Calm down, mdonin.
In point of fact I am a purist when it comes to old movies. I've been fighting idiots who love colorization or making other changes to films on these boards and elsewhere for many years. I too oppose changing films from how they were made, right down to cutting or changing a studio logo. I've even had huge fights with people over such things as my outrage at the fact that they've digitally removed the little white car seen crossing in the distance in the opening shot of Shane. Why? Because it's the way the movie was made.
This is also why I try to maintain copies of old films whose credits were later changed to reflect the reality of who wrote them. I have copies of the "uncorrected" original versions of Friendly Persuasion, Roman Holiday, The Bridge on the River Kwai and several others. I keep these precisely because of the reason you rant about -- that this is how the films were made and they should be left inviolate. (I even have a copy of Shane with that white car.)
The post you so overreacted to above was primarily a question born of surprise that after many years of showing the "corrected" print of the film, TCM suddenly reverted to the old print. It was more a technical question -- why did they suddenly start using a print unseen for 20 years? -- than an admonition to them for not running the print with the actual screenwriting credit.
All this said, I am conflicted in instances of blacklisting, which was not the norm of movie-making and is something sui generis in the history of film. On the one hand, I want to see the films preserved as they were made; on the other, this was a manufactured injustice, a falsification of history done for political reasons. Your statement,
Maybe someone will notice the lack of a name credit and look into it. They will learn what happened as a result.
is fairly ridiculous because, if someone's name isn't shown, no one could know that a blacklisted writer was behind the work or that anything is amiss. Growing up watching these movies, I never realized the names I saw were fakes or fronts. I wondered about the odd, specific original writing credit on
Friendly Persuasion, but not until much later did I learn the reason for it. In any event, normally no one pays much attention to credits. I strongly doubt anyone not aware of the film's background would notice that the screenwriting credit is different, and so have any reason to "look into it".
It's always amusing to see right-wingers carry on about this or that being "PC", which basically means anything they don't agree with. The most "PC" thing these days is complaining about others being "PC". You wrote, "I hate Political Correctness in our own time" but evidently have no problem with it from other times. The historical fact is that the blacklist was the "PC" of its day. Maybe rectifying that politically-motivated injustice through the commission of an artistic one isn't the worst offense.
In any case, this is a dilemma with no wholly satisfactory solution. Personally I'm torn between my purist notions on the one side and my desire to see an injustice remedied on the other. My only solution, imperfect as it is, is to allow the injustice to be corrected while not losing the initial unjust, but original and historically faithful, version. That's why I try to keep copies of both versions of such films. Ideally a DVD of such a film should have either the original credits, or the corrected one, as an extra on the disc.
If that's what you want why are you watching old movies?
If
what's what I want? A stupid, pointless comment.
One of the many things I love about TCM is that they show the movies as they were made.
Actually, TCM
doesn't always show films the way they were made. Usually, yes, but there have been many instances where they show films in their incorrect aspect ratios or in some other way at variance with their original appearance or content. In fact they also show your so-called "PC" versions of many films with corrected credits, so in your eyes they're committing an offense right there and you should by all rights condemn them for that. Obviously the hallowed TCM is far from perfect.
So, as far as your plea to them goes,
please keep doing what you do and the way you do it; well!
you can't have it both ways. Leaving aside how "well" they run their programming (and the truth is they make so many mistakes in the descriptions, information and even the titles of their films that on other sites we have literally hundreds of them cataloged), you can't uncritically commend them for showing films as they were made when in fact they often don't...including committing the very sin of "political correctness" in showing films with corrected credits that you're so worked up about.
reply
share
hammer4
8 years ago
In my opinion it isn't valid to equate colorizing a black and white film with adding a VALID screenwriting credit as has apparently been done with "Friendly Persuasion". This is especially the case as there was NO screenwriting credit originally. To me this would have nothing to do with "political correctness".
If it is generally acknowledged that Michael Wilson wrote the screenplay why shouldn't his name appear in the credits? It doesn't matter why it was left off in the first place. I don't see how this "changes" the film. It would be nothing like reediting a film for television or video.
By the way I'm fascinated and puzzled about your remark about "the little white car" at the beginning of "Shane" that purportedly was removed. Please amplify.
reply
share