comment #1

Reed Barker says ...

By the way, Birth of a Nation DID make the list.

The EW list is strange in some ways, but does include The Deer Hunter instead of Apocalypse Now (which had the great story of John Wayne presenting it the Oscar) and Cannibal Holocaust, which sounds so strange as needs to be seen.

9 of the 25 are pre-Star Wars, so it's not horribly skewed, at least as far as EW is concerned.

Yes, Last Temptation should have been above the Passion. Nikki is right on there.

comment #2

Todd says ...

Angels & Insects? I guess EW is still kissing Hollywood's ass.

comment #3

Nicol D says ...

Passion should definitly be at the top of the list.

Remember the differnce between it and Last Temptation is that while Scorsese's film was controversial, he had the support of the media and filmmaking community behind him and was nominated for an Oscar. The controversy, like DaVinci was white hot for a few weeks before release and burned out fast when the film flopped.

I travelled to a large city to see it thinking I would encounter frothing protestors (like the media said). What I watched was a film in a near empty theatre with no one outside.

Passion on the other hand was vilified for two years (2 years!) before it was released and was offending the establishment. It had academics and the mainstream media out to get it and Mel had no support from the filmmaking community at all. Even John Kerry said we should 'approach it with caution'.

I remember at the time a petition of filmmakers wrote a letter to support John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus (Coppola, Egoyan, Cronenberg) that was gearing up for production but none stood up for Mel. Cowards all.

Finke's ass kissing to the Hollywood establishment aside, Passion definitely deserves to be on top of that list.

As for others on the list...

Midnight Cowboy should be on...and what about Heaven's Gate, even if only for financial reasons and the fact that it destroyed a studio.

comment #4

Daniel Zelter says ...

"I mean, where's Carnal Knowledge? Blackboard Jungle? Easy Rider? Straw Dogs? Apocalypse Now? I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang? Dr. Strangelove? Gentlemen's Agreement? Bad Day at Black Rock? Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Midnight Cowboy?"

They don't really hold up as much in terms of shock value?

"Or Song of the South, which is still Disney's biggest embarrassment for showing "happy slaves" onscreen."

I don't see how it's any more embarassing than Huck Finn. Unlike most films back then, at least it had black actors playing themselves. The only one which really makes me go "Huh?" is Aladdin. If you're going to include something which really pissed off Arab-Americans, at least mention True Lies. Of if you're going for a really offensive Disney cartoon, how about Pocahontas?

Anyway, I'm assuming The Passion ranks higher than Last Temptation in terms of controversy, because people of all religious and political persuasions
were divided over it[Even Michael Moore liked it!], while the only people who hated Marty's movie were right-wing fundies.

comment #5

Todd says ...

I remember wanting to protest Last Temp... when I was a fundamentalist Christian but no one I knew was into movies. I've seen Passion twice and enjoyed it as a pagan. It's more realistic. Why hate Mel cuz he made shitloads of money. Good for him.

comment #6

Griff says ...

How about "Salt of the Earth." "The Miracle."

comment #7

Steve C. says ...

"Not to mention the original Manchurian Candidate which after the JFK assassination was withdrawn from circulation for 25 years?," Finke adds.

Someone needs to clue Finke in - the JFK assassination had nothing to do with MANCHURIAN getting pulled (it was shown on TV for years until Sinatra acquired all rights). After the 1988 re-release, the story was supposedly that Sinatra refused to show it because of a dispute about profits on another film but that too is said to be false (although, if I remember correctly, on the DVD commentary Frankenheimer thought that was the case too).

But really, it's fucking EW - who gives a shit? Finke calls it when she comments that LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is down at #6 and PASSION is #1.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall anyone threatening to kill "fucking Hollywood Kikes" over PASSION.

comment #8

Nicol D says ...

"I'm sorry, but I don't recall anyone threatening to kill "fucking Hollywood Kikes" over PASSION. "

Hey Steve,

You put quotes around those words...who said them?

Can we have a reference or is this more stereotyping and generalizations?

comment #9

Daniel says ...

Hey Zelter, in 1946 -- that's the year "Song of the South" was released -- can you think of a ton of films where the African-American parts were played by white guys in black-face?

Just curious...

I mean, it's one thing to argue that "Song of the South" isn't racist, but it's another to try suggesting it's progressive in some bizarre way or to equivocate it with "Huck Finn," which was written out of an entirely different social and political context many decades earlier.

