What DVD / Video did you watch last night? (pt3)

[phildwyer]

The truth and history of slavery is well-told in many better places and forms, that aren't so exploitive, that aren't designed by Italian schlock producers to tittilate a white racist audience.

A good place to start is here:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/wpa/wpahome.html

A book that I own and would recommend is this:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369801.The_Slave_s_Narrative

With respect, there's no need to recommend any reading about slavery to me. It's a topic in which I've been interested for a long time. One of my closest friends is a world-renowned expert who has been publishing on the subject for 20 years, and I'm currently researching a piece on American representations of slavery myself.

Why do you assume the audience for GUT would have been either racist or white? I'd have thought it was pretty clearly aimed at a militant black audience.

I prefer to gain an education about slavery from the mouths of those who lived under it; better even learning it from those who heard the stories sitting at their grandparents' knee, than relying on a couple of Italians looking to score some fast dollars.

You're learning about it from people who lived it by watching GUT. All the characters are real, and the directors claim that all the speeches are taken verbatim from their writings. I can't vouch for that in every case, but I have looked into the racist doctor who appears near the end, and it is absolutely true (although I've found no evidence that he was Jewish).

Also, you must agree that GUT accords with the accounts given in (many of) the slave narratives you've read, right? In which case, I assume that your objection is to seeing such events, as opposed to reading about them?

 

[phildwyer]

Your movie? I find it repulsive.

As you've said. But you really, truly haven't said why. Or rather, you haven't given any reason that accords with your learning and intelligence.

You've suggested that it's exaggerated. I know for a fact that it isn't--and so do you, since you've read widely on the subject yourself.

You've objected to the number of rape scenes. Rape was a central component of slavery--a fact of which most white Americans are ignorant, and of which they would be fully appraised having watched GUT.

You mention the sadistic element. The whole system was predicated on sadism. You mentioned the girl offering the whip. What kind of sex do you think would have taken place between slaves and their owners?

Do you think such questions shouldn't be raised? I think they should. They explain a great deal about present-day America--the prison system for one thing, and public attitudes towards it. And basically the entire edifice of racism. I've never seen a film that explains it as successfully as GUT.

Now, as I mentioned before, the first time I watched the movie I reacted as you did. I suspect that most people will, simply out of visceral shock. But if you think it through a bit, and think about the reasons behind your reactions, I think you'll change your mind.

 

[phildwyer]

You didn't answer the question: did american slaves have a life expectancy of three years?

It's estimated that of the12 million slaves transported across the Atlantic during the centuries of the slave trade, about 700,000 ended up in the US. Yet in 1860, the slave population in the US was 4 million. That would indicate that a fair number of that 700,000 didn't die after three years.

Nobody knows the true figures. Millions of Africans were imported illegally after the trade became illegal (one of the instructive points made by GUT concerns the highly negative impact that the ban had on the lives of slaves).

It's true that slaves in the USA lived longer than those in the Caribbean. But you would be very naive to think that their lives were in any way pleasant. Slave plantations would have resembled Nazi concentration camps, not the fields tilled by well-fed, muscular hands that you'll see in Roots or Gone With the Wind.

The directors of GUT claim that the details they give of the slaves' diet are historically accurate. I haven't read up on that yet, but I see no reason to disbelieve them. If they're right, then its hard to imagine how a sedentary life could have been sustained, let alone a life of back-breaking toil for sixteen hours a day.

And by the way, the phenomenal amount of labor that the field hands were forced to perform pretty much puts paid to you "dairy farm" analogy. Cows don't have to pick cotton from dawn to dusk.

 

[phildwyer]

The values of other decades aren't the same as our own. I was fairly young when Mondo Cane came out: but I can remember that it caused quite a sensation, and it was one of those movies that we kids couldn't watch, but wanted to, based on the reactions of adults.

Fair enough, I suppose. But I think that, apart from a few weirdos, any white American would come away from GUT feeling (a) ashamed, and (b) disgusted.

