NPR piece from Patterson

Talk about the songs, the shows, and anything else DBT related here.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20097
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Rickey needs Rickey's houses to be clean

User avatar
Jack Flash
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Jack Flash »

I don’t envy you Facebook folks; I can only imagine the shitstorm this is causing over there.

Personally I find it hard to imagine the name has caused much harm or offense to anyone - other than possibly the band themselves, by turning off potential fans who might assume they’re a novelty act. But I certainly wouldn’t give a flying fuck if they decided to simply go by DBT from now on. Patterson might be overthinking things a bit, but if he truly has even a sliver of a concern that his band name has hindered progress in any way then I certainly understand where he’s coming from.

User avatar
Flea
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:33 am
Location: Underneath the veneer

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Flea »

I don't much give a shit how they self designate - but after The Unraveling precedented the events of 2020, the next album damn well better be named Cookies & Nookie For Everyone!
Now it's dark.

User avatar
roland
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by roland »

Yawn. Wouldn’t be published by anyone but NPR. We all know the story. Who gives a fuck if it has to be explained to butthurt millennials who are ashamed of being white?

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

roland wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:32 pm
Yawn. Wouldn’t be published by anyone but NPR. We all know the story. Who gives a fuck if it has to be explained to butthurt millennials who are ashamed of being white?
He starts out by not stomping on Lady Antebellum, which I thought was generous of him. He compares their stupidity with his mild foolishness. He talks about his increasingly voracious musical taste. He makes a (possibly bogus) connection between hip-hop and the narcocorrido. He talks about the duality of the DBT thing without using the word "duality". He talks about the band's recent history. He's harsh but fair about Gone With The Wind (though it is a beautiful piece of nausea-inducing crap). He snarks at Oasis. He talks about his dad's career. He tells the story of the kid from Ruth Street who got killed. He talks about why it's important for himself and DBT to be seen doing the things they do. He's harsh but fair about the name--kinda dumb in some ways, possibly an unwise borrowing of a cultural detail, but not a big deal in the scheme of things. And he suggests we call them Lady DBT.

What else do you want? He found a great story peg to hang a "Word from the Hood" out on a national flagpole when the band needs to stay in the public eye and talked about things that matter to him at the same time. I'm a little envious. I'd've given my eye teeth to be able to do that when it counted.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

Zip Up to Michigan
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:59 pm

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Zip Up to Michigan »

What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.

305 Engine
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:53 am

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by 305 Engine »

Probably just as well he didn't stick with "Horse Pussy" as a bandname.

305 Engine
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:53 am

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by 305 Engine »

Anyway, I thought that was a great piece.

I read it as artistic conflict, not political. Its a very different band to the band of 25 years ago.

And, he says he isn't changing the name anyway.

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Zip Up to Michigan wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am
What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.
You got me curious. Where did he lose you? Do you remember where you stopped reading?

(That used to be simple in the physical book days. You'd just look for where the binding was stressed when you threw the open book face-first at the wall.)
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

305 Engine wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:43 am
Probably just as well he didn't stick with "Horse Pussy" as a bandname.
Probably true!

But we might've gotten "Goat Fucker" instead of "Wife Beater". Might've been an improvement, all things considered, or at least forward-looking.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
blessedcurse
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:30 am
Location: Between valley and peak, Nova Scotia

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by blessedcurse »

Zip Up to Michigan wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:45 am
What a massive eye roll. Couldn't get through that entire piece.
The only thing that hits me weird about this piece is some underlying sense that Patterson is apologizing for the name of the band. But that is not really the crux, it is a catalyst to a conversation that, it seems to me, is always going to be just a little awkward for us middle aged white males. Like "What is Means", questions are asked, the absence of easy answers acknowledged and a call to keep working at figuring it out, internally and outwardly is cast.

As fans, we have all had that moment when we talk about the band and those unfamiliar looking at us perplexed. In my experience, that often leads to a conversation of the duality....book & cover type thing, you know. Gawd bless Patterson for keeping the conversation going!
Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them. - Thoreau

User avatar
schlanky
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: Take a left on the interstate.

