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

[MellySingsDoom]

I spent most of New Year's Eve watching Goodbye Uncle Tom, for the fourth time, with someone who'd never seen it before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3766149445318503265

I'm now completely convinced that it is a politically subversive work of genius, rather than a horrorific exploitation movie. My companion is convinced of the opposite, but then so was I the first time I saw it.

Hi there I'm going to have to watch this again - I recall it being a horrifically racist piece of garbage (with some homophobia and anti-Semitism thrown in too, if memory serves), with almost zero redeeming features - that "modern day" ending was a joke....in his "Sleazoid Express" book, the late Bill Landis unearths some very unpleasant details on co-director Gualtiero Jacopetti, and in the Blue Underground "Mondo" DVD boxset, Franco Prosperi (the other co-director) reveals that they were givein a free reign to film in Haiti by the appalling Papa Doc Duvalier, and allowed to use whoever they wanted on the island as "extras"....

I agree with you that "Farewell Uncle Tom" was put forward by the directors as a hard-hitting expose/attack on the slavery trade, but having seen their "Africa Addio" (and been pissed off with how much of the "shock" footage was actually staged (and how they made out some very frightened looking Rwandan fighters to be "savages" too)), I remain so far very dubious on their sincerity in this matter.....but still, I will give it another shot and let you know what I think this time round.

 

[phildwyer]

Hi there I'm going to have to watch this again - I recall it being a horrifically racist piece of garbage (with some homophobia and anti-Semitism thrown in too, if memory serves), with almost zero redeeming features - that "modern day" ending was a joke....in his "Sleazoid Express" book, the late Bill Landis unearths some very unpleasant details on co-director Gualtiero Jacopetti, and in the Blue Underground "Mondo" DVD boxset, Franco Prosperi (the other co-director) reveals that they were givein a free reign to film in Haiti by the appalling Papa Doc Duvalier, and allowed to use whoever they wanted on the island as "extras"....

I agree with you that "Farewell Uncle Tom" was put forward by the directors as a hard-hitting expose/attack on the slavery trade, but having seen their "Africa Addio" (and been pissed off with how much of the "shock" footage was actually staged (and how they made out some very frightened looking Rwandan fighters to be "savages" too)), I remain so far very dubious on their sincerity in this matter.....but still, I will give it another shot and let you know what I think this time round.

Please do, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Addio Africa is certainly racist. But Goodbye Uncle Tom was intended as a kind of apology for that film. I think it succeeds brilliantly--too well if anything.

Reactions to Goodbye Uncle Tom vary according to race ime: white people find it racist, black people don't. Having thought about this quite a lot, I suspect that is because it tells the truth about slavery in a no-holds-barred fashion that makes white people uncomfortable (I should add that the people I've spoken to about it have all been American).

I think that it is precisely what it claims to be: a documentary. I think it shows exactly what a European documentary film maker would have shown if such a person had existed in 1850. I think it tells the truth.

The characters really are real--you can Google the crazy doctor for example, and he pretty much did write exactly what he says in the film, horrifying as it is. He and people like him were considered perfectly respectable scientists in the C19th.

I also think the film explains a lot about present-day racism, and race relations, in America and the Caribbean.

Anyway, see what you reckon.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I spent most of New Year's Eve watching Goodbye Uncle Tom, for the fourth time,

Why?

 

[phildwyer]

Why?

I'm writing an article about it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Another documentary from the Italian director Prosperi:

'Behind the Fancy Clothes Into the Most Primitive, the Most Provocative Affairs of Women!'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055923/

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yet another:

'The water supply for a large city zoo becomes contaminated with PCP, and the animals go crazy and get loose.'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090322/

 

[phildwyer]

Yes, they are the Mondo guys. But it's their sensationalistic other work which has prevented Goodbye Uncle Tom from getting the serious critical attention it deserves.

That and the more obvious reasons.

 

[StraightOuttaQ]

2012. I wanted to get my research in for the impending Mayan Apocalypse / Pole shift. What I have learned however, is that you can outrun a pyroclastic volcanic debris cloud in a camper van, then fly through it on a plane (Despite it being hundreds of degrees c)...and that Neutrinos can mutate...
Seemed somehow timely.

 

[DotCommunist]

Source code. Not bad. The ending was crap though. Happily ever after

 

[Reno]

I spent most of New Year's Eve watching Goodbye Uncle Tom, for the fourth time, with someone who'd never seen it before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3766149445318503265

I'm now completely convinced that it is a politically subversive work of genius, rather than a horrorific exploitation movie. My companion is convinced of the opposite, but then so was I the first time I saw it.

I've never seen this, but I believe the song "Oh My Love" by Riz Ortolani comes from the film. It was used this year to rather excellent effect in Drive. It always amazes me how many first rate cinematographers, composers and art directors worked in Italian exploitation. Just watched Lucio Fulci's Zombie on Blu-ray a couple of weeks ago and it's a stunning looking film.

