Woke appropriation of old films: Your opinion? - Page 5

This content was originally posted by: atominis

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. 

Why exactly is it a stretch? I don't see every film being read that way. One could read a film anyway they like, it's an art product up for your consumption and entertainment. I see all of you reading between the lines in all sort of things. Is that appropriation? Are you appropriating all these films because you are fitting your narratives on them?

Funnily enough, nobody really reads 3 Idiots as a queer film, because there is nothing to go on there. It's easy to read Sholay or RRR as a queer film because there is a lot of homo-eroticism in these films. You would have to be blind not to see how RRR can be read as a queer film. A lot of these queer/sapphic readings come from the idea that historians usually go out of their way to deny clearly queer relationships that existed. And this is naturally a counter culture to that.

Still my main point remains. Why does it bother you? Why does somebody else's essay about a queer reading of a film affect you? The idea that someone thinks Paro is a lesbian on the side annoys you because?  To me it seems like it bothers you because you think being a lesbian is inherently wrong, so I am going to wrap it up there.

This content was originally posted by: semantic.error

 

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. 

my exact point is this, that yes the "golliwog" depiction in blyton books, even playing red indians was raised as isssues but why just those issues, the issues i mentioned are also problematic (the depiction of non-british), these have been written about too, whch is the point, whose right to be offended is more, is the right to be offended also be set by conditions from the west mostly,  we will correct these depictions but the rest of it dont mind, we dont care

and yes is not really on kids recommended books any longer in india atleast by schools etc. 

as you said kipling, shakespeare so many others have stereotypes and should be edited but they are not, why?  why selecting editing, why not raise awareness for everything

this is the point atonomis is making that everything is being set by the west and some indians are blindly following it without reealisng the indian context 

maybe the estates dont want them, but it is basically commerce and what agenda sells, it has nothing to do with any principles, in which case bias is there and i would rather not have any editing and only awareness which is my point 

books being edited to simplify them which has been done to all classic authors to make them more reachable  is different from editing because one finds it offensive 

also  one is erasing the culpability of these authors by editing, if you santise their works, ppl will believe past is some golden age and nobody had any prejudices, these authors are great writers but they are grey, what is the point covering it 

the broader point  which i agree with is that any community which has been marginalised, faced discrimination, whether on race, gender, caste etc has to find its own voice, role models, icons, references, strength from within and make it mainstream, the perpertrator will never give you the justice or fairness you are looking for, even when they do it, it will be for their own gains

about books, though digressing, when i was growing up we read mostly british authors, but now in india there are tons of indian books for kids, with lovely native themes, rootedness, cultural context etc and publishers like tulika, prathame etc. the whole arguement about racism in enid blyton is redundant as kids nowadays in india dont even read or relate to those authors, this the actual justice

i think in all cultural outlets the above will happen

I do not think being lesbian is wrong. I do have issue with labelling someone a lesbian when she is not and sexualisation of even something as normal as holding hands or crying or dancing together.

Like I can be touchy feely without being sexualized?

I have not seen RRR yet so I cannot comment on it.

I find nothing homo erotic in relation of Jai and Veeru in Sholay though.

I would like to know what was in their behaviour and mannerisms that gave such a hint.

I do agree with you that people read between lines in everything anyway. But viewing everything with a sexual lens is where I draw the line. I can easily say Nikumbh sir has pedo like attraction towards Ishaan in TZP and platonic affection blah blah and not merely concern as a dyslexic student. 