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by schlanky »

305 Engine wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:45 am
I read it as artistic conflict, not political.
That's how I read it too. He's brought up the name thing numerous times in the past, so this isn't some new revelation---just a good time to talk about it.
Tired of living in Buttholeville

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

blessedcurse wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:01 am
The only thing that hits me weird about this piece is some underlying sense that Patterson is apologizing for the name of the band. But that is not really the crux, it is a catalyst to a conversation
If it were a sermon, "Drive-By Truckers" would be the text.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
jimmyjack
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by jimmyjack »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:46 am

You got me curious. Where did he lose you? Do you remember where you stopped reading?
You weren't asking me, but fwiw, he lost me here:

"HBO Max recently announced that it won't be showing Gone With the Wind (at least for now). Good riddance!"

I've never seen Gone With The Wind but this is a slippery slope and I believe that no artist should ever be in favor of censorship of any kind. Not a popular view these days, I realize, but, err, it's how I feel. I also understand that it's slated to return, albeit with some sort of disclaimer or whatever. It still reeks of the sort of moral hysteria that should be familiar to those of us who are old enough to remember chuckling at the ludicrous PMRC hearings during the "satanic panic" of the 80s.

First they banned Gone With The Wind...

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20097
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

jimmyjack wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:46 am

You got me curious. Where did he lose you? Do you remember where you stopped reading?
You weren't asking me, but fwiw, he lost me here:

"HBO Max recently announced that it won't be showing Gone With the Wind (at least for now). Good riddance!"

I've never seen Gone With The Wind but this is a slippery slope and I believe that no artist should ever be in favor of censorship of any kind. Not a popular view these days, I realize, but, err, it's how I feel. I also understand that it's slated to return, albeit with some sort of disclaimer or whatever. It still reeks of the sort of moral hysteria that should be familiar to those of us who are old enough to remember chuckling at the ludicrous PMRC hearings during the "satanic panic" of the 80s.

First they banned Gone With The Wind...
I absolutely believe that movies, cartoons, etc. that highlight views that have proven to be racist should have disclaimers but they also should not be banned in any circumstances. My issue with HBO (and it’s AT&T masters) on this is why announce it like you’re this super woke conglomerate? Put together the disclaimer and quietly add it. Disney, who are no good actors themselves, didn’t send out a press release when they put one before Dumbo. The media jumped on the story and Disney explained its actions after it was done.

As far as Patterson’s piece I think all of us, as White Americans, are taking stock of our actions right now and those who aren’t should be. The only people that can affect the change to finally rid ourselves of systemic racism are white people. Our brothers and sisters of color have done what they can. Souls searching shouldn’t be met with derision, it should be net with admiration
Rickey needs Rickey's houses to be clean

beantownbubba
Posts: 19165
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

jimmyjack wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:06 pm
John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:46 am

You got me curious. Where did he lose you? Do you remember where you stopped reading?
You weren't asking me, but fwiw, he lost me here:

"HBO Max recently announced that it won't be showing Gone With the Wind (at least for now). Good riddance!"

I've never seen Gone With The Wind but this is a slippery slope and I believe that no artist should ever be in favor of censorship of any kind. Not a popular view these days, I realize, but, err, it's how I feel. I also understand that it's slated to return, albeit with some sort of disclaimer or whatever. It still reeks of the sort of moral hysteria that should be familiar to those of us who are old enough to remember chuckling at the ludicrous PMRC hearings during the "satanic panic" of the 80s.

First they banned Gone With The Wind...
I have mixed but very surface-y feelings about the piece as a whole (i.e. it didn't generate much heat for me in any direction) but yeah, this part leaped out at me. I agree, not a good place for anyone, especially an artist, to be and a minor but still unfortunate contribution to the potentially dangerous hysteria to which you refer.

I've always thought the name was mildly unfortunate in that it probably keeps a few people from checking out the band while not making anyone more inclined to checking them out. But I don't think it signifies the way Patterson fears it does, which makes parts of the piece almost inherently an over reaction. OTOH he uses concerns about the name as a jumping off place to talk about some stuff that's worth talking about and I don't see the problem w/ that. All in all, in musical terms, not a major part of the oeuvre but worth a listen for the flavor/context it provides.
Shut up and vote.

