Woke appropriation of old films: Your opinion? - Page 4

Originally posted by: vcs17

It has been happening in literature too,  I read that Roald Dahl’s books are going to rewritten with problematic parts edited out. I remember reading Enid blyton as a kid and then being told it has racism. I think in these cases one has to be made aware of the problem parts but one shouldn’t rewrite them.

And Then There Were None is the best-selling book of all time. Originally the nursery rhyme at the heart of the book is "Ten Little N*". It was later changed to "Ten Little Indians". And it was eventually changed to "Ten Little Soldiers". Does the replacement of a slur with a generic word reduce anyone's enjoyment? The book continues to be one of the best selling books of all time and I doubt anyone notices this change.  

It is different when the racial aspect is central to the plot of the book, but otherwise there is no reason kids need to read slurs. I see all these people trying to censor things like sexuality from kids' book but kids should be exposed to racial slurs?  

Of course, this is all besides the point. Roald Dahl's estate decided to censor the books. Just like Dr. Seus' estate decided to take some of his books out of circulation. Nobody had asked for it, the estate just did it because they think it will make them more money in the long run. At the end of the day, corporate 'wokeness' is just capitalism. 

Edited by semantic.error - 1 years ago

Again, I am not sure what the issue is with people doing Queer readings of entertainment products. And the same with them writing queer fan-fiction. The original film remains what it remains, and you can read it anyway you like. The work has been put out into the world, and it is upto the audience as to what lens they want to read it with. I have seen a lot of people on this thread read into all sorts of things with all sorts of narratives. But when it is something you all do not agree with, it becomes blasphemous. 

Broader still, what is the issue with doing feminist or caste based readings of these films? Caste, Religion and Patriarchy are deeply rooted into the social fabric and they do show up in these films whether it is intentional or not. And reading films through these lenses help explore the role these films play both as a reflection of the larger culture as well as how they reinforce these structures. 

More importantly, how does it hurt you if someone highlights it? Seems like you all are just shooting the messenger. 

Originally posted by: semantic.error

And Then There Were None is the best-selling book of all time. Originally the nursery rhyme at the heart of the book is "Ten Little N*". It was later changed to "Ten Little Indians". And it was eventually changed to "Ten Little Soldiers". Does the replacement of a slur with a generic word reduce anyone's enjoyment? The book continues to be one of the best selling books of all time and I doubt anyone notices this change.  

It is different when the racial aspect is central to the plot of the book, but otherwise there is no reason kids need to read slurs. I see all these people trying to censor things like sexuality from kids' book but kids should be exposed to racial slurs?  

Of course, this is all besides the point. Roald Dahl's estate decided to censor the books. Just like Dr. Seus' estate decided to take some of his books out of circulation. Nobody had asked for it, the estate just did it because they think it will make them more money in the long run. At the end of the day, corporate 'wokeness' is just capitalism. 

good point about slurs, yes it makes sense to take them out especially if they will learn from it, 

but there is a difference between what kids can be exposed to, editing of a term here and there  vs santising for adults or changing the whole context of the book even for kids

 i am talking about general narrative which may be santitised and not just terms (disclaimer: i have dont  read any such version)  and can change the whole narrative

in fact, even with then there were none or agatha christies books, taking a term out may not make a difference, but actually (though she is not outrightly blatant), the british superiority and one may say racism still comes through, so until her whole books are completely changed, it exists

another example: i enjoyed lot of british authors as a child but did not recognize the underlying superiority or racism, now when i re read them i do, but i still enjoy them but recognize the problematic parts.  an enid blyton depicts all british school girls as upright and sporty, spainish as wild and american as frivolous and materialistic. if we sanitise it, it will change the entire book. should we ban enid blytons then, lot of ppl suggested this.  to extend it further, what about the authors real world persona. charles dickens has (in)famoulsy made several racist statements, should we stop kids from reading his books then. 

and then what about if somebody finds something inappropriate or offensive today itself in a current book, it will lead to censorship, they may also claim it makes no diference, everybody has a equal right to being offended once it begins, where will it stop

i also think that kids should exposed to everything as age appropriate, there is no point creating an ideal, utopia in books. authors, artistes and their creations are grey, even seemingly innocent kids rhymes may have issues. it is because the world is grey, let kids read them and talk to them about the probelmatic parts,  because that will help them navigate the real world better.  

and frankly, this will be a never ending exercise, what is the guarantee that what is right today is not going to be wrong tomorrow,

your last point that "wokeism" itself has become an exercise for brownie points reinforces this, we are better off recognizing that there is no utopia out there. 

