Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[StarDestroyer52]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

And since Disney has suppressed Song of the South, the world is a better place.

TBH, I think a lot of the allure about SOTS would disappear if Disney were to release it in a limited release or hand it off to Criterion. A lot of the allure is that it is the forbidden fruit you can't see. I watched it a few years ago and besides the animated numbers and James Baskett's performance I didn't find anything special about the film.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

As for Idris Elba, I've never really thought he'd make a good fit as Bond, not because of his skin colour, but because he's always seemed too "Cockney" to me. It would be like Jason Statham playing Bond. They're good at what they do, but they just don't seem to me like they'd fit the part.

That's pretty much my take on it, and I think what Roger Moore meant when he said Elba was 'too street' (which was widely interpreted as a racist slur). Chiwetel Ejiofor would have been a much better fit: he can do urbane but, as Serenity showed, he can also do dangerous. And he doesn't have Elba's Shouty Shouty Brian Blessed tendency to ham it up at times.

Of course, with the real MI5 and MI6's notorious failure to recruit BAME agents even now (their few BAME employees are almost exclusively low level), if they ever did cast a black actor as Bond that would probably double the numbers overnight...

Back to Genghis Khan, I think the issue with the casting there is that it's such a grab bag of nationalities with no attempt to create coherence (Omar Sharif, Telly Savalas, Woody Strode, Francoise Dorleac and Michael Hordern all playing Mongols). By contrast, while it's not a racial issue, William Wyler made a conscious decision to cast Brits as Romans and (for the most part) Americans as Jews in Ben-Hur so there would be some consistency rather than a noticeable cash of accents.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by StarDestroyer52

TBH, I think a lot of the allure about SOTS would disappear if Disney were to release it in a limited release or hand it off to Criterion. A lot of the allure is that it is the forbidden fruit you can't see. I watched it a few years ago and besides the animated numbers and James Baskett's performance I didn't find anything special about the film.

I watched it recently and it’s actually a very sincere study of a child’s loneliness and having no role models in his life to guide him. The fact that he finds one in an older black male makes the film very poignant and meaningful. The idea of finding your “happy place” during moments of great emotional tumult and emptiness would be as relevant for kids today as it’s always been. Many early Disney films beautifully expressed the reality of feeling lost and alone in an indifferent world, particularly for children, yet it always seemed to touch upon alleged grown ups too. The message in SONG OF THE SOUTH is wonderfully timeless and rises above all the racism in there. But nowadays, sadly, no one can ever seem to see past their rage du jour. My guess is that if you could find children patient enough to sit through the film, the ideas of wanting and needing direction in your confusing mazes would far transcend any negative effects of the racism. Then again, I’m a straight white male and apparently have no appropriate opinion or perspective about anything anymore.

I guess we’ve gotten pretty far afield of this thread’s topic, so I’ll stop now. But I do have to say that Aclea’s line “the patron saint of British dodderiness Michael Hordern“ may be the funniest thing he’s ever written.

[canucksam]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

And since Disney has suppressed Song of the South, the world is a better place.

Exactly, but I would also suggest the removal of Confederate statues, statues and pictures of certain Canadian prime ministers and banning a certain version of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits from the airwaves has also improved everyone's life. What a wonderful time to be alive and change history! I truly can't believe we haven't seen more films disappear.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by canucksam

Exactly, but I would also suggest the removal of Confederate statues, statues and pictures of certain Canadian prime ministers and banning a certain version of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits from the airwaves has also improved everyone's life. What a wonderful time to be alive and change history! I truly can't believe we haven't seen more films disappear.

I despise censorship, book burners and people who want to ban films that don't cater to their own sensibilities.

I would also be perfectly fine with a black James Bond, as long as he has a British accent.....

[marblearch]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I despise censorship, book burners and people who want to ban films that don't cater to their own sensibilities.

I would also be perfectly fine with a black James Bond, as long as he has a British accent.....

With you on censorship. It's about placing in context and not rewriting history .

Back to contemporary times two of the worst put on accents on celluloid , Natashia McElhone and Johnathan Pryce playing the IRA duo in Ronin. Plenty of decent Irish actors out there.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by marblearch

With you on censorship. It's about placing in context and not rewriting history .

Back to contemporary times two of the worst put on accents on celluloid , Natashia McElhone and Johnathan Pryce playing the IRA duo in Ronin. Plenty of decent Irish actors out there.

I thought Dick Van Dyke held that spot for Mary Poppins...

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I think it depends on the context. There are certainly instances in which cross-racial (or whatever) casting is done deliberately to make a point, or for legitimately artistic reasons. Cases in point would be Hamilton or The Wiz.

Or Tropic Thunder. Robert Downey Jr. just had an interesting conversation about whether or not that movie (which is only twelve years old!) could be made today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ugC3TXSKoE

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Then what about a black Charlie Chan? A male Miss Marple? A trans Sherlock Holmes? I’m sorry, but it’s the same principle. You can’t say what’s right for one character isn’t right for another. Either the original conception of a character is honored or it isn’t.

