I don't need to continue that line of thought.)
Not that I think this renaming makes any sense at all - it seems sadly misguided - but how many more pages can we fill with cries of impending doom and 1984 and hitler and stalin godwins?
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
But I have had many, many discussions on microaggressions and they are a real thing.
They are, but seeing Gish's name on a theatre is surely a micro-micro-micoagression, and hardly more triggering than, say, reading a textbook book on American history.
For African American students at BGSU to bring up this conversation is an act of bravery. Sticking your neck out in a conformist society always is.
Colleges are part of society too, and students have their own sort of conformism, as we see in their passion for no-platforming and re-naming. Nor do I see much bravery in this case, since none of these students are risking anything--they even have a Dean backing them up. And I doubt they will be harassed by the far-right MAGA types, who are troglodytes uninterested in classic silent film.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:45 pm
by boblipton
Dennis makes a good point, but I am not convinced. Fighting microaggression is a never-ending process, a sort of Zeno's Paradox; in a culture of victims, no matter how far we go in eliminating irrational bias, there is no end to ever-smaller and equally intolerable victimization. Adults deal with an imperfect world. Victims are freed of all obligations until they are made whole... which they never can be.
Eighteen months ago, on the Harvey Weinstein thread, I noted that I found what had happened to that point credible and wondered when it would become a witch hunt. One of our members replied that "An individual witch hunt can happen at any time - that only depends on having a witch hunter. But this is very real, has a long way to go, and I welcome it." That individual has expressed dismay at the news covered in this thread. I surmise he feels it has now reached the witch-hunt stage. Yet is it not the inevitable outcome of seeking out wrongs, and the cult of victimization, in the same way that the good intentions of the French Revolution ended in the Terror and the death of the Terror's leaders at the guillotine?
Some time ago, two of my nieces decided to have their genes tested -- their mother and her mother were always vague about their family background. It turned out that their maternal grandmother had been passing since the mid-1950s. They did not understand why. Then that maniac down in Virginia drove his vehicle into a bunch of Black people. My reaction was that what we had gone through in the 1950s and 1960s was not yet over. The cockroaches were coming out of the Internet's walls. Here was why these women never mentioned this to you.
And still, my nieces say they don't understand why their mother and grandmother were passing.... and not telling them about it.
Turn again, Whittington. I preach to the choir: only by looking at the past without blinking can we have any chance of remembering, humbly, that we too are fallible and commit sins -- or do things that those of the future will consider sins. Our salvation lies in recognizing the good things that other, flawed people have done. If we attempt to build something, to preserve something that we consider of value, will those efforts be negated by future generations, not because they have no more interest in these things than most people have in English drama from 1550-1590, but because we have done something they consider wrong? Must all statues be torn down because idols have feet of clay?
Bob
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:30 am
by Spiny Norman
What a complicated, but worthwhile story, Bob. It just shows how difficult the question can be on a personal level.
Eighteen months ago, on the Harvey Weinstein thread, I noted that I found what had happened to that point credible and wondered at what point it would become a witch hunt. One of our members replied that "An individual witch hunt can happen at any time - that only depends on having a witch hunter. But this is very real, has a long way to go, and I welcome it." That individual has expressed dismay at the news covered in this thread. I surmise he feels it has now reached the Witch Hunt stage. Yet is it not the inevitable outcome of seeking out wrongs, and the cult of victimization, in the same way that the good intentions of the French Revolution ended in the Terror and the death of the Terror's leaders at the guillotine?
Isn't the Weinstein thing more the kind of outrage that later dies a quiet death, after which nothing much will have changed? At least, that's my personal guess, that it will come down to business as usual in the end.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
Eighteen months ago, on the Harvey Weinstein thread, I noted that I found what had happened to that point credible and wondered at what point it would become a witch hunt. One of our members replied that "An individual witch hunt can happen at any time - that only depends on having a witch hunter. But this is very real, has a long way to go, and I welcome it." That individual has expressed dismay at the news covered in this thread. I surmise he feels it has now reached the Witch Hunt stage. Yet is it not the inevitable outcome of seeking out wrongs, and the cult of victimization, in the same way that the good intentions of the French Revolution ended in the Terror and the death of the Terror's leaders at the guillotine?
Isn't the Weinstein thing more the kind of outrage that later dies a quiet death, after which nothing much will have changed? At least, that's my personal guess, that it will come down to business as usual in the end.
It may, and that would be a shame. However, I see the outrage and victimization as a continuum, running from real wrongs that should be dealt with — the Weinstein and many others of that ilk — to the sort of thing this thread is about.
It's just that Gish’s modern era semi-fame is almost entirely derived from BOAN[/size]
Now, that whopper - though not the main point being debated here - merits calling out.
Are many "classic-era" stars very famous today, among the average citizenry?
No.
But for folks at all conversant with that era, and with the specific medium at hand, does Lillian Gish somehow bottom-feed in the murk of "semi-fame"?