But the issue of a film and its controversy has less to do with whether it offends you now as whether, 60 years after its release, it still has the ability to provoke outrage. If Disney tried to release "SoS" today, it would be remarkable how many people -- rightly or wrongly... I don't feel like getting into that -- would protest. But Disney would *never* attempt to release the movie today because of all the movie's in the studio's history, that and "The Black Caulderon" are the ones most likely to get swept under the rug. But at least "The Black Caulderon" -- which isn't controversial so much as bad -- is on DVD.

The EW list has very little concept of historical distance or actual meaningful controversy. All of the films that Nikki Finke listed, plus other films like "Salo," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," "All Quiet on the Western Front," several different versions of "Lolita," "Cruisin,'" "The Outlaw," and "The Life of Brian" generated oodles more genuine controversy at the time of their release than "Aladdin," "United 93" or "The Da Vinci Code."

-Dan

comment #10

Daniel Zelter says ...

Todd: If Mel was actually a good Christian, he'd give away that money to charity. Instead, he's just hoping the Passion crowd will make him rich again with Apocalypto. He wasn't doing it for the art, and it's a joke that him and Lucas are called "independent" filmmakers.

Daniel: "can you think of a ton of films where the African-American parts were played by white guys in black-face?"

The Jazz Singer, for one.

"I mean, it's one thing to argue that "Song of the South" isn't racist, but it's another to try suggesting it's progressive in some bizarre way"

And how is Hustle and Flow progressive?

" in some bizarre way or to equivocate it with "Huck Finn," which was written out of an entirely different social and political context many decades earlier."

How were black people treated and depicted any less differently when Huck Finn was written than during the early part of the Cold War?

" If Disney tried to release "SoS" today, it would be remarkable how many people -- rightly or wrongly... I don't feel like getting into that -- would protest."

They just released their war films which feature unflattering caricatures of Japanese, and it barely was noticed. Hell, Birth of a Nation is far more offensive, and that got released on dvd. (Although admittedly, when my silent theater tried to screen it, the NAACP rightfully convinced them to drop it.)

comment #11

Daniel Zelter says ...

My local silent theater, I mean.

comment #12

Daniel says ...

Zelter, I'm, um, sure that it was the "--" in my sentence that confused you (lousy tricky punctuation), but my question specifically asked about films made in 1946 in which African-American characters were played by white guys in black face. You may be referring to the 1952 remake of "The Jazz Singer" (though I doubt you are), but the Al Jolson film was 1927. In addition, the scenes in which Jolson is in black face, he isn't actually playing an African American character, he's playing a character who wears black face in order to pretend to be African American. There's a kinda large difference.

Regardless, your initial statement was "Unlike most films back then, at least it had black actors playing themselves." My point was that that sentence -- even if you were being hyperbolic -- isn't even close to accurate.

This sentence: "How were black people treated and depicted any less differently when Huck Finn was written than during the early part of the Cold War?" Has absolutely no meaning and answering what I THINK you meant would take more time than I have the patience for, so I'll just say this simply: Racial depictions circa 1884, when the nation was only seven years past formal reconstruction, were very different than racial depictions in 1946. Attitudes in the country and artistic representations those 60 years apart were very different. Context is not incidental. It's central.

And again, one more time, my point was never about variable degrees of offensiveness and playing the "'Birth of a Nation' is more offensive than 'Song of the South'" game. That would spawn the "'Birth of a Nation' is a cinematic landmark whose formal importance in the medium's history is massive, while 'Song of the South' is not" game. That, though, would be the answer for why "Birth of a Nation," racial repulsiveness aside, is on DVD. That and floating copyright holdings.

Best,
Dan

comment #13

Nicol D says ...

Daniel,

"If Mel was actually a good Christian, he'd give away that money to charity. Instead, he's just hoping the Passion crowd will make him rich again with Apocalypto. He wasn't doing it for the art,...."

He has. Mel has given money to everything from Mexican hurricane relief vicitms to old age homes to hospitals in Los Angeles. He even donated money to an LA program where whereby poor people around the world could be flown to America to get better medical quality treatment if they need.

Feel free to hate Mel because he is a Catholic. That is your business. But please, check your facts before you devolve into tired cliche's and rhetoric.

comment #14

Travis B says ...

Nicol - Why is it any time someone says something that you do not agree with it means they're anti-catholic. Even though a person may be misinformed or coming from a different perspective from you, there's no need to start the bigotry train.