I think we're talking apples and oranges. A "black Charlie Chan" would be wrong, because the very essence of the character of Charlie Chan is that he's Chinese. There's nothing about James Bond -- as a 21st Century British spy -- that requires him to be white. It's not like there aren't black people in Britain who would be perfectly suitable working for the Security Services. Again, as I said before, if you're talking about a James Bond as an active spy during the Cold War era, then that's different.

A "male Miss Marple". That's an interesting question. The Marple stories are pretty much the progenitor of what's referred to as "cozy mysteries", which almost to a one have female protagonists. I broached this question to my wife, who is a "cozy" fan, and she said that the only issue that makes it questionable about having a John Marple instead of a Jane Marple is that in the context of the times in which the stories take place, a elderly woman would be considered "non-threatening", and therefore she'd be able to insinuate herself into situations that a man would not. But, my wife proffered two examples of male characters of her type: Dorothy Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey and C.K. Chesterton's Father Brown.

Bottom line: I wouldn't have a problem with a "John" Marple, as a bachelor amateur detective nosing about the 1920s English countryside. I don't think it violates the essence of the character like a "black Charlie Chan" would.

A trans Sherlock Holmes. Given that Holmes was, for the most part, an asexual character, I don't see a trans Holmes as a problem. There's nothing inherent in Holmes's character or his abilities or his quirks that preclude the character being a trans male. Or a trans female. Or a cisgender woman. RCR already brought up Lucy Liu's Joan Watson. And once again, context is key, because Elementary was set in 21st Century New York. That would not fly if the series was set in the late 19th Century.

It also depends on what you mean when you talk about honoring the "original conception of a character". The original conception of Nick Fury was a white, cigar-chomping US Army sergeant in World War II. Virtually concurrently with the comic featuring his combat adventures during The Big One, a "present day" Nick Fury was featured in various Marvel comics as the director of the spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D. In the 00s, an alternate universe version of him was black, and in fact, his looks were based on Samuel L. Jackson's (with both his enthusiasm and permission). And that's why Jackson was cast as Fury in the Marvel movies. And most fans think he's great in the role. But, technically speaking, with the exception of his S.H.I.E.L.D. directorship, he has nothing in common with the "original conception of a character".

But the real point is that, in the end, it's all "artistic license". Shakespeare has been twisted and bent, raveled and unraveled in many different ways. Romeo and Juliet became West Side Story, Macbeth became Throne of Blood, The Tempest became Forbidden Planet. In Richard Loncraine's Richard III, the story was transposed into an alternate universe vision of a fascist Britain. Some people love this kind of thing; other people hate it. So is that honoring the original concept or dishonoring it? Depends on who you ask.

Me, I think it's honoring the original by making the characters and stories more universal.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

The thing with Bond is that the film series is so far removed from Fleming's original creation these days that race would just be one more thing. I mean, we already have a black Felix, a black Miss Moneypenny, and I have no problem with that.

Exactly. It's usually a change in the protagonist that gets people the most perturbed, but not the supporting characters. Or, at least, people don't get as upset if it's the supporting characters.

As for Idris Elba, I've never really thought he'd make a good fit as Bond, not because of his skin colour, but because he's always seemed too "Cockney" to me.

I'm guessing you've never watched The Wire. Elba plays the second-in-command of a Baltimore drug lord. I had no idea at the time that he was British.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by jayembee

A "male Miss Marple". That's an interesting question.

Along those lines, has anyone seen HBO's Japanese Miss Sherlock that makes both Holmes and Watson female? I've heard good things about it but haven't watched it yet.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by jayembee

[Show spoiler]I think we're talking apples and oranges. A "black Charlie Chan" would be wrong, because the very essence of the character of Charlie Chan is that he's Chinese. There's nothing about James Bond -- as a 21st Century British spy -- that requires him to be white. It's not like there aren't black people in Britain who would be perfectly suitable working for the Security Services. Again, as I said before, if you're talking about a James Bond as an active spy during the Cold War era, then that's different.

A "male Miss Marple". That's an interesting question. The Marple stories are pretty much the progenitor of what's referred to as "cozy mysteries", which almost to a one have female protagonists. I broached this question to my wife, who is a "cozy" fan, and she said that the only issue that makes it questionable about having a John Marple instead of a Jane Marple is that in the context of the times in which the stories take place, a elderly woman would be considered "non-threatening", and therefore she'd be able to insinuate herself into situations that a man would not. But, my wife proffered two examples of male characters of her type: Dorothy Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey and C.K. Chesterton's Father Brown.

Bottom line: I wouldn't have a problem with a "John" Marple, as a bachelor amateur detective nosing about the 1920s English countryside. I don't think it violates the essence of the character like a "black Charlie Chan" would.

A trans Sherlock Holmes. Given that Holmes was, for the most part, an asexual character, I don't see a trans Holmes as a problem. There's nothing inherent in Holmes's character or his abilities or his quirks that preclude the character being a trans male. Or a trans female. Or a cisgender woman. RCR already brought up Lucy Liu's Joan Watson. And once again, context is key, because Elementary was set in 21st Century New York. That would not fly if the series was set in the late 19th Century.