User avatar
lajakesdad
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:51 pm
Location: el garaje

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by lajakesdad »

I don't understand why anything needed to be said. Maybe Patterson just wanted to get ahead of any controversy that may come up regarding the name. Truth be told I never liked the it too much. It initially kept me from checking them out and it wasn't until a friend showed me Decoration Day that I came onboard. But 17 years later I have no issues with the name. To me Drive-By isn't really a racist term. Living in So Cal I have seen drive by shootings up close. The one that was actually shooting at me and my friends was a carload of white skinheads. Yes it is a little corny but I would hate for them to change it this far into their existence.

This morning there is an article on Yahoo's main page about this. Try reading those comments. At least they are getting a lot of exposure and hopefully will turn some people onto their music.

305 Engine
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:53 am

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by 305 Engine »

lajakesdad wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:14 pm
I don't understand why anything needed to be said. Maybe Patterson just wanted to get ahead of any controversy that may come up regarding the name. Truth be told I never liked the it too much. It initially kept me from checking them out and it wasn't until a friend showed me Decoration Day that I came onboard. But 17 years later I have no issues with the name. To me Drive-By isn't really a racist term. Living in So Cal I have seen drive by shootings up close. The one that was actually shooting at me and my friends was a carload of white skinheads. Yes it is a little corny but I would hate for them to change it this far into their existence.

This morning there is an article on Yahoo's main page about this. Try reading those comments. At least they are getting a lot of exposure and hopefully will turn some people onto their music.
I interpret it as not something that needed to be said, but something PH wanted to say. And he's finally had time to put his thoughts down.

It may be true that the name is a barrier, in a way. This is a band transitioning into elder statesmen of rocjk and roll, making increasingly introspective records. The name which suited a bunch of guys trying to get people into a bar gig in 1996 doesnt quite fit their sound now. I'm in the habit of calling them The DBTs.

As I say, I think it's about an artist feeling conflicted about the persona he created for his band and how that relates to his current work. I don't think it's specifically political.

Most of all I see it as PH being honest, and I love that in any artist.

beantownbubba
Posts: 19165
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

305 Engine wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 3:41 pm
Most of all I see it as PH being honest, and I love that in any artist.
Like.
Shut up and vote.

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20097
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Reply from Patterson:

Y’all,
To clarify, I am never in any way in favor of censorship of anything.
I'm not a book burner.

As I said, there’s no shortage of GWTW out there.
However, I can tell you that growing up where I did, that was how our history was taught and perceived.
That whole notion of Antebellum ladies sipping their mint juleps while the “servants” are out singing Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah in the fields as some kind of fucking glory days…
Makes me want to puke.
That movie was huge and totally became the narrative for 90 years.
Don’t ban it, don’t burn it (same w Fucking Song of the South, which at least Disney had the good sense to back away from)
But don’t make a big deal of showing it on your newly launched premium channel during a racially heated moment in time either.

For HBOMax to use it as it’s launch at this moment in time is beyond tone-deaf.

And it’s a shitty fucking movie.
(It’s technically beautifully shot and costumed, generally over-acted, although I love thinking of how stinking Gable’s breath was supposed to be every time he kissed Scarlet).
It totally helped propagate the whole “War of Northern Aggression” notion that was literally taught in our schools.

On a side note, DW Griffith’s Birth of a Nation was a technical marvel for its time and is rightly studied by film scholars for it’s innovations.
BUT, it’s also basically propaganda film for the KKK and I believe people would be rightly outraged it it were shown (without proper context) as prime time entertainment right now.
The same can be easily said about Leni Riefenstahl’s films. She was literally a genius filmmaker but her films were a major tool for the Nazi Party’s rise.
I’m not for banning them either, but I don’t think they should be celebrated and streamed to the masses either.

I’m enjoying the conversation and love hearing everyone’s input.
Not being defensive, just trying to make my point as clearly as possible.

I’ve long had an uncomfortable relationship with the name of the band.
I don’t personally think it is inherently racist, but it is pretty inappropriate for the band we grew into being.
I've always preferred DBT and The DBT’s (personally) but not really planning on changing it at this time.
We had discussions about changing it as far back as the making of SRO (Betamax Guillotine).

On a side note, Decoration Day describes a drive-by shooting (Harlen Hill and The Lawson’s) and that was a tactic of the Dixie Mafia, including the murder of Sherriff Pusser’s wife as well as the dad of a college friend of mine.
None of which was in any way race related.
My naming of the band wasn’t intended to glorify any of that either, but was poking fun at people’s perception of a music I love dearly.

