Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight

[Dr. Pepper]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Nowhere in that article does it mention White Supremacy. It uses terms like Whitewashed, White nostaglia, and White fantasy. 

It mentions it twice.  

Quote

If La La Land holds the power to transport, we might ask where—and importantly when—it takes us. There lies a profound irony in liberal white folks heading to La La Land to repair after a political season overflowing with the nostalgia of white supremacy. (For all its gauzy backwards glancing, Chazelle’s film might be subtitled Make Hollywood Great Again.) If seeing Gosling and Stone tap dance in the Hollywood Hills tickles something deep in some viewers, perhaps it’s worth investigating the roots of that feeling and its supposed universality. Quite simply: The past represents liberation for one group, a horror show for another.

Quote

What Gosling’s Seb and Stone’s Mia share is a commitment to the past—a place where, supposedly, dreamers dream their dreams awake. But which dreamers dreaming what dreams? Why do white Americans (in politics and film) often so wistfully return to the era before federally mandated desegregation, voting and civil rights? (Would La La Land ever have been made with two leading actors of color? Obviously not.) The film only functions as an ode to a lost era of white supremacy, and its viewers, consciously or unconsciously, participate in the delusion. The film’s politics of nostalgia and whiteness are inextricable.

Not to mention that the entire article things like white nostalgia and white fantasy fall firmly under the white supremacy umbrella.  

 

7 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I'm pretty sure Sir Scot was addressing your idea that the lead female role in La La Land was supposed to be a WOC. After all the post he responded to was about La La Land and how Stone's accepting a role in it proved she was actively hostile to POC. 

The point is that this is now a habit for Stone.  She knows better and still does it.  To me that's intentional hostility.  (And no, I don't ignore the hostility from everyone else involved, whether it's casual or intentional). 

 

For anyone else who is super confused about why POC might not like this film, happy reading: 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=LA+LA+Land+white+supremacy&*

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Oh, gee. I don't even agree with Dr. Pepper completely myself, but she did give us that link back on page 7 that I have already copied once which seems to me to explain her statements:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-la-la-land.html

 

Ok fair, and that is one of a number of articles I've seen on the subject, none of which are based on anything other than a powerful motive to paint something that isn't really there because it fits a nice convenient narrative. If there is nostalgia in La La Land it is for a time when Romance was a lot simpler, where we were made to believe that your dreams could come true. It has nothing to do with race, at all. If people choose to view the movie through a filter of racism then that is up to them, but it doesn't mean they are correct.




 

[polishgenius]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Extreme?  White supremacy is pretty much a fact of life.  How about you explain your confusion.  I've already posted a link.  I've suggested further education (it's called a google search).  No idea how much more I could possibly assist you.  

 

 

Gotta say, I think a great deal of this argument has come about because you seem to be using a different definition of both 'white supremacy' and 'commentary' than most people see as standard.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, polishgenius said:

 

 

Gotta say, I think a great deal of this argument has come about because you seem to be using a different definition of both 'white supremacy' and 'commentary' than most people see as standard.

Gotta say, I'm using these definitions just fine.  It probably has a lot more to do with the fact that others don't recognize white supremacy when they see and live it, they assume white supremacy is just Hitler era nazis and white hood wearers rather than something tightly woven into nearly every aspect of society (I'm coming from a very US centric slant, obviously).  

And commentary is pretty simple.  Not sure why there's confusion on this one.

[Castel]

I can see the argument. Blake Lively had an article celebrating the style of the antebellum south. 

Now...that's fucked. Clearly. I wouldn't want to watch a movie nostalgic for that time.

But where's the line on that? Does everything from the past, even say...the 1960s have to acknowledge some inequity? 

I'm in the position where I'd prefer it, but I don't really consider it a moral problem if not...unless you're jacking off to the antebellum South. I don't really think I'm consistent on this.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Ormond said:

Oh come on. "White supremacy" may be a bit stronger than those terms, but certainly one should be able to see from the article where Dr. Pepper gets her views on this from. It would seem to me that "White nostalgia" and "White fantasy" would be very much related to White Supremacy, and, as I said  before, I don't even totally agree with the article. 

Related yes, but one term (White Supremacy) is far more extreme than the others. I understand the writer's criticisms here. A film made in 2017 shouldn't be as colorblind as a film that was made in the 30's and 40's. To take it to the extreme that Dr. Pepper does is ridiculous, and even damages the viewpoint of the writer of that article. As you mentioned, I don't necessarily agree with his point of view, the criticism is understandable.