It also depends on what you mean when you talk about honoring the "original conception of a character". The original conception of Nick Fury was a white, cigar-chomping US Army sergeant in World War II. Virtually concurrently with the comic featuring his combat adventures during The Big One, a "present day" Nick Fury was featured in various Marvel comics as the director of the spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D. In the 00s, an alternate universe version of him was black, and in fact, his looks were based on Samuel L. Jackson's (with both his enthusiasm and permission). And that's why Jackson was cast as Fury in the Marvel movies. And most fans think he's great in the role. But, technically speaking, with the exception of his S.H.I.E.L.D. directorship, he has nothing in common with the "original conception of a character".

But the real point is that, in the end, it's all "artistic license". Shakespeare has been twisted and bent, raveled and unraveled in many different ways. Romeo and Juliet became West Side Story, Macbeth became Throne of Blood, The Tempest became Forbidden Planet. In Richard Loncraine's Richard III, the story was transposed into an alternate universe vision of a fascist Britain. Some people love this kind of thing; other people hate it. So is that honoring the original concept or dishonoring it? Depends on who you ask.

Me, I think it's honoring the original by making the characters and stories more universal.

You make very good points and I enjoyed reading them, but we have to agree to disagree about it being apples and oranges. I'm just not seeing the difference unless one starts flirting with double standards. It would be just as easy to update Charlie Chan into the 21st century and apply color blind casting as some think should be done with Bond. Yes, on the surface it seems impossible, because we are ingrained now to think no one can play an Asian but an Asian, but in a way that's just as restrictive as saying no one can play Bond but a Caucasian. That's what I meant before about all of this being a slippery slope. Why is one right and another not right? Both are tampering with the original concepts. In any case, this won't be resolved here and certainly not in the world, so while it makes for good conversation, I can't think of much else to add to it at the moment.

Although we may disagree on some of these theories, ideas and proposals, one thing I would expect most of us here can stand united over is that old movies, like the allegedly racist Chan films and sexist Bond films should never be buried out of some current ideal of new enlightenment. This kind of head in the sand censorship has no place in any period of history.

Which brings us back to where this all started, Twilight Time's Blu of GENGHIS KHAN. The one time I watched it on DVD, I was more bored with the direction of the film rather than outraged by the inappropriate casting, but I do love epics and at some point I can see giving it another chance.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by somethingblu

The Barefoot Contessa is a revelation on bluray! I had the old DVD from MGM and this easily tops it. The transfer is beautiful, almost like watching a painting. I think I bought this when it was first released by Twilight Time as its one of my favorite later Bogart films.

The Barefoot Contessa looks like most ancient MGM masters slapped onto an HD disc...subpar.

[UnionJackMix]

Originally Posted by Dollar Colonel

We can still criticize the system and the actors that went along with them. It doesn't mean they were bad people, but at the same time they weren't that ignorant either.

I like all these posts people are making and I'm glad to read we are mostly on the same page, and excuse me for not being able to express myself as well as the rest of you, I'm not that well read.

I do want to say, in this particular case: why criticize system and actors that went along with it? I was 60 years ago. What is the point? You're not really going to accomplish anything as it's too much in the past. It would make more sense to question or criticize more recent examples because the movie world in the USA until the end of the 60s (at least) was a bubble. And sure you could say, they had a Chinese character in the movie but no famous Chinese actor that fit the bill they wanted because Hollywood and society at large did not allow other races to rise to the same level of fame and English acting skills as caucasians (and so on) but you just need to accept that that's how it was back then. Things have changed a bit now, so maybe i makes more sense to focus on the recent.

That said, I don't like Scarlet Johansson at all, nor am I familiar with that movie she played mention a page earlier, but if the situation was that the movie got made because she wanted to play the role and had the right cards, or it was in her hands, why should she not be allowed to play it? Is it better to make the movie with her and be it a big success because she's a famous actress and celebrity (and it appears a good actress - I'm going by fame here) or is it better if it got made with an actress of the same ethnicity/race that very few people know and would go and see and remain a small indie movie?

[Aclea]

For fans of TT's release of The Big Fix, Varese Sarabande released Bill Conti's memorable score for the first time in a limited edition of 1500 copies:

https://www.varesesarabande.com/prod...deluxe-edition

[jshaide]

Looking at one last order from TT---can anybody vouch for THE GLORY GUYS?

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Looking at one last order from TT---can anybody vouch for THE GLORY GUYS?

Not personally as I haven't seen it, but my older brother says it's shit. You should probably listen to my brother.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Looking at one last order from TT---can anybody vouch for THE GLORY GUYS?

It's on YouTube if you want to check it out first that way.

[GeoffOliver]

Just realized Kiss of Death was sold out, but I found a new copy for $35 on eBay. I guess I got lucky, because who knows if Disney will make it available on Blu-ray ever again.

[kvnbhovis]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

I despise censorship, book burners and people who want to ban films that don't cater to their own sensibilities.

I would also be perfectly fine with a black James Bond, as long as he has a British accent.....

Well said. I oppose destruction of anything historical and am 100% against censorship of any kind. I'm also open to a black James Bond though it has to be done right.