Search the Community

All were asked to the following article in the group Movies That Move We < https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqYM90UgloorX_NbqqZRCfw >  

Is there a film you would add to this list? Is there a film that you think shouldn’t be on this list? Name them and tell us why!

ARTICLE BEGIN

Five films that could never come out in 2022
OPINION: These movies aged like cottage cheese left out in the sun.
Dustin Seibert Jan 21, 2022
Being a Gen X-er/elder millennial all but demands that we scrutinize the media from our formative years.

Unlike our Baby Boomer parents, who don’t really care as much about evolving social propriety, we tend to have an almost visceral response to the stuff we enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s that didn’t age well. Presumably, it’s happened to us all: We watch the digital version of a film we used to wear out on VHS, or we stream a jam we used to own on cassette, only to clutch our teeth and let out an “Eeeeeeee.”
Below are several of those films that elicit such a response. In some cases, it’s one scene or plotline; in one case, you can just throw the entire film away. Note that this list is far from exhaustive and doesn’t include films in which the offensiveness is intended. (see: Blazing Saddles)

Purple Rain (1984)
My favorite terrible movie of all time. I’ve seen Purple Rain more times than I can count over the last 38 years since my mama’s massive Prince fandom circumvented any concerns about her kid watching R-rated content.
But it was as an adult that I realized no one involved in the making of this film gave even a tincture of a damn about women. From The Kid’s interminable petulance (and ultimate violence) toward Apollonia (Apollonia Kotero) to tricking her into jumping topless in “Lake Minnetonka” to the marginalization of Wendy (Wendy Melvoin) and Lisa (Lisa Coleman) until it benefited The Kid, Albert Magnoli’s musical drama is steeped in Olympic-level misogyny.

The worst scene, however, is when Morris (Morris Day) is confronted with one of his “sexies,” whom Jerome (Jerome Benton) picks up and tosses in a dumpster. Twitter would be on fire if, say, Bruno Mars made a movie pulling this s— in 2022.

The Best Man (1999)
Perhaps not as egregious as the other films on this list, but The Best Man delves into the Madonna-whore complex and what constitutes a “good” man, and, I think, inadvertently hoists up outmoded ideas.
The core conflict lies in a semi-fictional book that Harper (Taye Diggs) wrote based on his quartet of homies. Professional athlete and recovering man-whore Lance (Morris Chestnut) learns just before the wedding that fiancé Mia (Monica Calhoun) smashed Harper back in college while he was cheating on her left, right and sideways and is ready to blow the whole wedding to pieces over it. Because God forbid a woman demonstrates some sexual agency before she hangs it up.

Shelby (Melissa De Sousa) is a one-note shrew of a girlfriend, and while the first film did well with Candy, the stripper with a heart of gold (Regina Hall) linking with the pusillanimous “good guy” Murch (Harold Perrineau), they throw the goodwill of that plotline out the window in the sequel, The Best Man Holiday, when Murch jeopardizes their marriage after receiving a video of Candy living her best sexual life before they met. Meanwhile, the capricious “bad guy” Quentin (Terrence Howard) is the only character living out their truth in either film.

The Best Man isn’t exactly unrealistic in its core depictions, but the original would light up social media if it were released in 2022.

Love Jones (1997)

Perhaps the most divisive film on this list (read: you might get cut amid debates), the entirety of Love Jones isn’t terribly problematic, and I appreciate the way it handles the complicated nuances of marriage via Isaiah Washington’s character.

But one sequence is a no-go: Larenz Tate’s Darius Lovehall shows up at the house of Nina Mosley (Nia Long) only because he jacked Nina’s address from a check she writes at the record store. And Darius’ girl, Sheila (Bernadette L. Clarke), who works at the record store, allows it.

The film presents it as a noble whatever-it-takes romantic gesture. But it screams “stalker,” and the 2022 version of Nina would’ve likely tased Darius in the nuts and called the cops.

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995)

Both of Jim Carrey’s star-making Ace Ventura films wouldn’t fly in the Age of Twitter—the first movie is rife with homophobia. But the sequel features a plotline involving a fictional indigenous African tribe whose customs are played for laughs in contrast to Ace’s western sensibilities. Any African stereotype you’d imagine white Westerners harbor is probably in the film.