Thanks for your time and support.
See you at some future Rock and Roll Show.
Patterson
Rickey needs Rickey's houses to be clean

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Patterson Hood wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
However, I can tell you that growing up where I did, that was how our history was taught and perceived.
I believe some of us are acquainted with the phrase "From the comfort zone of history", are we not? That song describes the ground level cultural activities that propaganda amplifies.
Patterson Hood wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
And it’s a shitty fucking movie.
Preach, brother. But it could be saved with the right ending: Prissy spoils Scarlett's aim and leaves with the Union soldier while Scarlett bleeds out.
Patterson Hood wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
(It’s technically beautifully shot and costumed
It truly is, but it's still no Triumph of the Will. But not for lack of trying.
Last edited by John A Arkansawyer on Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20097
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
However, I can tell you that growing up where I did, that was how our history was taught and perceived.
I believe some of us are acquainted with the phrase "From the comfort zone of history", are we not? That song describes the ground level cultural activities that propaganda amplifies.
Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
And it’s a shitty fucking movie.
Preach, brother. But it could be saved with the right ending: Prissy spoils Scarlett's aim and leaves with the Union soldier while Scarlett bleeds out.
Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
(It’s technically beautifully shot and costumed
It truly is, but it's still no Triumph of the Will. But not for lack of trying.
Just to clarify here. You’re quoting Patterson here, not me although I am in agreement with him on this.
Rickey needs Rickey's houses to be clean

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:26 pm
Just to clarify here. You’re quoting Patterson here, not me although I am in agreement with him on this.
Good point! Fixed. Credit where due.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Jack Flash
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Jack Flash »

Patterson is spot on re: Gone with the Wind. Though I understand why some might be squeamish about what he wrote in the op-ed, I wish he didn’t have to explain himself.

I studied Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation in school, where they could be placed in the proper context: as masterful pieces of filmmaking that used the language of cinema for propaganda purposes. Gone with the Wind may or may not have been created with such nefarious intentions, but as Patterson explains, it played a large role in propagating harmful myths about the antebellum South and the Civil War that still persist. Anybody watching any of these films for the first time without that context could easily come to the conclusion that they’re telling the straight truth, which I’d say is a bad thing.

Not wanting that to happen is not censorship. Neither is HBO taking it off their platform. There are plenty of other ways to watch it and always will be. There’s a lot of hysteria out there about cancel culture and what not, but not wanting high-profile companies to uncritically promote things that foster hateful ideologies is a sound stance. Absolutely no one is saying that the movie should be erased forever or anything close to that. You can slippery slope me all you want, but if HBO thinks this is a good business practice for whatever reason, then that’s just the free market at work, baby.

And frankly if you think something is shitty and spreads harmful messages, why would you shed a tear for it becoming ever so slightly less available? If one of, like, Toby Keith’s albums went out of print, my response would be that I don’t give a shit because it sucks and contains a lot of regressive bullshit. That doesn’t mean I want all record of Toby Keith’s music to be atomized for all eternity.

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13220
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: on the dirty boulevard
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Jack Flash wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 3:14 pm
That doesn’t mean I want all record of Toby Keith’s music to be atomized for all eternity.
you had me until then :lol:
Does anyone need yet another politician, caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole?

beantownbubba
Posts: 19165
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by beantownbubba »

Thanks for your post, Patterson. I very much appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to clarify some things that I for one misunderstood or understood less than perfectly. I particularly appreciate your comments re censorship. Having said that, now for the heavy lifting:

Jack Flash, you set up several straw men there which makes it tough to respond but I'll try to cover the key points along the way.

First and foremost, I agree that GWTW has aged horrendously. But in no way was it a crappy movie when made. It won 8 oscars and was nominated for 13. It won most of the major categories including picture, director, actress, supporting actress, adapted screenplay and cinematography, and was nominated for one of the acting awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American woman to win an oscar for her work as supporting actress which adds some historical spice to the mix. It is revisionist history in the extreme to say that GWTW was crappy when made. Doesn't mean everyone then liked it or that everyone now has to "appreciate it" but facts is facts.