Regardless, while the Passion was one of the more controversial movie in recent memory, but I feel it's only a backlash to the way the religious right has attacked films like Last Temptation or even Dogma. I do recall Kevin Smith discussing a letter that was very anti-Jewish in its content while making his film, going as far as to reference murder. I don't really recall any death threats sent to Mel over the Passion.

Of course controversy doesn't necessarily make the movie and I'm still trying to understand why the Passion is considered such a great film. There is no characterization and it assumes the audience already knows the story up to the beginning scene at the Garden. If I'm going to watch a man be horribly tortured for 2 hours, I hope to have a little feeling for him. Otherwise it comes across as masochistic and pointless. Not exactly the way Jesus would probably want to be seen on the big screen.

comment #15

Joe Leydon says ...

Actually, I would argue that "Straw Dogs" most certainly DOES retain its power to shock. And at the risk of sounding like a name-dropper -- I'm not the only one who feels this way. A few years back, I interviewed Mel Gibson while he was on a promotional tour for "Braveheart." For some reason, "Straw Dogs" popped into the conversation, and Gibson's press rep said that he'd never heard of the film. Gibson said (and, mind you, I'm quoting from memory): "Oh, man! That's a rough one! I mean a REALLY rough one! It's a great movie, but DAMN!"

comment #16

Larry says ...

You want to see something REALLY skewed, check out VH1's recent 100 FUNNIEST MOVIES, the oldest of which was from the 1960s.

comment #17

tk says ...

... and, to add one more omission to the list: Where's "Cruising"? At least based on what I saw in "The Celluloid Closet", that one seemed to attract quite a bit of picketing back in its day.

comment #18

Chris W. says ...

The NAACP "rightfully" convinced the Silent Movie Theatre not to show "Birth of a Nation"? Really? This movie can never be shown in public again, even with a panel of experts talking beforehand about its wrongs, as was planned at your local silent movie theater? Glad that was rightful--I thought it was censorship through threats.

comment #19

Daniel Zelter says ...

Daniel: "Zelter, I'm, um, sure that it was the "--" in my sentence that confused you (lousy tricky punctuation), but my question specifically asked about films made in 1946 in which African-American characters were played by white guys in black face."

Well I'm not familiar with a lot of films, but there was Amos and Andy. There is, however, a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entertainers_known_to_have_performed_in_blackface .

"In addition, the scenes in which Jolson is in black face, he isn't actually playing an African American character, he's playing a character who wears black face in order to pretend to be African American. There's a kinda large difference."

How so?

"Regardless, your initial statement was "Unlike most films back then, at least it had black actors playing themselves." My point was that that sentence -- even if you were being hyperbolic -- isn't even close to accurate."

How so?

" Has absolutely no meaning and answering what I THINK you meant would take more time than I have the patience for, so I'll just say this simply: Racial depictions circa 1884, when the nation was only seven years past formal reconstruction, were very different than racial depictions in 1946."

How so?

" That would spawn the "'Birth of a Nation' is a cinematic landmark whose formal importance in the medium's history is massive, while 'Song of the South' is not" game."

Song of the South paved the way for cartoon/live-action hybrids and legitimized black culture for white baby boomers who would later co-opt rock and roll. Birth of a Nation is the cinematic equivalent of Mein Kampf.

Nicol: "He has. Mel has given money to everything from Mexican hurricane relief vicitms to old age homes to hospitals in Los Angeles. He even donated money to an LA program where whereby poor people around the world could be flown to America to get better medical quality treatment if they need."

Fair enough. But he's still an ass for not letting a poor guy pray with him.

Chris W: "The NAACP "rightfully" convinced the Silent Movie Theatre not to show "Birth of a Nation"? Really? This movie can never be shown in public again, even with a panel of experts talking beforehand about its wrongs, as was planned at your local silent movie theater? "

The problem is they were still making money off of it. Not to mention the silent theater was located near a school frequented by black students. Now
obviously, today's high school kids probably couldn't give a damn about black and white films anyway, but it's not really a good way to unite a community still-as Crash pointed out-divided over a decade(four decades, really) by riots.

" Glad that was rightful--I thought it was censorship through threats."

Yeah, and so was the murder of Emmett Till.

comment #20

Steven R. Silver says ...

Movies like Song of the South, Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will were not controversial when they were made... they were merely extensions of prevailing social attitudes of the day and locale.

Five years after Song of the South, the Amos and Andy TV show was one of the more popular comedies of the early television era.