 

[Reno]

We watched A Lonely Place to Die (watchable, but not as good as I was led to believe) Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (strange and at times quite wonderful, with a slightly disappointing ending) and Final Destination 5 (better than 3 & 4 with an excellent ending if you've been following the series, but FD2 is still the best)

 

[andy2002]

Tamara Drewe: Decent bit of British comedy whimsy with Tamsin Greig, Roger Allam and Gemma Arterton's arse.

 

[DotCommunist]

In the European one, they don't speak as if Shakespeare did the dialogue.

Still pretty archaic stylie imho

I swear the actor playing cheserey is the one who plays chesereys younger brother in the other version...

ooo, also: sam tarly from Game of Thrones in there as the younger Medici cardinal!

 

[abstract1]

La Haine - fantastic.

Ma vie en rose - a very touching and evocative reminder of the expectations and responsibilities adults place on children in a hetero/gender 'normative' world, and the prejudices faced by people who identify themselves as LGTBQ.

 

[100% masahiko]

Horrible Bosses - Funny in places, it's just I have difficulties in laughing at unlikeable characters.

 

[Part 2]

Moneyball... Not a great film, probably works better if you know about baseball or have some interest. The idea that the sport was changed by a number cruncher is quite funny I suppose.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, they are the Mondo guys. But it's their sensationalistic other work which has prevented Goodbye Uncle Tom from getting the serious critical attention it deserves.

That and the more obvious reasons.

As they say, if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The body of work from these two guys falls into the 'schlockmeister' category. G.U.T. looks like exploitive sensationalistic crap, because that's what it is.

If you want a serious examination of US slavery, I'd suggest that there are better places to find it than in an Italian exploitation film. Looking for exposition of slavery in G.U.T is like looking for truth about the Old West in Jodorowsky's El Topo.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Still pretty archaic stylie imho

I swear the actor playing cheserey is the one who plays chesereys younger brother in the other version...

ooo, also: sam tarly from Game of Thrones in there as the younger Medici cardinal!

..except that as Cesare, he has facial hair....

 

[Belushi]

Sixshooter - Irish short, not bad.

Broken Flowers - Bill Murray does his thing in an enjoyable enough Jim Jarmusch comedy.

 

[100% masahiko]

Contagion - It's better than that monkey one from 10 plus years back.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Yes, they are the Mondo guys. But it's their sensationalistic other work which has prevented Goodbye Uncle Tom from getting the serious critical attention it deserves.

That and the more obvious reasons.

Hi phil - just remembered this: In the US, when "Farewell Uncle Tom" was released (mainly to grindhouses, though it did get some "arthouse" screenings too), it was marketed specifically as a blaxploitation movie...I've got an issue of "Shock Xpress" mag which has a repro of the US release poster, which screams "300 years of hate explode tonight!".

Also - and unbelievably enough - "Farewell Uncle Tom" was submitted to the BBFC in the early 70's for certification (for those who aren't aware, the BBFC then would immediately reject many films seen as exploitaiton out of hand, on the grounds of "disgust"). The then head censor (Stephen Murphy) drew up a list of extensive cuts, which included the removal of the entire last 20 minutes of the film (Murphy saw this as incitement to racist violence...) ...having checked the BBFC site, the final running time lost an almost-incredible 40 minutes to 94m 28s (it was distributed in the UK as simply "Uncle Tom")...

 

[phildwyer]

As they say, if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The body of work from these two guys falls into the 'schlockmeister' category. G.U.T. looks like exploitive sensationalistic crap, because that's what it is.

If you want to convince anyone, you'll have to discuss the film itself, not the director's other work.

GUT doesn't look exploitative to me at all, and most certainly not sensationalistic. What do you think real slavery looked like?

 

[phildwyer]

Hi phil - just remembered this: In the US, when "Farewell Uncle Tom" was released (mainly to grindhouses, though it did get some "arthouse" screenings too), it was marketed specifically as a blaxploitation movie...I've got an issue of "Shock Xpress" mag which has a repro of the US release poster, which screams "300 years of hate explode tonight!".

Like I said to JC3, you'll need to discuss the film itself if you want to be convincing, not the marketing.

I can imagine it was a bit of a marketer's nightmare actually.

Also - and unbelievably enough - "Farewell Uncle Tom" was submitted to the BBFC in the early 70's for certification (for those who aren't aware, the BBFC then would immediately reject many films seen as exploitaiton out of hand, on the grounds of "disgust"). The then head censor (Stephen Murphy) drew up a list of extensive cuts, which included the removal of the entire last 20 minutes of the film (Murphy saw this as incitement to racist violence...) ...having checked the BBFC site, the final running time lost an almost-incredible 40 minutes to 94m 28s (it was distributed in the UK as simply "Uncle Tom")...

