MovieChat Forums > Journey to the Center of the Earth Discussion > Impossible to watch now due to the sexis...

Impossible to watch now due to the sexism

posted 5 years ago by FootOfDavros (8401)
30 replies | jump to latest

Gosh, I've got to say I was shocked! Having tired of the copy / paste output of modern Hollywood family films (maybe trying making something without Dwayne Johnson eh?) I thought I'd introduce this (remembering it as a timeless classic) to the kids in order to refresh their jaded palates...

Anyway, it started off ok (a nice convoluted opening, going into far more detail before the Journey begins than you'd possibly get nowadays) but then it got to the scene with Madame Göteborg giving her conditioned blessing to the caper and it happened:-

"you can't come. You're a WOMAN!!"

and it didn't stop there:-
"We're not contemplating a stroll down Piccadilly... to burden myself with a women is sheer STUPIDITY!"

You could hear a pin drop in our house before the crying began... "I don't understand papa" said young Poppy, "why couldn't that lady go with them? Why is that man insulting all women as incompetent? Papa are you making us watch a sexist movie? Why is the Professor so misogynistic? Isn't he... a... Hero?". And then the tears began with Poppy consoling her little brother Otis - shocked to silence by the casual anti-female language being employed. I turned it off there and then.

I implore any right thinking parents to seriously consider ever showing this filth to their precious offspring. There's no place for these films anymore, even as a cultural curiosity. They should really simply be erased from history.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

You have to stop thinking by today's standards. When the book was written it was about the Victorian Era. There was nothing "equal" about it and the film is a snapshot of what life was like back in that age...warts and all. Women were not considered equal or persons. Diane Baker who was in the film certainly doesn't see it your way. She's quite proud of the film, given where it is in the vein of special effects. Even in the Victorian Age, Queen Victoria was very much led by the views of her husband, Prince Albert Victor. Which is why she retreated from Buckingham Palace when he died. So please try to remember that when thinking of this film.

[–] FootOfDavros (8401) 5 years ago

I understand that. But, whilst we can appreciate such a time period existed and what that society was like, should it still be acceptable for such themes to be available in what is presented as "entertainment" today?

e.g. In this film if you replaced the word "woman" with "black" would this film still be available for distribution? And if accepting no, it wouldn't, why is it ok for a film featuring such historical sexism to continue on with present day's cultural acceptance whilst one featuring racism would not?

I don't have the answer by the way, I just find it an interesting question.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

Again, I think you're still not understanding when this film was made. Doesn't matter if it substituted "woman" with "black", it would still be a film from its time both in the 1950s when it was made, and the 1800s when it was set. You cannot use today's sentiments for the film. There's no question or answer. And yes, the film would still be in distribution. Doesn't matter about "cultural acceptance" it's a film from a novel by a man who who was born in 1828, far before we adopted this false sense of "political correctness".

Here's the question for you: Should we sanitize "Roots" for today's sentiments because of it's blatant depiction of slavery? If so, where do we stop?

[–] PaladinNJ (21593) 5 years ago

Well said

[–] FootOfDavros (8401) 5 years ago

I understand both when the film was made and the time period it was set. I also understand that it's language / standards were applicable to it's time.

I think the crucial difference is that it isn't about using / expecting today's sentiments "for the film", it's about whether these sentiments are acceptable to be shown as "entertainment" in today's society. Yes, we can view these artifacts in a safe academic environment perhaps, but watch women being put down as "entertainment"? I think not.

I think your Roots example is a particularly poor one as that is a piece specifically about racism, not just featuring acceptable racism as a side effect of it's time as per the discussion here. As I said before I think if you replaced "women" with "black" this film would no longer be available in wide circulation. In a similar manner to how many 60s/70s shows are no longer shown for similar reasons.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

Once more before I completely cut you off because of your blatant stupidity. The point of the film was as a depiction of what Victorian times were. Full stop! The film was even done before the women's movement of the early 1970s. In the time it was made women were being forced back into the kitchen after the men came home from WWII. They were being taken out of the factories and put back in their poodle skirts to have an orgasm over their new Fridgedaire. The film was of it's time having been made in the late 50s, and of its time from the 1800s. Remember too women had only just gotten the vote no more than fifty years prior to the filming of the movie, and also 50 years from Suffrage. Things were still not that settled as far as women were concerned.

AS for my Roots example, it is valid. You're saying this film is wrong for depicting women as less than human, while Roots treated the same issue of blacks being less than human.

If you replace the word "zeitgeist" with "zeitgeist" it's still a zeitgeist.

[–] FootOfDavros (8401) 5 years ago

Sorry but I've TWICE tried to explain the difference between what you keep saying and what I am meaning, then you turn around and accuse ME of stupidity 😂 I clearly literally cannot discuss this any further with you... Thanks anyway 👍

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 5 years ago

PaladinNJ got what I was saying. What's wrong with you that you can't understand the simple thing of me TWICE explaining it, yet TWICE you've failed to get it.....when someone else got it. So that's two against you.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FootOfDavros (8401) 5 years ago

I wouldn't say it's my "thing". Rather this is now the second entry in an unintended exploration of historical cinema not being fit for today's standards / viewers.

[–] Lampedusean (498) 5 years ago

Burn those books baby! Show them how much you despise any information about the past.

[–] PaladinNJ (21593) 5 years ago

It's not a curiosity. It's a classic and NO it should never be erased from history just because it doesn't live up to the standards of the modern PC correctness nightmare.

[–] BurningSun (717) 5 years ago

....

....aaand we’ll be right back with MovieChat Comedy Night after these messages!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Erased from history?

That'd be a tragedy. It's amusing watching these old movies, seeing how attitudes and culture changes over time.

[–] Lampedusean (498) 5 years ago

Why would you watch this with your children?

[–] liscarkat (18919) 5 years ago

I realize you're joking. However, the the dialogue you cite is a realistic depiction of what probably would have been said in that period if a woman had suggested accompanying a dangerous expedition. Children will find it interesting that it was that way then, but it is no longer that way now. It will be educational, and will make them feel happy to live in a time when women can participate in adventures if they want to.

[–] gkleps (6) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gkleps (6) 5 years ago

Personally, I thought the rampant sexist diatribes made for a unpleasant and unsympathetic protagonist which made the film hard for me to enjoy. Been on a 50’s sci fi kick and just caught this for the first time on Disney .