A proper definition of controversial is one that sparks huge protest at the time it is made. The Passion of the Christ and Brokeback Mountain are controversial. Gone with the Wind was controversial for its use of profanity onscreen, not for its depiction of race relations in either the 1860's or the 1930's. Song of the South only became controversial twenty years after it was made.

comment #21

Anonymous says ...

Travis,

"Why is it any time someone says something that you do not agree with it means they're anti-catholic... "

No Travis, I actually do not start the 'bigotry train' when people say something I do not agree with. I actually am loathe to use it. If someone thinks the Passion is a bad movie or Mel is a no talent...that's their business.

But, because I am in the entertainment field, I can tell you that the standard and language used for critiquing someone who is Catholic is a hell of a lot lower than someone who is of any other demo. So yes...I call people on it when I hear it. Especially in a industry which walks on PC egg shells for virtually every other demo. Understand it's not the language that bothers me...it's the hypocrisy of the industry.

As for Straw Dogs, I definitley think it does retain its power and is a great film. What disturbs many people is the rape sequence in which you are not quite sure if Susan George is bothered or not.

I also recently saw Pretty Baby for the first time and can see why it was so controversial. It's portrayal of 12 year old prostitute is such that the film seems to not really see anything wrong with the endeavor. Now I am sure there may have been attitudes such as that at the time, but when Brooke gets auctioned off and no one seems to care...it felt creepy.

Another film that has been overlooked I think is The Exorcist. It's use of a small girl with the graphic language and levels of violence used were unheard of for its time. It is also a film that retains its power to this day.

comment #22

Daniel says ...

Zelter, being stubborn in your own stupidity isn't a virtue.

If you want to know why the sentence "Unlike most films back then, at least it had black actors playing themselves." isn't true, I really need only reply "In 1946, most films featuring black characters had those parts played by African-Americans and not by white guys in black-face." My sentence is factually accurate. Yours is not. There's no "How so?" because you can't find me a majority of movies made in 1946 that fit your criteria even with the help of wikipedia.

Your criteria was also "black actors playing themselves." That's why Al Jolson in "The Jazz Singer" doesn't count. The character in that movie is a white man who disguises himself in black face to play the kind of music he wants. It's a part that, in that particularly movie, could not have been played by an African-American actor (without the use of white-face for the majority of the movie) and therefore the use of blackface is different than in a movie in which a white actor would play a character written in the script as black. Don't make me explain layers of text to you.

And don't make me explain how American in 1884 was different from American in 1946. Do you think those two full generations that passed had no change on the culture and it's artistic output? Were Mark Twain and John Steinbeck writing out of the exact same context. I'll answer that for you: No.

Oh and Steven Silver, yes, "Amos & Andy" was, indeed, transferred over from the radio to television in the medium's earliest days. Most of the popular radio shows were. The statement that it "was one of the more popular comedies of the early television era" just isn't accurate. It aired for two seasons before CBS pulled it amidst heavy protests from the NAACP (showing that, by your criteria, it was even controversial in its own time). TV has changed a lot since them, but one way it hasn't changed is this: If CBS hadn't thought it would make more money with a different program, the network wouldn't have caved to advocacy pressure. It was not so wildly popular that it could withstand mere protests. And part of the reason for that, Zeltner, is because it was made at a point when white actors in black-face were not playing the majority of roles for African-American characters.

Sigh.

You've got a great board here, Jeff.

Dan

comment #23

Anonymous says ...

Daniel: "In 1946, most films featuring black characters had those parts played by African-Americans and not by white guys in black-face." My sentence is factually accurate. Yours is not. There's no "How so?" because you can't find me a majority of movies made in 1946 that fit your criteria even with the help of wikipedia."

If you check the link I gave you, it mentions films throughout the 40's and even up to the 50's in which actors were in black face.

"Your criteria was also "black actors playing themselves." That's why Al Jolson in "The Jazz Singer" doesn't count. The character in that movie is a white man who disguises himself in black face to play the kind of music he wants. It's a part that, in that particularly movie, could not have been played by an African-American actor (without the use of white-face for the majority of the movie) and therefore the use of blackface is different than in a movie in which a white actor would play a character written in the script as black. Don't make me explain layers of text to you."

I don't see how being black has to do with playing a certain kind of music. Glen Miller didn't have to resort to blackface to play swing, and Elvis didn't have to "act black" to play rock n roll.

"And don't make me explain how American in 1884 was different from American in 1946. Do you think those two full generations that passed had no change on the culture and it's artistic output? Were Mark Twain and John Steinbeck writing out of the exact same context. I'll answer that for you: No."