Edited by vcs17 - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: vcs17

good point about slurs, yes it makes sense to take them out but  i am talking about general narrative which may be santitised (disclaimer: i have dont  read any such version)  and can change the whole narrative

for example: i enjoyed lot of british authors as a child but did not recognize the underlying superiority or racism, now when i re read them i do, but i still enjoy them but recognize the problematic parts.  an enid blyton depicts all british school girls as upright and sporty, spainish as wild and american as frivolous and materialistic. if we sanitise it, it will change the entire book. should we ban enid blytons then, lot of ppl suggested this.  to extend it further, what about the authors real world persona. charles dickens has (in)famoulsy made several racist statements, should we stop kids from reading his books then. 

i also think that kids should exposed to everything as age appropriate, there is no point creating an ideal, utopia in books. authors, artistes and their creations are grey, even seemingly innocent, kids rhymes may have issues. it is because the world is grey, let kids read them and talk to them about the probelmatic parts,  because that will help them navigate the real world better.  

your last point that "wokeism" itself has become an exercise for brownie points reinforces this, we are better off recognizing that there is no utopia out there. 

 

I do doubt that anyone's problem with Blyton is the depiction of Americans as frivolous or British as snooty. As far as I recall, the issue was literally that someone had an ugly black face and it had to be washed off. That said English Heritage didn't ask for Blyton's books to be edited, they wanted to raise awareness about the harmful stereotypes in works of authors like Blyton and Kipling. Which is exactly what you have asked for. 

A different famous play, The Merchant of Venice goes out of its way to vilify the Jewish moneylender and to remind you that he is Jewish. Nothing about that play would change if the moneylender is not Jewish. If Shakespeare wasn't public domain and was covered by an estate, I would guess it would have been edited. I think it's a fair question to ask what role books and plays like this played in promoting anti-semitic sentiment in Europe and why shouldn't something like that be out of print or fixed. Merchant of Venice was after all heavily performed in Nazi Germany. 

Books are edited all the time. The version of Merchant of Venice we read today is unlikely to be anywhere close to the original version of the text. Censoring is even stronger when it comes to kids. All sorts of gender identity books have been banned in the States in the last year. If gender theory is too much for kids, why aren't adoring depictions of racism?  

And just like corporations use wokeness for making money, media houses use it to also make money by blowing regular things out of proportion. 

Far Left is as extreme as Far Right .

Jay and Veeru had a song  about dosti while Paro/Dev clearly pined for Dev. 

It's definitely interesting to read other people's perspective...it only shows the diversity of thinking/feeling a creative work can offer.

If I know the work that is being discussed, fine for me...I can enter the discussion if I want to do so. If I don't know the work, a discussion about it may stir my interest to get an own impression.

I think, both is a positive effect 😊

as for re-writing or adjusting the original creative work...well, this is just a kind of censoring that follows a certain agenda...it's a sign of disrespect, of unwillingness to learn how things changed, of a thinking that I find negative.

Thanks a lot for a very well reasoned, well worded, well explained response and thank you for reading my lengthy post.

I understand your perspective. I do agree one should not interpret or jump to judgement or conclusions.

The only thing we can perhaps do, is to ignore or not take personally if someone interprets something some way.

Sexual connotation and presumptions are actually very difficult and awkward to deal with and Asians especially associate it with character and morality. That adds to discomfort. I would be mortified if someone took my gesture towards someone else in some other way or made presumptions about my sexuality or character.

Perhaps this is why such blogs and comments get to me.

I also dislike people making presumptions about others in real life. That is distressing for other person and also a form of social pressure to resist judgement. A lot of Indians for eg, get married only to escape such judgement and presumptions about their character or sexuality even if they suffer later in private or unhappy relations (like frustrated asexual people being forced to marry or have sex for eg).

I am glad you acknowledged erasure of asexual and aromantic people by LGBTQI communities. I personally dislike viewing everything from a sexual lens and forced or imposed sexualisation in everything. 

Thanks for a very reasoned discussion on this. I got to learn a lot. 

Not an old movie but the bond between 2 male leads esp Karthik’s character’s disdain for any girl in his bff’s life in Sonu ki Titu ki Sweety was majorly eye-brow raising 😂

Feminist or communal or racial or caste based readings are different. That is obvious to see the bias in the work.

Branding straight characters as queer is a bit of a stretch. Unless there was a clear hint of some attraction or repressed feelings.

There are certain scenes in films like Mandi where there is hint of lesbian relationships. It is not obvious but subtle hints are there in the way women characters touch each other. If one reads those films in such way, then it still makes sense. But there is no need to drag LGBTQIA angle in Sholay for eg.

By this logic one can perhaps add attraction angle in TZP claiming male teacher is attracted to kid in some affection. Or there's queer angle to friendship of 3 guys in 3 Idiots. 

Yup possessive about his male friends and fearing they may ignore or sideline him as their time and attention gets diverted to a girl.