|
Post by topbilled on Aug 29, 2023 15:25:56 GMT
Topbilled, thank you for your nod to the act of selecting the movie. While I'm surprised at your vitriolic reaction to the film, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I will admit to being surprised at your preservation comment, though. For example, we all know there have been vile racist movies made, but even those, IMO, should be preserved (prioritizing of limit funds for preservation is a separate discussion) for the study of history in general and for the study of film history. I wasn't referring to films with racist content when I said not every film that has been preserved should in fact be preserved. (I know we are getting into another subject here about motion picture history and preservation efforts.) I was referring to the fact that some people don't know where to draw the line on what to preserve/keep and what we can relegate to the bins of obscurity without society not losing anything important. But if a film conveys an amoral mindset and presents its thesis in a dishonest way, then I don't think it is worth society's trouble to hold on to it. It doesn't necessarily have to be a film with racism or sex or any other hot-button issue.
Sometimes when I analyze the films and the initial concepts of the story, I discern what I call the work of a diseased mind. I feel this way about a few of Orson Welles' films (BLACK MAGIC) and a few of Alfred Hitchcock's films (SHADOW OF A DOUBT). I think a diseased mind created Tea & Sympathy, maybe someone who had a long-term mental illness of some kind, and I do not think the story helps society. So I would advocate that it not be highly regarded, that it not even be kept as a lesson in the history of filmmaking.
A more proactive and positive stance would choose to preserve films that promote clarity of mind and uplift the soul of the viewer. Tea and Sympathy with its tale of a predatory older woman and a young 18 year old she-male being seduced is just sick. I don't see the value in it. I don't even think closeted homosexuals watching it can benefit from it, because the so-called source of Tom's bullying is determined to be inaccurate since he is 'cured' at the end and he is ultimately affirmed as a heterosexual (through grooming). Most gay men who've been targeted due to homophobia and abused by others cannot magically convert to being straight if a female finds them weeping in the woods. The whole thing is just so preposterous, and if you step back and look at the bigger picture, you can see what an injustice the story does to gay men and straight women who might want to help them in a sincere non-sexual way.
Am I being vitriolic or just plain passionate in my views. I run the risk of sounding like a prudish conservative but I am actually a very concerned individual who tries to employ sensitivity and empathy when examining a complex issue from different angles. In this case, I just find the story so blatantly deceitful that it loses all value for me.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 29, 2023 18:36:11 GMT
Has anyone read the book? Is the film close to the book?
I'm indecisive here. I think the film should be preserved as an example of some of our crazy ideas at the time, BUT preserved films don't come with a lesson plan. TEA AND SYMPATHY is in the same category as BIRTH OF A NATION:I would never recommend it to anyone and cringe when I see it aired
BIRTH OF THE NATION-the most hateful, damaging film, but technically, the first film in several aspects. Should it have been preserved? Is not preserving a film the same as book burning? Is there a criteria for preserving a film?
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 29, 2023 19:19:55 GMT
Has anyone read the book? Is the film close to the book? I'm indecisive here. I think the film should be preserved as an example of some of our crazy ideas at the time, BUT preserved films don't come with a lesson plan. TEA AND SYMPATHY is in the same category as BIRTH OF A NATION:I would never recommend it to anyone and cringe when I see it aired BIRTH OF THE NATION-the most hateful, damaging film, but technically, the first film in several aspects. Should it have been preserved? Is not preserving a film the same as book burning? Is there a criteria for preserving a film? I am not saying 'go out of your way to ignore Movie X.' What I am saying is that there are better films A-W and Y & Z that I would focus on preserving instead. The film preservationists should be more proactive and selective in how some other films can help a society of the future more.
A fair percentage of films will end up lost. Not everything released in theaters in 2023 will be earmarked for preservation. You have to let some films end up on the dust pile. Be smart about which films you choose to rescue.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 29, 2023 21:11:25 GMT
What criteria would you choose?
The Film Foundation doesn't list criteria-at least I didn't find it.
I assume the various organizations doing preservation have individuals making the decisions-is it purely subjective on their part? My favorite films might be lost because I don't have the money to preserve them.
One of my criteria would be number of tickets sold-not the over-riding one. I don't want professional critics/historians making all the decisions. The paying public ought to be considered.
Oh, I'll throw in the dreaded rights issue. If The Film Foundation preserves a film do they have the rights?
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Aug 29, 2023 23:23:55 GMT
Swithin worked with Robert Anderson, but when I asked some of those good questions, he said he never discussed them with Anderson and that Anderson was a happily married man.
Note that another explanation is that schoolmaster\husband was impotent: He acted macho because he couldn't perform in the bedroom.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 30, 2023 3:08:21 GMT
Swithin worked with Robert Anderson, but when I asked some of those good questions, he said he never discussed them with Anderson and that Anderson was a happily married man. Note that another explanation is that schoolmaster\husband was impotent: He acted macho because he couldn't perform in the bedroom. Yeah, I don't really see evidence in the film that the husband was gay or in any real way oriented towards the same sex. He liked palling around with the younger guys, because he was a mentor to them and it fulfilled his need to be looked up to. We never see him lusting around any of the guys. I would agree that he may have been impotent with his wife, which sometimes happens if a man has heart disease and high cholesterol, or is diabetic. Erectile dysfunction does not suggest homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 30, 2023 3:13:46 GMT
What criteria would you choose? The Film Foundation doesn't list criteria-at least I didn't find it. I assume the various organizations doing preservation have individuals making the decisions-is it purely subjective on their part? My favorite films might be lost because I don't have the money to preserve them. One of my criteria would be number of tickets sold-not the over-riding one. I don't want professional critics/historians making all the decisions. The paying public ought to be considered. Oh, I'll throw in the dreaded rights issue. If The Film Foundation preserves a film do they have the rights? I think the main reasons that films are selected for preservation are due to political reasons. Films that promote diversity, equality and inclusion of marginalized groups tend to be picked by liberal preservationists. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it also means a lot of mainstream commercially successful films that play well in the heartland (white conservative straight audiences) will not be selected for preservation.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 30, 2023 13:55:24 GMT
I agree. Else where I repeated that in late 40's Henry Wilcoxon, actor, associate producer saw research showing that the heartland thought the decisionmakers on the coast were not reflecting the heartland's values. And, it seems the great divide continues to widen.
