The MoFo Musical Countdown - Group Watch

→ in
Tools    





Interesting, but this hinges on the want of the audience to feel for the characters or connect to them or sympathize with them and watch films as a sort of dream or fantasy rather than as works of art made within a specific context in a specific time, that you must approach from the point of view of an in-the-future watcher. Clearly, this leaves a lot out like what you already mentioned:

So I think the main caveat here would be the filmmakers' consciousness (or lack thereof) that what they're depicting can seem off in the future due to social changes and greater awareness amongst the audience. As much as I hate phrases such as "the product of its time", it still seems to me this argument largely floats around the idea of fun and entertainment taken directly from the film at face value rather than a higher level of engagement that circumvents this to see the film as what it was during its release. It was a box office hit. It was seemingly loved by everyone, including by the leftists, who were too preoccupied with capital vs. labor to care about modern-day liberal sex politics.

Fair, I guess, especially as a general statement.
This is an interesting perspective and I agree that historical context can complicate problematic/outdated portrayals of different groups of people. For instance, as repugnant as the film is, that The Birth of a Nation was released in 1916 instead of 2024 adds an interesting layer of historical context onto the film. That said, I generally don't give older films passes for outdated views. While their year of origin may mitigate their grosser bits, if something sticks out as problematic and makes me feel uncomfortable, it's still going to negatively impact my viewing experience. That the behavior used to be considered okay doesn't change that as it's likely the case that times changed for the better.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Did The Meaning of Life (1983) have a scene where tall buildings moved about on their own? If so I seen it but so long ago that you could say I haven't seen it.
Yes, that's in the opening.



It’s A Classic Rope-A-Dope
Meaning Of Life: This has been sitting in my blu ray collection for a few years, so when I saw it on musical lists I figured it was past time. There were a couple of comments about this being in a mixed bag, I would say that is my usual response to Monty Python, and probably sketch comedy in general. Makes sense, since they are so collaborative and more about individual parts than the whole. This was no different. I laughed out loud a few times, and checked my watch a few.

Glad to have finally seen it. If no one else plans to watch it we can move on more quickly if you guys want. Certainly won’t hurt my feelings. I will go more traditional next time. Probably go blind again though.
__________________
Letterboxd



Glad to have finally seen it. If no one else plans to watch it we can move on more quickly if you guys want. Certainly won’t hurt my feelings. I will go more traditional next time. Probably go blind again though.
To be fair, we already got a couple new participants, so I'm cool with waiting the allotted time. Also, I don't believe Citizen Rules has gotten to it yet.



Trouble with a capital "T"
To be fair, we already got a couple new participants, so I'm cool with waiting the allotted time. Also, I don't believe Citizen Rules has gotten to it yet.
I'm going to skip The Meaning of Life, so don't wait up for me



It’s A Classic Rope-A-Dope
To be fair, we already got a couple new participants, so I'm cool with waiting the allotted time. Also, I don't believe Citizen Rules has gotten to it yet.
I’m cool, I have a musical list a mile long. Just feel bad I picked something no one is interested in. Genuinely thought maybe a break from traditional musicals would go over. Should have picked South Pacific, which I also watched today.



Trouble with a capital "T"
I’m cool, I have a musical list a mile long. Just feel bad I picked something no one is interested in. Genuinely thought maybe a break from traditional musicals would go over. Should have picked South Pacific, which I also watched today.
It's cool, no worries.



While their year of origin may mitigate their grosser bits, if something sticks out as problematic and makes me feel uncomfortable, it's still going to negatively impact my viewing experience. That the behavior used to be considered okay doesn't change that as it's likely the case that times changed for the better.
I watched the film and TBH I have no idea what sexual harassment you see there.

WARNING: "The Pajama Game" spoilers below
Do you mean the boss dating his employees? How's that sexual harassment? Or do you mean the remark he makes at the beginning of the film?

Of course, asking your employee to date you is something else nowadays in real life but I'm completely fine with that in films, especially old films, and I think it wasn't as heinous as you seem to take it anyway.

Power imbalances are a frequent occurrence in both film and real life. Education imbalance, wealth imbalance, work imbalance, intelligence imbalance, and so on. Not enjoying a piece of art because it portrays a relationship with such an imbalance is one's prerogative, of course, but I find it, for lack of a better word, fussy, considering almost any real-life relationship has an imbalance of sorts. As for dating one's employee/employer, I think it's unprofessional and can create heaps of difficult and uncomfortable situations, especially when the relationship ends, but I can't see it as sexual harassment unless it specifically starts from actual sexual harassment. If anything, it's Seven Brides for Seven Brothers that was Stockholm syndromey IMO.

__________________
Preserving the sanctity of cinema. Subtitles preferred, mainstream dismissed, and always in search of yet another film you have never heard of. I speak fluent French New Wave.



I watched the film and TBH I have no idea what sexual harassment you see there.

WARNING: "The Pajama Game" spoilers below
Do you mean the boss dating his employees? How's that sexual harassment? Or do you mean the remark he makes at the beginning of the film?

Of course, asking your employee to date you is something else nowadays in real life but I'm completely fine with that in films, especially old films, and I think it wasn't as heinous as you seem to take it anyway.

Power imbalances are a frequent occurrence in both film and real life. Education imbalance, wealth imbalance, work imbalance, intelligence imbalance, and so on. Not enjoying a piece of art because it portrays a relationship with such an imbalance is one's prerogative, of course, but I find it, for lack of a better word, fussy, considering almost any real-life relationship has an imbalance of sorts. As for dating one's employee/employer, I think it's unprofessional and can create heaps of difficult and uncomfortable situations, especially when the relationship ends, but I can't see it as sexual harassment unless it specifically starts from actual sexual harassment. If anything, it's Seven Brides for Seven Brothers that was Stockholm syndromey IMO.

Fair enough, perhaps it wasn't as problematic as I remembered.



How about giving Sean another go at it?
I could do that, but we did have a couple new participants join this round, so it might be nice to give one of them a chance to host next.



Fair enough, perhaps it wasn't as problematic as I remembered.
Not sure if sarcastic or not. To be clear, I'm not saying this character's behavior is commendable.



Not sure if sarcastic or not. To be clear, I'm not saying this character's behavior is commendable.
My post wasn't sarcastic. Sorry if it came off that way. What I meant is, upon reflection, while the character's choices are unwise, I agree they don't come off as harassment.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Nomination #5


Little Shop of Horrors (1986)


Deadline June 15th




(I will edit a poster in when not on mobile...)