Yep. White people are understandably squeamish about having the truth about slavery thrust in their face.

I find Roots, which sanitized and sentimentalized slavery in order to please middle-American TV audiences, about a million times more offensive than GUT.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

Like I said to JC3, you'll need to discuss the film itself if you want to be convincing, not the marketing.

I can imagine it was a bit of a marketer's nightmare actually.

Nah, I wasn't try to make an argument - I thought it was just interesting to remember how it was marketed at the time - and yeah, marketing that would have been a "oh god, do I have to?" job, in a way

Yep. White people are understandably squeamish about having the truth about slavery thrust in their face.

I find Roots, which sanitized and sentimentalized slavery in order to please middle-American TV audiences, about a million times more offensive than GUT.

Your point on "Roots" I would tend to agree with - the idea of santising slavery to make it "acceptable" for TV is, well, sheesh....where do you start?

But yeah - as you say, I'll watch "Farewell Uncle Tom" again over the next couple of days, and get back to you on here

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you want to convince anyone, you'll have to discuss the film itself, not the director's other work.

GUT doesn't look exploitative to me at all, and most certainly not sensationalistic. What do you think real slavery looked like?

I think it looked terrible and degrading. But if you do any reading about the South and slavery, one thing that stands out is the fact that a slave would cost about as much as a Mercedes would nowadays. A very small percentage of the population actually owned slaves, and their capital and their economic well-being was tied up [no pun intended] in their slaves.

That doesn't mean that atrocious abuses didn't occur; but I think there has been a lot of sensationalization as time has gone by. Going out and shooting or beating to death a number of your slaves would be like a car lot owner going and taking a sledgehammer to the cars sitting out in the lot. ie stupid in the extreme.

The true degradation of slavery was in the details: the destruction of the family unit; the denial of education; the systemic undercutting of self-worth; the denial of basic rights.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you want to convince anyone, you'll have to discuss the film itself, not the director's other work.

The point on this is that if every other film done by the director is sensationalistic crap, and on watching this, it seems like sensationalistic crap [which is the feeling I got while watching it], then it's a safe bet that it's crap.

One might as well search the body of Russ Meyer's work looking for a Battleship Potemkin amongst the sea of breasts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yep. White people are understandably squeamish about having the truth about slavery thrust in their face..

I'm not white: I still think the movie is sensationalistic crap.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nah, I wasn't try to make an argument - I thought it was just interesting to remember how it was marketed at the time - and yeah, marketing that would have been a "oh god, do I have to?" job, in a way

Not really. Movies like this and Mondo Cane et al did very well at the box office back then. There was no internet - it wasn't easy to come across tits, ass and graphic violence then like it is now. But people were tittilated by it then just like now.

So these 'documentaries' got made. Apparent examinations of life in other cultures etc, what they really were were exploitation films designed to give the audience a good dose of naked savages, mostly, doing savage things, sex and violence-wise. The Sixties audiences ate it up.

 

[phildwyer]

I think it looked terrible and degrading. But if you do any reading about the South and slavery, one thing that stands out is the fact that a slave would cost about as much as a Mercedes would nowadays. A very small percentage of the population actually owned slaves, and their capital and their economic well-being was tied up [no pun intended] in their slaves.

That doesn't mean that atrocious abuses didn't occur; but I think there has been a lot of sensationalization as time has gone by. Going out and shooting or beating to death a number of your slaves would be like a car lot owner going and taking a sledgehammer to the cars sitting out in the lot. ie stupid in the extreme.

The true degradation of slavery was in the details: the destruction of the family unit; the denial of education; the systemic undercutting of self-worth; the denial of basic rights.

And that's precisely what the movie shows.

Yes, killing a slave would have been stupid. Systematically raping them, on the other hand, made good business sense--as long as you have no qualms about treating your own offspring as slaves, which antebellum southerners evidently didn't. Savagely beating them for the slightest infractions made sense too, since it was (reasonably enough) deemed necessary to constantly terrorize them in order to keep them subjugated.

And the entire system was predicated on the assumption that slaves were not fully human--were in fact animals, and to be treated as such--and that's the major point the movie is making.

I've heard many people minimize the evils of slavery: "oh, they'd have been slaves in Africa anyway, oh their descendendents are better off than modern-day Africans, oh they really weren't whipped all that much..." I'm sure you've heard similar. Well no-one will say such things after watching GUT. I reall think it's a work of genius.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm not white: I still think the movie is sensationalistic crap.

You keep saying this but you don't explain why.

How is it "sensationalistic?" Do you think it somehow exaggerates the evils of slavery?

I don't, I think it is pretty much impossible to exaggerate them. I think the Atlantic slave trade was, by far, the greatest crime against humanity in all history. I thought that before watching GUT, but it really makes the point sink in, as it should.