This is recent developments actually 

If you watch God father all parts Michael played by al pacino kisses his family members and his father too kisses him i mean men male members of family or relatives too

After late 1990s this concept has started that f man kisses man its gay etc 

Even women so many hollywwod movies i have watched women are kissing friends who are girls no one cried foul 

Its in last 20 plus years this concept has started where boys cannot kiss boys or girls cannot kiss girls who are relatives or friends etc 

It is quiet stupid to say a male friend holding another men riend hand or girl friend holding aother girl hand is wrong or means something bad 

Usually its more safety too that you help friend cross road or hold hand they do not trip on roads etc thats why hand are held actually - just protecting your friend or relaative or neighbour etc when going out with you cannot be understood in other terms 

But in movies hollywood or india this is nowadays seen as wrong because movies are showing it that way 

Before like i gave example n old hollywood movies men kissed male friends or hugged etc or held hands etc it was not a wrong thing to do if you see older movies before 1980s or 90s 

Edited by myviewprem - 1 years ago

I agree. I would like to see Blyton or Dahl or anyone else for what they are. So I know their reality and do not have an ideal view of them either. I have seen edited parts or diluted parts of religious texts too and I hate it. I know what they wrote originally and I do not want to give them leeway by editing or reinterpreting or changing translations.

Also our context is different and west one is different.

I can treat my little brother as my laadla, but if I hug or touch him, someone of 'that' mindset is gonna claim I have incestuous feelings for my own younger brother?

I have seen how uncomfortable people get in real life and online any interaction gets sexualized or tongues wagging. I view it as west induced sex obsession, viewing everything from a sexual lens only. 

I have no issues with a lesbian or gay or queer person. But I would not agree with labeling those people lesbian who just happened to talk to each other or sit or dance together. 

Well said.

I am all for LGBTQIA communities creating own content and doing own thing. Organising own events, creating own characters, books, comics, films, whatever they want.

I disagree with appropriating someone else as one of yours.

There are plenty of women in past who used to dress like men or adopted male pen names to bypass gender discrimination. Nowadays people try to appropriate them also or spread claims that they were queer or trans or lesbian. Why?

Unless you have proof or credible linkages, do not draw such assumptions. 

Fictional or historical, these guys spare no one nowadays.

I know historical erasure of LGBTQIA communities and need for role models and examples from history and media. But there has to be some nuance somewhere.

This content was originally posted by: atominis

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

I don't think you always have to ignore it. 

- Obviously, you can clarify your intent if you are the creator. Some creators enjoy their work being open-ended and have multiple speculations. Others do make statements about how they intended characters to be. But ultimately, people will interpret it how they want. Swastika Mukherjee and Anvita Dutt stated in an interview that they didn't see Urmi as a bad mother - but no matter what - I find Urmi's character shitty in Qala. 

- And if someone is making assumptions about you, then you can always clarify or threaten legal action over falsehoods. It's usually easy for straight people to quash queer rumors. It's sadly trickier for gay people to keep their privacy.  

- And everyone is welcome to share their perceptions and interpretations. Even though Ross and Rachel are such a popular ship, many people openly share that Rachel should have been with Joey or dropped Ross for Paris. Even though Happiest Season is a romcom between Abby and Harper, so many people wanted Abby to breakup with Harper in the end. People reinterpret heroes as villains and villains as heroes. Everyone should share their interpretations rather than ask people not to share theirs.  

Misc thoughts re multiple topics in this thread. 

I am against censorship in general. I firmly believe in people having a choice. My old copy of Arabian Nights had some obscene racist footnotes. I tossed it out and bought a more acceptable translation. But I would never advocate for that translation to be banned or censored. To me, its existence is important compared to how works can be translated and is an important illustration of bias in translation. 

I cringe at the racist illustrations in Tintin comics. But I still cherish my Tintin and Asterix collections. I still cherish Enid Blyton and think her books are the best starter for young readers. Parents can converse robustly with their children about racist stereotypes and depictions. Most modern children's books are bland and have simplistically dumbed-down prose. Enid's writing, in my opinion, is more varied and complex while still having enough fun, whimsy, and imagination to engage readers. 

Most importantly, I think preserving old works as they are is necessary. Literature and media can serve as a time machine that provides insight into the life of the past. They complement history by providing rich, vivid contextual descriptions of society and perceptions at a given period of time. Consuming media over some time lets you see how society has changed. You see how women slowly started getting more freedom and went from conservative housewives to sexually liberated women. You see how racist stereotypes have changed over time. You see the ebbs and flows of how every progressive period in history is followed by a conservative period. 