Not_even_close.
We're talking about the actor who was working in the still-birthing medium of narrative film even before BOAN, and who worked up until THE WHALES OF AUGUST, with lead roles in high-profile films like THE SCARLET LETTER, DUEL IN THE SUN, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and THE COMEDIANS among the many in the middle.
Who'd been on stage even before being in the movies, and who continued to work there, to the level of Broadway, in things like LIFE WITH FATHER, CAMILLE, and as Gielgud's Ophelia.
Who was then part of the birth of yet another medium, Television, in pieces like THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL and THE DAY LINCOLN WAS SHOT.
It's just that Gish’s modern era semi-fame is almost entirely derived from BOAN
Now, that whopper - though not the main point being debated here - merits calling out.
Are many "classic-era" stars very famous today, among the average citizenry? No. I agree with you. But, I was not trying to suggest Gish’s retreat from the national limelight was unique among those whose careers began in the 1960s or earlier. (Such declines aren’t irreversible - since their biopic, Laurel and Hardy have naturally experienced an upswing in the national zeitgeist, though, admittedly, the audience I saw it with was hardly high school date night in its size or demographics).
But for folks at all conversant with that era, and with the specific medium at hand, does Lillian Gish somehow bottom-feed in the murk of "semi-fame"?
Not_even_close. Again, we- and others conversant with that era- would seem to agree.
We're talking about the actor who was working in the still-birthing medium of narrative film even before BOAN, and who worked up until THE WHALES OF AUGUST, with lead roles in high-profile films like THE SCARLET LETTER, DUEL IN THE SUN, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and THE COMEDIANS among the many in the middle. Who'd been on stage even before being in the movies, and who continued to work there, to the level of Broadway, in things like LIFE WITH FATHER, CAMILLE, and as Gielgud's Ophelia. Who was then part of the birth of yet another medium, Television, in pieces like THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL and THE DAY LINCOLN WAS SHOT. A career remarkable for its length and for its many fine performances.
"Semi-fame"? Hardly even semi-famous, at least for those non-conversant with the era.
But we can’t decide who is remembered, or how. Milton Berle, with his Texaco show for NBC, is credited for having sold more television sets than any other performer (“My father sold his, my uncle sold his, my neighbor sold hers...”). He began in silents two years after Gish, and was before the cameras (1914-2000) eleven years more than she was (1912-1987). Plus, he spent more on his dresses. Yet, for all of that, instead of being celebrated today as the male Lillian Gish, or being cited as”Mr Television”- Uncle Miltie’s just as likely recalled for both a film (Mad World) and an appendage in need of editing.
Re: Daily Citizen: ‘Gish’ may be stripped from theater
You better get used to this kind of thing, because it's just going to get worse and worse. Some time back I started a similar thread on here after reading about a critic who wanted GONE WITH THE WIND "banned." I won't waste time going over my arguments against that again, for obvious reasons, but goodness knows the PC fanatics will become more and more militant.
You posted 1500 words on this. Just saying.
And what you refer to was 1 - yes, ONE - theatre not showing GWTW for a change. People jumped to the defence of something that wasn't under attack. GWTW - still not exactly hard to find, is it? (Most people on this board live in the USA - plenty of uncorrectness still about, although I'm sure I don't need to continue that line of thought.)
Not that I think this renaming makes any sense at all - it seems sadly misguided - but how many more pages can we fill with cries of impending doom and 1984 and hitler and stalin godwins?
You counted my words? Well, I didn't realize you were in a hurry, sorry. Wha - who!
What I was referring to was a critic who WAS calling for GWTW to be banned. I was also referring to one talk show host whose head exploded seeing one ancient newsreel. I never said anything about GWTW indeed disappearing, only that you're now seen the beginnings of calls for it to do so and we'll have to listen to others in the future. I haven't a clue where Hitler, Stalin, 1984 and impending doom came into this as I was stating this kind of thing will continue to annoy like mosquito bites, nor do I understand the point of mentioning most people here are in the US, unless it was a rebuttal to what you can read between the lines in my last couple of sentences in the post, which I stand behind though I won't get political here either. I couldn't agree more that there is plenty of uncorrectness still about in the States though. In the end, I merely try to state that while racism's day of reckoning seems to have finally come in recent years, thank God, you'll still be seeing people taking potshots like the one at Ms. Gish and I'll never understand this kind of selective outrage. Why not concentrate on demanding real accounts from famous bigots like Brigitte Bardot or Mel Gibson who are still alive?
I guess how famous Ms. Gish is today is kind of subjective. Given I've met grown adults who've never heard of Chaplin, or Ronald Reagan, or Johnny Carson, "semi-fame in the modern era" is all too apt with people who are indeed not conversant with the old days, which appears to sum up the folks wanting that theatre's named changed.
boblipton, your words are nothing less than brilliant!