Not least important, they would come away from it doubting their own whiteness. GUT forces the audience to understand just how artificial the concept of "race" truly is: and how its purpose is blatantly ideological.

As I'm sure you know, just about any "white" person whose family were in the south before 1860 has some "black" blood. There's a well-known phrase about woodpiles that expresses the anxieties caused by that fact. GUT will have reminded anyone who watches it of the reasons for that, and of the consequent absurdity of "race," racism and all the insanity that such concepts continue to cause.

 

[phildwyer]

its hardly 'Faces of Death' but you're right, this was early shockumentary cinema and was received as such.

It was received as such, but that's not what it is. Americans weren't ready for such a film at the time it was made, nor were they equipped to understand it. So it was dismissed as pornography, when it so clearly is not. There was no other category in which to place it.

Perhaps there still isn't. But GUT is one of the very rare texts whose meaning actually changes with time. It carries very different connotations in 2012 than it did in 1972.

JC3 keeps harping on the fact that it was made by Italians, and on reflection I think he's right to do so. Certainly no white American could or would have made such a movie. But he might like to think how his reaction would have been different if it had been made by African-Americans.

 

[butchersapron]

The Man Who Will Come - i'm on a good run right now. Another good film last night, re-telling of the Marzabotto massacre. (SS kill 700 children/women/elderly in revenge for partisan attacks). Could have been done really badly - heroic partisans, stoic peasants etc but avoided this by just concentrating on 9 months in the life of the village.

 

[DotCommunist]

Episode 8 of Hell on Wheels, the post civil war american story of a railroad being built, transcontinental. Getting a bit ridiculous now, as freed slave is best friends with former slave owner and confederate soldier, while an indian who has converted to christianity leads the three plus a contingent of union soldiers to wreak vengeance on the shian indians who keep fucking with the train.

Good fun though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why do you assume the audience for GUT would have been either racist or white? I'd have thought it was pretty clearly aimed at a militant black audience.

Phil, it's long been my suspicion that you are taking the piss when it comes to your argument that this is a serious documentary made with lofty ideals. I've thought that you intention was to get a bunch of people to watch a piece of trash, then to discuss it as if it were something other than trash. The classic definition of trolling.

Now, based on the bolded statement above, I'm sure of it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why do you assume the audience for GUT would have been either racist or white?

It was first released in Italy. I shouldn't assume racism on the part of the white audiences there. And they would be white, given Italy's demographics.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're learning about it from people who lived it by watching GUT. All the characters are real, and the directors claim that all the speeches are taken verbatim from their writings.

But - that doesn't include the blacks. Pretty hard to get any verbatim speeches from the slaves.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, you must agree that GUT accords with the accounts given in (many of) the slave narratives you've read, right? In which case, I assume that your objection is to seeing such events, as opposed to reading about them?

The things depicted in the film, or something like them, occurred. The best way to describe my objection would be to say that GUT was to slavery what a movie trailer is to the full length movie. In other words, it's comprised of all the 'juicy bits', in order to get the audience sitting on the edge of their seats, their hearts racing.

But while a movie trailer does in fact contain footage that can be found in the movie; and in fact, with the right editing, the trailer can present an incomplete, inaccurate or erroneous depiction of the film itself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. What kind of sex do you think would have taken place between slaves and their owners?

I suspect it ran the gamut, from sadistic rape, to love.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nobody knows the true figures. Millions of Africans were imported illegally after the trade became illegal (one of the instructive points made by GUT concerns the highly negative impact that the ban had on the lives of slaves)..

Interesting perspective.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's true that slaves in the USA lived longer than those in the Caribbean. But you would be very naive to think that their lives were in any way pleasant. .

Nobody said that it was. But you came out with a bald statement: slaves in Jamaica lived three years, on average. You seem to be resiling from that, as you should. Also, the point is irrelevant in any event, since your film deals with American slavery.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But you would be very naive to think that their lives were in any way pleasant. Slave plantations would have resembled Nazi concentration camps, not the fields tilled by well-fed, muscular hands that you'll see in Roots or Gone With the Wind.