Tommy Davidson portrays tribe member “Tiny Warrior,” speaking no actual words in lieu of animal noises meant to portray him as less human, more rabid rodent. That the film has the distinction of being America’s first exposure to the lovely Sophie Okonedo doesn’t absolve it of its sins.

Soul Man (1986)
The apotheosis of obsolete filmmaking, the most offensive thing about this film isn’t the fact that the protagonist Mark Watson (C. Thomas Howell) complains about tuition and fees at Harvard Law School totaling just over $10,000 (which will probably buy you one textbook and a sandwich in 2022).

It’s that the entire conceit of the film involves a white man exploiting affirmative-action scholarship benefits by enrolling in and attending the school in blackface. Considering we’ve had a blackface reckoning in recent years that even caught up the beloved prime minister of Canada and that we’re forced to have the same god—m conversation with white folks every Halloween, Soul Man wouldn’t have made it past a first script draft in 2022.  

Apparently, the film was even controversial when it dropped in the mid-1980s. But social media was decades away from being a thing, so it wasn’t around to prevent Soul Man from becoming a commercial success.

BONUS: Every black film that exploited LGBTQ+ people
It would probably blow the mind of your average 20-year-old to see how reckless Hollywood was with the LGBTQ+ community a couple of decades ago. Film and television were full of either latent or blatant examples of rank homophobia.

A Low Down Dirty Shame (1994) featured Wayman (Corwin Hawkins), a gay Black man who existed only to be demeaned by Keenan Ivory Wayans’ Shame. The entire talky twist of The Crying Game (1992) involves the “reveal” of the deceitful trans woman.

Also, figure every film and television show involving a dude dressing up as a large, “unattractive” Black woman is predicated on some degree of transphobia. I’m looking at you, Wanda and Sheneneh.

ARTICLE END

A QUICK THOUGHT TO THE ARTICLE

It start with a lot of negative bias to those in certain age ranges, while supposes support to women from the physical violence or subjegation of men. It also has a large amount of cultural negative bias. Remember, race is any form of classification/rank/ordering from phenotype to gender to age to cultural beliefs to geography to releigion to religion to... you comprehend.

MY THOUGHTS TO EACH FILM IN THE LIST

Purple Rain is interesting. I remember hearing, a video recording of Prince, speak on a real event where a member of his team threw Vanity/Denise into his pool, and when I heard that story I thought of this scene. In the context of the article, it opens up alot in terms of the level of mysogyny. 
But, the greater issue is misogyny. I saw a halftime show in which Purple Rain was chanted by many people who clearly were in the ambiance of the artist formerly known as Prince as well as their thoughts of loving ones whose spirits have flown, which the song alludes too. 
Suggesting that this movie can not be seen, for a scene of abuse toward a woman from a man, is discounting how many people heard that song through the movie. Is it a wareranted sacrifice, I wonder? 
As for Prince's characters mimicry of his father's abuse, that is actually the stories point. Prince's character was evolving in a film. Like bobba Fett from being the lone man killer that many of the characters fans demand or want to the killer who has gained from priceless experience a level of growth that in all living things, takes time.
The question is, does Prince's characters modulation not warrant to be seen? Is the argument from the philosophy the article writer espouses that the modern audience can not handle watching the change in a character, they can only accept witnessing the final result? 

I only saw a few scenes of the Best Man. I admit, I have little liking or patience to these black group film dramas. To those who enjoy that style of art it is entertaining but for me, I can't stomach it long as a genre. 
I do know of the basic plot though. I don't see how the movie will be banned for portraying characters that share traits with many living people, in the same way, purple rain does to. 
But that leads to another question, is this about presenting fantasy humans? I rephrase, is this movement of cancelling culture to only allow one cultural mold? if so, how can art be deemed in it free to express all culture?

Love Jones scenario is like in the Best Man. Stalking is human, is it denied by not showing it in a film? and by not showing it is art improved.

I never saw any Ace Ventura film, so I admit, I can have it expunged as I am not a fan of jim carrey's comedy for the most part in general, yes I never saw Dumb and dumb series as well.
But to the theme, people who dislike homosexuals is not new nor will go away throughout all humanity. And, though few to no movies offer the reverse insult, many black people don't think positively of white communities.