Deciding to show GWTW now absolutely was totally tone deaf. I have no problem agreeing with that but because it's such an obvious mistake that can be categorized outside of First Amendment/censorship issues, I don't think agreeing about it's tone deafness provides any guidance about the next incident.

If you follow First Amendment developments at all, then you know that how to treat fictional art that becomes "cultural fact" is an enormously difficult issue. It is perfectly appropriate and right to battle the perception that GWTW is factually or even thematically accurate. How one does that does indeed involve concerns about that slippery slope. As long as what HBO Max did is in fact temporary, then I don't get too excited about it. OTOH, holding it up to provide appropriate "context" sounds nice but raises what for me is the very serious question of whether I want broadcasters/media to be responsible for providing historical context for difficult to interpret works. Doing so voluntarily is a lot better than if they had to by rule or law, but it's still perched on that slope.

As everyone whoever watched TV knows, lawyers are obligated to represent clients needing representation. One of the great constantly repeating debates of law students everywhere in the States is would you represent Hitler? The usual answer is "no, there is undoubtedly someone else who will so I don't have to worry about it." I see "the movie is available elsewhere" as the same kind of easy answer. It sidesteps but does not answer the question(s) being asked. It also is not generally a true answer with respect to a new work that creates the kind of furor we/re talking about here w/ respect to an old work. A new work that, say, treated Blacks as inferior or which presented slavery as a desirable, moral social system would probably not be available anywhere if it was pulled from, say, a film festival or the cable station that initially agreed to broadcast it.
The response to the Hitler answer is usually along the lines of "ok, but say that every lawyer in the country answered just as you did so there isn't anyone else. What then?" Patterson's description of GWTW being available on VHS in grandma's attic is similar. Is that really available? How much availability counts as truly available? Should a broadcaster/media be responsible for determining the level of availability before deciding not to show a particular movie? If not, should anyone else be designated to make those kinds of decisions? And again, the considerations and concerns are even greater for a new work where actual literal availability is an issue.

Triumph of the Will was clearly intended to be propaganda (although query if that's how it would be categorized if the Nazis won the war). Other situations, particularly involving fictional films or books that hit a cultural nerve are not so easy to categorize in real time. It matters because most people have little to no problem treating propaganda as less protected speech than other forms of speech. Art often only become "propaganda" in retrospect, when the winners get to write the history. So making those kinds of categorizations as a way to get off the hook 80 years later as in the case of GWTW tells us nothing about how to treat a current artwork that aims to (or accidentally for that matter) create a legend by creating its own romantic truth. So what should our standards be? How should we protect ourselves and our culture(s)? Should we protect ourselves at all?

Just for yucks, let's make this really hard: What about all those post WWII movies that glorify war w/out revealing the blood and guts of it, the true horrors of it, the inevitable collateral damage of it? Remember, before Saving Private Ryan and to a lesser extent The Deer Hunter and other post Vietnam movies, that pretty much describes all American movies about war. Are those movies propaganda? Hell, the ones made during the war were clearly intended as propaganda, no bones about it. Should those movies be shown only in a context which describes war as it really is? Surely we would be a less warlike society if that were the case. Is that a good or a bad thing?

Toby Keith's albums going out of print would indeed be the free market working, baby. A network deciding it's not in its best business interests to show a particular movie is only partly a free market decision. It's similar to the many situations involving boycotts of products that advertise on shows objectionable to a portion of the audience. It's almost always going to be in the network's business interest to make the changes or scrap the show as demanded (except in those relatively rare cases where there's a business upside to being perceived as taking the heroic or principled stand). But presumably everyone recognizes that there's more than just the bottom line at stake for society when businesses decide these issues. And because that's true, society has a stake in how those outcomes are determined.
Shut up and vote.

User avatar
Flea
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:33 am
Location: Underneath the veneer

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Flea »

Good discussion. At the very least, I think we can all agree that Scarlett O"Hara was a complete - what word am I searching for here - See You Next Tuesday?
Now it's dark.