.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Nazi concentration camps had as a goal, the elimination of the inmates or, at best, total unconcern with the survival of the inmates. To repeat, a slave cost as much as a Mercedes. A slave owner who ran his operation like a Nazi concentration camp, would have gone broke in no time.

 

[butchersapron]

So, anyone watched any DVDs recently?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The directors of GUT claim that the details they give of the slaves' diet are historically accurate. I haven't read up on that yet, but I see no reason to disbelieve them. If they're right, then its hard to imagine how a sedentary life could have been sustained, let alone a life of back-breaking toil for sixteen hours a day..

...which would tend to indicate that their details vis a vis diet are incorrect.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And by the way, the phenomenal amount of labor that the field hands were forced to perform pretty much puts paid to you "dairy farm" analogy. Cows don't have to pick cotton from dawn to dusk.

That's true: but if a dairy farmer's cows die due to neglect; or a Southern cotton plantation owner's slaves die due to neglect - the farming is over.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As I'm sure you know, just about any "white" person whose family were in the south before 1860 has some "black" blood. .

You've got it turned around. Pretty much every black with ancestry in the South has some 'white' blood. That's a different kettle of fish from the converse.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

JC3 keeps harping on the fact that it was made by Italians, and on reflection I think he's right to do so. Certainly no white American could or would have made such a movie. But he might like to think how his reaction would have been different if it had been made by African-Americans.

Find me a film like GUT made by African Americans and we'll see. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[butchersapron]

You could have done all that in one or two sizable posts for fucks sake instead of drowning this thread. You don't need a whole post for each paragraph that you reply to.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Perhaps there still isn't. But GUT is one of the very rare texts whose meaning actually changes with time. It carries very different connotations in 2012 than it did in 1972.s.

You're changing your tune. Just above, you said that the film was made for a radical black audience, who would have attitudes more like people from 2012.

 

[Part 2]

So, anyone watched any DVDs recently?

I watched Dead of Night, think you mentioned it a few pages back. Always enjoyed the 'gathering of tales' type horrors since seeing Tales from the Crypt when I was a kid. DoN is a good example of the genre, nice little twist at the end, one of those that makes me realise there's probably loads of good early films I've yet to see.

And this thread is getting fucked over by discussion about one film that already has it's own thread elsewhere. Why not take the bickering there?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/goodbye-uncle-tom.280154/

 

[Part 2]

Cria Cuervos...Another Spanish film featuring the little girl from Spirit of the Beehive, Ana Torrent. Amazing performance playing a girl seemingly obsessed with death having seen the deaths of her parents. Highly recommended.

 

[andy2002]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: I'm a big admirer of the original film and this is a worthy prequel. It has its clunky moments but the good far outweighs the not-so good. The last 20 minutes are outstanding.

 

[Orang Utan]

the last bit is the shit bit!

 

[Reno]

the last bit is the shit bit!

What's shit about it ? I thought the end was excellent.

 

[Reno]

I tried to watch Certified Copy and couldn't get on with it at all. Maybe i wasn't in the mood, but the characters just got on my nerves. When I gave up half way through I watched all of This is England 88, which was a bit disappointing too.

 

[phildwyer]

Phil, it's long been my suspicion that you are taking the piss when it comes to your argument that this is a serious documentary made with lofty ideals.

You're wrong.

I won't reply to each of your points for fear of incurring BA's wrath, but I don't know who else you think the final sequence could have appealed to. Not whites, that's for sure. In fact, if GUT is racist at all, it's racist against whites.

A film about slavery that didn't include rape scenes would be far more offensive than one that did. Enough said I think.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're wrong.

I won't reply to each of your points for fear of incurring BA's wrath, .

I wouldn't worry about BA's wrath. If you think you have cogent answers to my points, make them.

Chip Barm makes an excellent point, though: there's a whole thread about this, started by you, where you could do your replying.