If we censor and edit literature and media to comply with modern sensibilities, we strip them of historical context. If we PC correct Gone with the Win and erase all derogatory media, it would appear that the civil war fixed racism and the 60s civil rights movement was unnecessary. If we correct every book and every movie to eliminate problematic tropes and stereotypes, every progressive movement appears like a moot point. It's all a bland fact in history books stripped of every ounce of context. 

And let's admit it, the Roald Dahl edits are in absurdist extremes. I grew up on books and movies that are considered problematic today, yet I maybe one of the most liberal voices here. The media your child consumes do influence your child, but it won't determine who they become. Also, despite being a liberal voice, some PC censorship makes me facepalm. Maybe it is true that you turn conservative as you age. Or maybe it is ridiculous. Or maybe it's Maybelline. 

---

The perception of relationships, gender identity, and sexual orientation varies from nation to nation and culture to culture. 

Growing up in India, opposite-sex friendships were viewed suspiciously. If your close friends were the opposite sex or you spent a lot of time with someone of the opposite sex, it was assumed that something is happening. On the contrary, in the United States, it is way more common for girls and guys to be friends. They can meet 1:1 for school or work projects or just to catch up and no one assumes a relationship unless there is some PDA involved. 

But same-sex affection can be openly expressed in India. Straight men do hold hands or walk arm in arm. Straight men are allowed emotional vulnerability with their friends. They can even express feelings of love without it being considered 'gay.' The same goes for women. One of my best friends was the touchy-feely type who hugged and kissed all her female friends. She would always snuggle with female friends on school trips. But she was the most boy-crazy girl I knew as well. But in the USA the minute people of the same sex show affection - the assumption is that they are gay. 

Straight men in the USA are kind of sloppy. They don't groom themselves immaculately. But metrosexuality was in across Europe and many parts of the world in the 90s. I've known many European men complain about being perceived as gay in USA because they are well dressed, spend a lot of time grooming themselves, or get manicures and facials to look youthful. 

In East Asia, men with androgynous or even femme looks are considered attractive. Men in K-pop and J-Pop wear a lot of makeup and intentionally dress and look androgynous or femme. They could be gay or straight, but often cisgender. But in the USA, the second a man is androgynous or femme, he's either gay or maybe even a transwoman. 

There are a ton more examples.

With the explosion of streaming media that is still largely dominated by US shows and media, the US perception is being spread more. 

---

Although, I don't think queer interpretations are arbitrary or solely based on US perceptions. 

Not every relationship gets reinterpreted. Chandler and Joey and Monica and Rachel are completely straight bffs to me even though they had many gay jokes. Eric and Otis in Sex education are straight bffs to me, even though Eric is mega gay and Otis sometimes indulges in queer culture like dressing up in drag for Hedwig. But Jai and Veeru do have ambiguous vibes. Jess and Jules in Bend it Like Beckham had way too much chemistry to be straight (they were gay in the original script, confirmed by Gurinder Chadda). I don't care much about Benson and Novak, but Benson and Cabot had way too much chemistry. 

As the episode where everyone thinks Chandler is gay will say - sometimes its just a quality. You can't pinpoint it or explain it. But some relationships seem queer and some seem straight. 

This content was originally posted by: return_to_hades

Misc thoughts re multiple topics in this thread. 

I am against censorship in general. I firmly believe in people having a choice. My old copy of Arabian Nights had some obscene racist footnotes. I tossed it out and bought a more acceptable translation. But I would never advocate for that translation to be banned or censored. To me, its existence is important compared to how works can be translated and is an important illustration of bias in translation. 