[Conflicting Thought]

7 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Ok fair, and that is one of a number of articles I've seen on the subject, none of which are based on anything other than a powerful motive to paint something that isn't really there because it fits a nice convenient narrative. If there is nostalgia in La La Land it is for a time when Romance was a lot simpler, where we were made to believe that your dreams could come true. It has nothing to do with race, at all. If people choose to view the movie through a filter of racism then that is up to them, but it doesn't mean they are correct.




 

maybe you think it has nothing to do with race because you are white and dont really understan the PoV of  PoC?

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, generalzod said:

I'll just leave this right here, an article that praises La La LAND's artistry by an African American but comments thoughtfully (not hysterically) on race.   

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-how-la-la-land-misleads-race-romance-jazz-975786

 

Thanks for posting that! I really liked that review, and as a psychology professor who teaches a course in Human Sexuality, which includes some discussion of how pop culture influences our ideas about romance, I found its critique of the way romance was presented in "La La Land" extremely interesting. I really do think it's valid to discuss how the messages movies (and other media) inadvertently give us about love and relationships, and whether that's helpful or harmful. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, PsicoNny said:

maybe you think it has nothing to do with race because you are white and dont really understan the PoV of  PoC?

Yep that's it. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Gotta say, I'm using these definitions just fine.

Yeah, no, you're not. You've now referred to me no fewer than four times as both a Nazi sympathizer or defender or a White Supremacist. You are not using these terms correctly. 

[generalzod]

6 hours ago, Relic said:

I can't be assed about the Academy Awards,  haven't paid them any mind since the pile of trash that was Gladiator won beat picture. However, this snafu yesterday illustrates something pretty clearly. Most Hollywood stars are dumb as fuck. How hard would it have been for either W. B. or F. D. to announce that they had the wrong award card in hand? Without a script to tell them what to do,  and a director to tell them how to do it,  they both putzed it up big time. 

As for claiming Moonlight won due to PCs reasons, please, stop. It's an ugly look to wear. 

I find it annoying in the extreme when people belittle the audience of shows that may not be historically accurate. If I wanted precise history I'd watch a goddamn documentary.

GLADIATOR is a brilliant film, an epic on the level of David Lean. One of Ridley Scott's BEST films.   Rightfully deserving of its Awards.

Once again I find myself through the looking glass. 

 

 

 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yep that's it. 

Ha! i knew it

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It mentions it twice.  

That first quote is calling out the political season (the election) as being rife with a nostalgia for White Supremacy. It's not referring directly to the film.

 The second calls it an ode to an era that was rife with white supremacy. Pretty indirect, if you ask me. 

[polishgenius]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Gotta say, I'm using these definitions just fine.  It probably has a lot more to do with the fact that others don't recognize white supremacy when they see and live it, they assume white supremacy is just Hitler era nazis and white hood wearers rather than something tightly woven into nearly every aspect of society (I'm coming from a very US centric slant, obviously). 

But this is the thing. White supremacy (as I've near enough universally seen the term used) is the belief and deliberate promotion of the idea that white people are superior. You appear to be using it in a similar though stronger sense to white privilege, and while that might be a perfectly logical meaning if you take the words from a totally neutral perspective it's not what the phrase actually means. Even if it's what the phrase should mean.

You might also be saying that white privilege is the result of deliberate policies of white supremacy which, you know, it is but are also verging on saying that anyone who benefits from white privilege and doesn't see it is a white supremacist which seems to me to be extreme.
But whatever the case I'm absolutely certain that there is some level of semantic disagreement factoring into this verbal ruck.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And commentary is pretty simple.  Not sure why there's confusion on this one.

Neither am I, but commentary is a deliberate act and the way you're using it suggests that La La Land is providing commentary on certain things even if it isn't doing it on purpose. I don't think I'm the only one who understands the word that way, judging from later responses.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Dr. Pepper linked to an article that has this perspective back on Page 7:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-la-la-land.html

Cheers. Hmmm. I don't, off the top of my head, think correlation equates to causation in this case, but maybe I'll think differently if I ever see it. But, I mean...Livy. Ie, nostalgia is a very ubiquitous human trait, and while I can see why white and black audiences will view the 50's differently...as a socialist I'm more in line with the latter myself, as well as the whole Duck & Cover deal which absolutely chills me, etc. but that doesn't mean those distinctions were the basis for 'white' nostalgia.

I personally think conservatism is a constant self-delusion wherein nostalgia plays a destructive role, but that doesn't mean that that's the point of nostalgia. People have always tried to reassure themselves about uncomfortable presents by selective retrospective, even in pretty homogenous societies. 