I want to speak about Rae Dawn Chong and James Earl Jones, when it comes to the film "Soul Man". Rae Dawn Chong contends the film isn't negatively biased. And this goes to the penultimate issue. In the end, who determines how another is meant to see the world/humanity/life?
This battle over what art should be viewed from the times when non white europeans were disallowed under white european domination or in the complex multiracial landscape of the usa, with each tribe trying to make one cultural perspective dominant, shows the dysfunction of the attempt. No culture ever truly dies, it at the most diminished becomes a private culture, but cultures never die.
Spike Lee and the impotent N.A.A.C.P. made this film a battleground but the issue of black owned film production or black people in the mechanics of the industry had no words from said people except one day it will happen or beg whites. Rae Dawn Chong was right, it was all talk. Talk for media points. 

A bonus, Al SHarpton who I do not usually concur too explained the idea behind the self righteous non violent movement, brilliantly. I paraphrase him. The non violent mantra is not merely about stopping those who utilize violence against you but not allowing yourself to utilize violence. This paraphrasing is the entire idea behind the bonus section in the article.
But, that is self righteous. To tell someone to hold themselves to a cultural view, regardless of anything is not only self rightoeus but goes back to the entire flaw of the cancel culture strategem or similar cultural blocks from the past from one community to another. 
WHy don't black parents speak of Nat Turner or Jean Jacques Dessalines? what did either do wrong that does not warrant mention? they acted violently against those who were violent towards them? 
Their actions have been cancelled by many black people long before cancel culture, but has that improved the collective lot of the black community, has it changed the lot of the white community ? the answer is no.

NAME THE FILMS I WILL ADD? NAME THE FILMS THAT SHOULDN'T BE ON THIS LIST?  
None and All. I will paraphrase a white jewish female writer: art can not be the battleground for culture. 
I know she is right. Not seeing an action, does not delete an action. On the other hand, seeing an action does not embolden an action. 
The whole concept of not showing certain arts based on the messages in them, is based on the idea that it will influence culture. But is that true? 
I use two scenarios in human history as my proof they do not.
The Sars-Cov-2 era in NYC, specifically, when the city had a near total shut down of activity. 
During that time in New York City, the advertised freethinking capitol in the United States of America, the levels of abuse from men to women, from adult male children to their senior female parents , rose by a huge percent. Was said increase of a certain activity based on a film? was said increase based on a music video or video game? 
What does the first scenario prove? That misogyny's source is not media. When people were forced into their homes side their supposed loving ones they got more violent, not less. In particular men showed a increased dislike toward the women they live with, being forced to be next to them. IS media the source of the misogyny... or is it how we humans build or maintain relationships? The last point being, can not showing an action in media help to yield better relationships. I say no.

The second scenario is media by people of color, people of color defined as non white europeans, in the age of white european imperial power. MEaning from the 1400s to the end of world war two < which began the first phase in the era of white statian imperial power, commonly called the cold war >
In the white european imperial power age people of color, made art that was often chastized, or burned, or blockaded from the view of people of color themselves, but they made it. This artwork didn't free people of color or stop white european power. But it was symbols of another culture than the one in power. 
What does the second scenario prove? art doesn't change the alignments in humanity. It comes from the soul, and can inpsire humans, but can not deflect bullets, can not make laws. And it is bullets and laws that dictate the alignment of humans in humanity.

Sequentially, I add no film to this and think all films should not be present in it. The list is dysfunctional.
I am not a NAzi, I have no desire to be white or german or aryan. But I think the night marches are beautiful from the nazis. The premise of waging cultural war through art is suggesting, the human individual or collective can be so moved by art that it dictates who they are or who they want to be. I oppose that viewpoint. I think history proves my opposition correct. 

Article U.R.L.
https://thegrio.com/2022/01/21/five-films-that-could-never-come-out-in-2022/

Movies that Move WE- Selma 

MY COMMENT

odd that this year, MLK jr day is the same time as Marcus Garvey's birthday.. I think the contrast between marcus garvey's long term vision as opposed to the long term vision of MLKjr or his predecessors, WEB DUbois when young or earlier Frederick DOuglass , concerning the relationship of blacks in the americas americas  to whites  in the americas.