I cringe at the racist illustrations in Tintin comics. But I still cherish my Tintin and Asterix collections. I still cherish Enid Blyton and think her books are the best starter for young readers. Parents can converse robustly with their children about racist stereotypes and depictions. Most modern children's books are bland and have simplistically dumbed-down prose. Enid's writing, in my opinion, is more varied and complex while still having enough fun, whimsy, and imagination to engage readers. 

Most importantly, I think preserving old works as they are is necessary. Literature and media can serve as a time machine that provides insight into the life of the past. They complement history by providing rich, vivid contextual descriptions of society and perceptions at a given period of time. Consuming media over some time lets you see how society has changed. You see how women slowly started getting more freedom and went from conservative housewives to sexually liberated women. You see how racist stereotypes have changed over time. You see the ebbs and flows of how every progressive period in history is followed by a conservative period. 

If we censor and edit literature and media to comply with modern sensibilities, we strip them of historical context. If we PC correct Gone with the Win and erase all derogatory media, it would appear that the civil war fixed racism and the 60s civil rights movement was unnecessary. If we correct every book and every movie to eliminate problematic tropes and stereotypes, every progressive movement appears like a moot point. It's all a bland fact in history books stripped of every ounce of context. 

And let's admit it, the Roald Dahl edits are in absurdist extremes. I grew up on books and movies that are considered problematic today, yet I maybe one of the most liberal voices here. The media your child consumes do influence your child, but it won't determine who they become. Also, despite being a liberal voice, some PC censorship makes me facepalm. Maybe it is true that you turn conservative as you age. Or maybe it is ridiculous. Or maybe it's Maybelline. 

---

The perception of relationships, gender identity, and sexual orientation varies from nation to nation and culture to culture. 

Growing up in India, opposite-sex friendships were viewed suspiciously. If your close friends were the opposite sex or you spent a lot of time with someone of the opposite sex, it was assumed that something is happening. On the contrary, in the United States, it is way more common for girls and guys to be friends. They can meet 1:1 for school or work projects or just to catch up and no one assumes a relationship unless there is some PDA involved. 

But same-sex affection can be openly expressed in India. Straight men do hold hands or walk arm in arm. Straight men are allowed emotional vulnerability with their friends. They can even express feelings of love without it being considered 'gay.' The same goes for women. One of my best friends was the touchy-feely type who hugged and kissed all her female friends. She would always snuggle with female friends on school trips. But she was the most boy-crazy girl I knew as well. But in the USA the minute people of the same sex show affection - the assumption is that they are gay. 

Straight men in the USA are kind of sloppy. They don't groom themselves immaculately. But metrosexuality was in across Europe and many parts of the world in the 90s. I've known many European men complain about being perceived as gay in USA because they are well dressed, spend a lot of time grooming themselves, or get manicures and facials to look youthful. 

In East Asia, men with androgynous or even femme looks are considered attractive. Men in K-pop and J-Pop wear a lot of makeup and intentionally dress and look androgynous or femme. They could be gay or straight, but often cisgender. But in the USA, the second a man is androgynous or femme, he's either gay or maybe even a transwoman. 

There are a ton more examples.

With the explosion of streaming media that is still largely dominated by US shows and media, the US perception is being spread more. 

---

Although, I don't think queer interpretations are arbitrary or solely based on US perceptions. 

Not every relationship gets reinterpreted. Chandler and Joey and Monica and Rachel are completely straight bffs to me even though they had many gay jokes. Eric and Otis in Sex education are straight bffs to me, even though Eric is mega gay and Otis sometimes indulges in queer culture like dressing up in drag for Hedwig. But Jai and Veeru do have ambiguous vibes. Jess and Jules in Bend it Like Beckham had way too much chemistry to be straight (they were gay in the original script, confirmed by Gurinder Chadda). I don't care much about Benson and Novak, but Benson and Cabot had way too much chemistry. 

As the episode where everyone thinks Chandler is gay will say - sometimes its just a quality. You can't pinpoint it or explain it. But some relationships seem queer and some seem straight. 

Good to see you back after such a long time. Now stay here please.