Being depicted as a rapist or servant isn't progressively better than being depicted as a slave.

"Oh and Steven Silver, yes, "Amos & Andy" was, indeed, transferred over from the radio to television in the medium's earliest days. Most of the popular radio shows were. The statement that it "was one of the more popular comedies of the early television era" just isn't accurate. It aired for two seasons before CBS pulled it amidst heavy protests from the NAACP (showing that, by your criteria, it was even controversial in its own time). TV has changed a lot since them, but one way it hasn't changed is this: If CBS hadn't thought it would make more money with a different program, the network wouldn't have caved to advocacy pressure. It was not so wildly popular that it could withstand mere protests. And part of the reason for that, Zeltner, is because it was made at a point when white actors in black-face were not playing the majority of roles for African-American characters."

They still had minorities played by whites at the time. Look at Breakfast at Tiffany's, for example.

comment #24

Daniel Zelter says ...

That last post was mine BTW, not that mystery poster guy/gal.

comment #25

Daniel says ...

The fact that I wrote a full response, started to post it and then my computer crashed is obviously a sign for me to depart this thread.

comment #26

Cathar says ...

Having watched "Song Of The South" 4 times over the last 6 months (a pristine copy on DVD was a birthday present), I'd like to note that its setting has nothing to do with slaves (it seems to be set in the 1880's, around the time Harris began publishing his Uncle Remus Tales) and also that it has very little or nothing to do with racism. It portrays free blacks who live in a farming community (the adults of a certain age obviously had been slaves), some of whom work in the kitchen of the manor house where the little boy is staying with his mother while his father, some sort of newspaper editor, deals with unspecified "problems" back in the city as a result of his editorials. That point alone, for those who know their American history, establishes the film as clearly set in the post-Reconstruction South.

In fact, Uncle Remus, somewhat quixotically, journeys to "the city," usually presumed to be Atlanta, to alert the father to the illness of his son . This obviously would not have been possible during the days of slavery. Uncle Remus is also always portrayed as a figure of dignity, who is respected by blacks and whites alike for his storytelling.

It is a lovely movie, and one hopes Disney will release it in November, which is the movie's 60th anniversary, I believe. My only big complaint with it is that the animated characters (and it is GREAT, lively animation, truly colorful compared to today's Pixar movies - Brer Rabbit, for example, wears pink and purple shirts) get so little screen time, something like only 20-some minutes.

It was also refreshing to learn that a movie I'd seen back in the 50's as a childhood treat remained one so many years later. And to see for myself that those long-whispered rumors of the film's "racism" were utterly unfounded.

"Straw Dogs" remains brilliant and disturbing. A bit cliched in its depiction of the local lager louts, at least 25 years before that term gained currency (the novel used as source material gave more of a sense of what was really going on emotionally in the village community that so bound the locals together as a social force), but beautifully done. And worth far more coverage than most of Peckinpah's other movies, especially the wildly overrated, cocaine-sloppy "Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid" (featuring a 40ish "kid" who looked more used to Happy Meals than range riding on a harsh frontier).

comment #27

Bob says ...

"and Cannibal Holocaust, which sounds so strange as needs to be seen."

You can get this film on DVD in the states pretty easily as of last year. Seek it out if you're curious, but be warned: The reasons for it's controversy are unique among other films on this list.

"CH" is Italian, from the early-80s, and is basically the film that "Blair Witch" ripped off. It involves the discovery of footage shot by documentary filmmakers who'd gone missing deep in the South American jungle, which reveals that they were attacked and slaughtered by a cannibal tribe.

Here's the controversy: The footage ALSO reveals the reasons WHY they were killed. Namely, that the filmmakers brutalized and tormented the natives AND their local animals. Problem: The makers of "CH," in lieu of simulating the animal-violence, ACTUALLY mutilated and abused live animals and edited the results into the film. Even if you're not much of an animal-lover, it's hard to watch: A live sea turtle gets bashed to peices, lizards and snakes and stabbed, a pig is shotgun-blasted and a live (baby) monkey gets it's skull cracked and brains scooped out.

It was common practice in Italian jungle movies to film "natives" traditional butchering of animals for effect (like in Apocalypse Now) but this was done by the European cast and crew and has resulted in the film being banned in most of the world at one time or another.

comment #28

Daniel Zelter says ...

It's the turtle scene which almost made me wrecth.

comment #29

Anonymous says ...

wretch*