How is the "Reframed" series being received?

I agree whole-heartedly. This kind of topic can quickly go off the rails as those in the "Enough already, we get it!" camp clash with those in the "We must right the wrongs of the past!" camp.

But for me, the continual re-packaging of these themes serves only to finger-wave a whiff of shame toward the people who simply want to enjoy classic movies for what they are.

It seems like TCM wants to get out pre-emptively the idea that they're capable of holding a "modern" view of movie history and that they're not avoiding the contradictions which that history presents, all while simultaneously showcasing and exploiting the films which are their bread and butter. The "Reframed" series is basically their attempt to have it both ways. But the standard isn't universally applied. I recently watched The King and I; it was part of a night of movies about "royals" and was presented very straightforwardly, whereas it's a good example of a film which in another context could have come under scrutiny for racial stereotyping and problematic casting. Don't get me wrong; I like The King and I very much and was happy to see the beautiful print, but that was an example of how their commitment to that kind of revisionist thinking seems to come and go.

Agreed with the overall consensus thus far shared in this thread: TCM is in a difficult spot because their entire brand is celebrating classic cinema, yet, they see the demographics changing and social activism has become commonplace, therefore, TCM feels the need to jump on this bandwagon to show their "solidarity" and that they are "allies" with the historically marginalized in society.

But therein lies a problem--is TCM in the business of informing its audience of classic cinema or is it in the business of reframing classic cinema for modern audiences to atone for cinema's past mistakes? The former was the case from 1994-2017. Now, since the passing of Robert Osborne, it is clear that TCM has made it a priority to become more politically active in their presentations and discussions on classic cinema.  Recently, TCM has shown Brokeback Mountain, An Inconvenient Truth, Boys Don't Cry and Super Size Me.  Bizarre choices, but when viewed in the context of what TCM is attempting to become, it isn't surprising, yet it is no less unfortunate.

Let's look at the lineup of TCM hosts: Ben has been openly political and is very progressive. He used to be involved with The Young Turks, which is one of the most prominent and progressive alternative media outlets in the United States. Alicia is openly a feminist and has written books specifically about women in film. On the recent TCM Cruise, she specifically chose and introduced Adam's Rib, which is considered a very feminist film for its time. While I do not know Dave's political affiliations, he has openly stated he is a gay man who wishes certain unacceptable scenes weren't shown in classic cinema (he mentioned this about Swing Time in the very first season of Reframed--he didn't call for the film's censorship, so that was a plus). Jacqueline is considered an authority on African Americans in cinema and TCM has leaned on her to discuss certain unacceptable depictions of African Americans in classic cinema (she did the new trigger warning intro for Gone with the Wind). Eddie Muller is the only host who doesn't wear his identity or political affiliations on his sleeve, but he is very much sympathetic to left-leaning causes, as I follow him on Twitter and he on occasion, will make subtle comments on various worldwide events.

Now, none of what the TCM hosts believe or have shared is necessarily problematic on its own. However, take it as a sum total and that encompasses the entirety of the TCM brand.

Robert Osborne was a gay man and I don't recall him ever mentioning his private life nor his political affiliations while on TCM. In an interview, Robert told a story about attempting to persuade Jane Fonda to sit down for an interview on TCM. He told Jane, "I don't want to discuss your politics or position on the issues...instead, I want to discuss your movies." I think that speaks volumes about Robert's vision for TCM and celebrating classic cinema, and highlights just how far TCM has strayed from that vision in recent years.

And that might cut their available "able to show" movie library by 2/3.    I do get what they're trying to do, but it seems more like a "Let US show YOU how you're SUPPOSED to think and feel about these movies" kind of deal.   My Dad used to use lecturing as a punishment.  That wasn't really his INTENT, but his droning on and on did seem like punishment enough.  But I never watched TCM to get either lectured OR punished.  So I wish they'd STOP already.  But that too,  they're careful not to break a leg getting down from that high horse.  

Sepiatone

Funny how many of the newer hosts feel "As WE Think, so goes(or should) the TCM audience."

Actually, most people I know, white, black, whatever.... have no issue with the movie other than they just don't like it as a movie. Nothing about any "problematic" assumptions. And many of the African-Americans I know who like the movie say so because of HATTIE McDANIEL. A couple claiming her character reminded them of some neighbor lady they knew, or some Aunt or a Grandma.

I've long felt it was the HOSTS( or a hostess)that have the problem with it, and thinks everybody else should too. To me, it's kinda like DISCO...

I've always considered it "non-music for white kids who can't dance". MY "solution" to this "problem"?

I refused to listen to it. But let those who liked it go ahead. I just made sure I kept out of range.

Sepiatone