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7494
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Flea wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:39 pm
Good discussion. At the very least, I think we can all agree that Scarlett O"Hara was a complete - what word am I searching for here - See You Next Tuesday?
I know a lot of otherwise sensible women who take Scarlett, with some justification, as a role model for women struggling to survive in a harsh world. Leaving her behind is going to be a heavy lift for them.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Jack Flash
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by Jack Flash »

beantownbubba wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:43 pm
As everyone whoever watched TV knows, lawyers are obligated to represent clients needing representation. One of the great constantly repeating debates of law students everywhere in the States is would you represent Hitler? The usual answer is "no, there is undoubtedly someone else who will so I don't have to worry about it." I see "the movie is available elsewhere" as the same kind of easy answer. It sidesteps but does not answer the question(s) being asked. It also is not generally a true answer with respect to a new work that creates the kind of furor we/re talking about here w/ respect to an old work. A new work that, say, treated Blacks as inferior or which presented slavery as a desirable, moral social system would probably not be available anywhere if it was pulled from, say, a film festival or the cable station that initially agreed to broadcast it.
The response to the Hitler answer is usually along the lines of "ok, but say that every lawyer in the country answered just as you did so there isn't anyone else. What then?" Patterson's description of GWTW being available on VHS in grandma's attic is similar. Is that really available? How much availability counts as truly available? Should a broadcaster/media be responsible for determining the level of availability before deciding not to show a particular movie? If not, should anyone else be designated to make those kinds of decisions? And again, the considerations and concerns are even greater for a new work where actual literal availability is an issue.
Well, yeah, but the right to representation is constitutionally protected. "The right to watch Gone with the Wind on-demand," so far as I'm aware, is not. Glib answer, I know, given the implications regarding free speech, but can't we flip this around? Are media platforms obligated to show a particular movie if it's not available elsewhere? Why? If there's not enough audience for them to feature it--because it's inflammatory or harmful, or simply because nobody likes it, or any other reason--should they have to? If there's an audience for a movie, it'll be available. If there's not, then it won't. If there is a movie that nobody wants to watch, I don't consider it a threat to freedom if it's unavailable. I consider it a shitty movie.

I'm a bit thrown by your example of "a new work" getting tossed from festivals/networks. If this movie truly "treated Blacks as inferior or... presented slavery as desirable," would that be a bad thing? If it presented such a message and also possessed at least some shred of artistic merit, people would find some way to watch it. Specifically racists. I would see it as a positive thing if a movie like that were hard to find. While protecting artistic expression at nearly all costs is one of the most important things we can do, ending racism is even more important. That's my personal view on things anyway.
beantownbubba wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:43 pm
Just for yucks, let's make this really hard: What about all those post WWII movies that glorify war w/out revealing the blood and guts of it, the true horrors of it, the inevitable collateral damage of it? Remember, before Saving Private Ryan and to a lesser extent The Deer Hunter and other post Vietnam movies, that pretty much describes all American movies about war. Are those movies propaganda? Hell, the ones made during the war were clearly intended as propaganda, no bones about it. Should those movies be shown only in a context which describes war as it really is? Surely we would be a less warlike society if that were the case. Is that a good or a bad thing?
I don't know that it would be a good or a bad thing so much as just a thing. If enough people were to decide such a disclaimer provides essential historical context, then sure, why not? The point of these kinds of disclaimers is not to say "this movie is bad and if you like it you are bad"; it's to give context and then you can enjoy it or not enjoy it, problematic aspects be damned. One might then begin to ask where the line ends, but I guess that's not immediate concern of mine at the moment. "Racism is evil" is; I suppose "war is hell" might be at some point. Besides, isn't something like "No animals were harmed in the making of this film" basically a type of disclaimer that's commonplace already? May or may not be comparable, but it just occurred to me.
beantownbubba wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:43 pm
But presumably everyone recognizes that there's more than just the bottom line at stake for society when businesses decide these issues. And because that's true, society has a stake in how those outcomes are determined.
Without question. And giant corporations having the ability to, to some degree, dictate what we are and are not able to watch/listen to concerns me greatly. I have a lot of thoughts on the matter that aren't really germane to this discussion. But as long as they're using that power to combat racist ideas in some small way, I guess I'm kind of OK with it.

LBRod
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: NPR piece from Patterson

Post by LBRod »

beantownbubba wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:43 pm

What about all those post WWII movies that glorify war w/out revealing the blood and guts of it, the true horrors of it, the inevitable collateral damage of it?
I never saw John Wayne on the sands of Iwo Jima. also, we all should understand "the movie version" by now.
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

Post Reply