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Aug 30, 2023 15:43:24 GMT
I agree. Else where I repeated that in late 40's Henry Wilcoxon, actor, associate producer saw research showing that the heartland thought the decisionmakers on the coast were not reflecting the heartland's values. And, it seems the great divide continues to widen. It all depends on what those so called 'values' are. Too many people on both coasts, believe the other side has very twisted values. E.g. Heartland 'values' are racism and homophobia. Coastal values are woke, support criminal activity and dishonesty. I find this all to be BS, since for most people there are the same common values. Where I disagree with many heartland folks is these common values are not depended on being religious. Religious people often insult atheist like me by implying we are immoral by default.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 30, 2023 21:41:11 GMT
I'll give you one value from my extended family. Family before God,country, etc. Your cousin kills someone, you never give up the cousin. Many films and tv shows spouted the moral high road-turn in the cousin, it's your duty. Example is extreme and maybe not so true today?
New York and LA, move to where ever the job is. Heartland, you stay with the family. We have common values, but not in the same order of priority.
Peace demonstrations of the 60's and 70's in big cities and universities. Heartland, many people think the value is America Love It or Leave It. Go behind that you'll find a very practical recognition that some people and some countries are determined to fight no matter how nice we talk.
Many religious people know that not all religious people are moral and atheists are not immoral for that belief.
When we don't recognize that we don't all order our common values in the same way, we miss what is common in each other and fail to recognize how we differ.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 31, 2023 14:15:38 GMT
Since I talked about it earlier in the thread, I thought I'd share my review for ACCIDENT (1967) in case anyone might be interested in checking this film out...
ACCIDENT has complex characters and a narrative which is non-linear that might put some folks off. I rather liked how this 1960s offering about a well-liked professor (Dirk Bogarde) presents a man who may not be as respectable as some think. The non-linear progression of the film keeps us slightly off-balance, which is needed when telling a story about this sort of individual.
To Joseph Losey’s credit, we get a multi-layered motion picture that takes full advantage of Bogarde’s likable charms but draws on Harold Pinter’s script in an unusual way. Dark themes are present in the life of Bogarde’s character, but little attention is paid to these aspects at first. We get pulled into his seemingly wholesome world, when a car crash occurs outside his home one day involving college students (Michael York & Jacqueline Sassard) who were coming to visit while his wife’s away.
The titular accident is set in the future. We see the immediate and graphic fall-out from the collision. Things then take a backward turn, where we shift to earlier incidents involving the main characters.
In addition to the aforementioned trio, we have Bogarde’s wife (Vivien Merchant). Mostly she’s a kind soul but long-suffering, since she’s married to a man with secret lustful desires and she is never going to be a real priority. Neither is their idyllic domestic life, which includes their family, friends and various bourgeoisie trappings.
In some ways this is a notable follow-up for Dirk Bogarde at this stage of his movie career. He had previously stepped outside his comfort zone when he played the main role in VICTIM (1961). That story, groundbreaking for its time, was about a man who had a homosexual dalliance behind his wife’s back and was blackmailed. In VICTIM, the audience is meant to sympathize with Bogarde’s character, a basically decent bloke facing exposure, forced to confess mistakes to his wife (Sylvia Syms).
In ACCIDENT, he makes mistakes once again but seems to have less of a conscience about it. For example, he enjoys a long-term affair with a young woman (Delphine Seyrig) and he also has his eye on another one (Sassard). Bogarde is a cheat in this film. He’s worse than a cheat, he’s a predator who takes advantage of female prey.
The sequence near the end is rather difficult to watch– where we return to those moments that occur just after the accident. He brings Sassard the survivor into his house so he can rape her (years before #MeToo). It is shocking. The whole act is vile. Dirk Bogarde, not usually a villain on screen, doing this? Unbelievable and surreal.
We cannot root for him as he succeeds with this conquest. A hot-blooded older male scores with a sexy young chick while the wife’s not around…that’s an achievement for him. But we are totally repulsed by the way he scores.
Most of the middle section of the film details his mentoring of York’s character, and their shared affections for Sassard. The academic triangle occurs simultaneously with another triangle that involves a university colleague (Stanley Baker) with his own designs on Sassard.
Meanwhile Merchant is oblivious to her husband’s romantic rivalries, especially during a weekend gathering where she and the hubby are entertaining these people. While Merchant functions as the ideal wife, Bogarde is focused on Sassard. Every casual look and harmless interaction is subterfuge for his primal desires. He wants to wrest the girl away from Baker. He will get his chance when she is traveling with York and York is killed.
In this film, Bogarde advances from victim to victimizer…the irony is that a man of his refined social standing will not be suspected of such heinous, monstrous behavior. It is no accident that double standards and backlashes exist in modern society. This film shows us how it all starts and how unsuspecting bystanders become voyeurs of tragedy.
|
|