[Relic]

Just now, generalzod said:

I find it annoying in the extreme when people belittle the audience of shows that may not be historically accurate. If I wanted precise history I'd watch a goddamn documentary.

Good for you? Thanks for taking the time to bitch about something that isn't even a thing?

Why do i think Gladiator is an over rated piece of garbage? 

1) Russell Crowe.

2) The entire horrid Roman emperor and sister plot line. Wakeen Felix (or Joaquin Phoenix, if you prefer) has just awful in this, as well. 

3) The ending. 

4) Aside from the first couple of fights I was bored to death by the arena bits. 

5) The movie was trite, cliched, melodramatic, over wrought, self important, and silly. 

6) Historical inaccuracy has nothing to do with my dislike for this steaming pile of boring brainless bullshit.

7) I don't care if you disagree. It is your right to think this was the greatest movie ever, and my right to think you have terrible taste. 

In Gladiators defense, the first 10 minutes were dope. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

50 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Nowhere in that article does it mention White Supremacy. It uses terms like Whitewashed, White nostaglia, and White fantasy. 

All those can be considered components of White Supremacy without needing to call it.

A film cannot fully declare itself devoid of commentary for it is not something in control.

I did not see LaLa Land so want to be careful. A film of Nostalgia that include a White man dealing with Jazz can easily be problematic since the history of the time did include a whiting of the genre for it to be palatable to the wider white audience. I do not know how or if the movie address it.  Using that subject without the context or being flippant about does provides a commentary even if the maker state there was not one.

[Dr. Pepper]

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, no, you're not. You've now referred to me no fewer than four times as both a Nazi sympathizer or defender or a White Supremacist. You are not using these terms correctly. 

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.  

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

But this is the thing. White supremacy (as I've near enough universally seen the term used) is the belief and deliberate promotion of the idea that white people are superior. You appear to be using it in a similar though stronger sense to white privilege, and while that might be a perfectly logical meaning if you take the words from a totally neutral perspective it's not what the phrase actually means. Even if it's what the phrase should mean.

You might also be saying that white privilege is the result of deliberate policies of white supremacy which, you know, it is but are also verging on saying that anyone who benefits from white privilege and doesn't see it is a white supremacist which seems to me to be extreme.
But whatever the case I'm absolutely certain that there is some level of semantic disagreement factoring into this verbal ruck.

Neither am I, but commentary is a deliberate act and the way you're using it suggests that La La Land is providing commentary on certain things even if it isn't doing it on purpose. I don't think I'm the only one who understands the word that way, judging from later responses.

White supremacy need not be actively and vocally championed to be white supremacy.  Our political and legal system is informed by white supremacy, as are things like art and entertainment.  Yes, white privilege is the result of white supremacy.  A film that invokes nostalgia for the 'good old days' without any special care taken to acknowledge that it wasn't good for everyone (and was actually a time when white supremacy was more overt and now cloaked in things like coded language) is a celebration of white supremacy, imo.  I would say that not recognizing this would fall more under the white privilege definition.  

As far as commentary, I disagree that it must be deliberately intended by the artist.  The artist might say, "my only intent was to tell a cute little love story about the good ole days" but he has no control over what his audience sees or feels.  He might not intend to whitewash history or ignore the ugliness, but that could very easily still be the result and what his audience sees.  Though I'm not married to this term, I'm absolutely no wordsmith.  I'm certainly open to a better term to describe what people think a piece of art says.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.  

Yes, defending Free Speech and not insisting that a film that is an ode to 30's/40's Song and Dance movies be socially conscious clearly makes me a Nazi. 

You are delusional, hyperbolic and very insulting. 

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  Though I'm not married to this term, I'm absolutely no wordsmith.  I'm certainly open to a better term to describe what people think a piece of art says.  

Tbh, I'd just go with 'message'. Means more or less the same, doesn't have to be intentional.



 

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

White supremacy need not be actively and vocally championed to be white supremacy.  Our political and legal system is informed by white supremacy, as are things like art and entertainment.  Yes, white privilege is the result of white supremacy.  A film that invokes nostalgia for the 'good old days' without any special care taken to acknowledge that it wasn't good for everyone (and was actually a time when white supremacy was more overt and now cloaked in things like coded language) is a celebration of white supremacy, imo.  I would say that not recognizing this would fall more under the white privilege definition.  

Fair enough. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your exact delineations of meaning or responsibility (would have to think about it I guess - I am of course coming at this as a white man from another continent- but I do think there's a difference between the thoughtless/insensitive portrayal/throwback of a time of white supremacy and a celebration thereof) but I do take the point and I do broadly agree with your general argument.