Now to the video...
6:40 yes, MLK jr was not a fool about being an advocate . He knew it wasn't financially grand nor had a great chance of true success. But, the identity of a christian baptist preacher was important to regaling. 
8:04 yes, black businesses had a huge role in financing the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I wonder if they got their money's worth
9:01 black christian women have always been the backbone or the administration or communal arrangement of the black church.
9:32 My home had people who were at the march on washington. I concur to Nicole, having people who were in the home who experienced the history is key, but only truly matters if they convey it
11:10 yes Nicole , the disconnect is the communities fault. Every community in the usa, from the embattled native american to the afghanistani's from the iraq war have to teach who they are to their children and all who fail to get the proper results
14:14 good point, Nike, the illusion that the past is so far from the present. Like the racial is so far from the post racial
15:35 good dialog, Nicole/Nike about the progression of black history in the usa and how the black community has changed very fast while also very irratically for various reasons
16:47 You two offer the question many have asked before and many will ask after... how did the black community not maintain a highly serious collective tone from circa 1850 to circa 2022 ? 
19:47 Nicole, urgency from whom? How many black people, who are in elected office, are millionaires, feel the sense for urgency seriously? they all will say urgency is needed. but, how many truly feel that?
26:41 MLK jr is a legendary speaker, funny how Malcolm is also the son of a preacher man
27:55 the last speech from mlk jr in harlem was at the riverside church, which has the largest carillon in the world
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/17/mlk_day_special_2022#:~:text=We play his “Beyond Vietnam” speech%2C which he,Copy may not be in its final form. 
where do we go from here
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/where-do-we-go-here
29:35 yes, but history books in mass education generally soften history. Histories details are by default, not a quick thing. Histories details, show how jews helped the naziz. How hong kong was the epicenter of domination by the united kingdom over the entirety of china. Histories details, show the good or supposed innocent are not that good or innocent, how the bad or supposed hellish are not that sinful or devious.

In conclusion, you two made a lovely dialog, but I will suggest you made one potent absence. All to often, black people say, what are we not doing? but answer in your own way, what do we need to do?
I know a number of black men who went to the million man march and the reality is, black men showed up to what the black organizers had planned, but the black organizers had no plan whatsoever? Black men came from around the usa to be guided with functionality or purpose not words or chastizement.
I will give an example, if a million black men came together, and asked me what to do. I can suggest, make a credit union. Each man who is here put a dollar into a collection and give each man a vote over how the money is used. Is it a brilliant plan? no. It is very simple. but it is function/purpose. It isn't a "do good fellas" speech.
What do you two black women want black people to do specifically, name one thing?   

A last point, Haile Sellasie offered land before his ousting by the communist party of ethiopia , only a third of it was given by the communist government of ethiopia , but it went to rastafarians, who grabbed the opportunity. I am doing research to see how the black people of HArlem Selassie had originally offered the land did not know, reject it or failed interest while black people from jamaica jumped on it. The town is called Shashamane. 

PASSING BY MOVIES THAT MOVE WE

MY THOUGHTS

2:14 Many people I know have said the topic of passing is heavy but I don't see it that way. Yella people pass cause they are phenotypically closer to white. The real issue for me is the one drop rules great dysfunction in the usa. The one drop rule favored white european purity. 
6:56 great personal story from Nicole Candace about passing in her bloodline. The key issue is just because one isn't white does that mean one isn't black. 
9:02 Carol Channing was not black. I don't care what anybody say. She was Yella. It is time for Black folk to use Yella as an official label. 
11:43 Yes, Harlem at a time was somewhat of a bubble, not completely. But Colored women, Black or Yella, still try to protect colored children by not admitting the culture they live in. 
13:24 In the same way Irene's husband and IRene have disagreement about their association to the usa, has that difference of opinion on the USA  between black women side men still exists? even if it isn't advertised. 
17:00 good point in how these two women deemed black are both unhappy in either situation. 
19:25 well, I think an open secret in the room is how yella women have a long history of being abused, by black men who want a trophy wife and white men who want a woman to abuse or own. 
21:59 all our names, funny , Nicole
22:44 My Little Nig by THomas G Key in 1845 Signal of Liberty poetry section < https://aadl.org/signalofliberty/SL_18450303-p1-02 >  Here is "My Little Nig" reused in the book Clotel by William Wells Brown < https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/161/clotel-or-the-presidents-daughter/2842/chapter-11-the-parson-poet/ >  Signal of america was an abolitionists newspaper < https://aadl.org/papers/signalofliberty>
25:15 PReach Nike, Negras are not blancos but the idea of being latino in the usa is predominated by what are called mestizos in latin america. 
27:13 Nicole, I will love to know what black women think on yella/white skinned women choosing the blackest black man so to speak? 
28:29 The director, geniously or in the spirit of larson, realized the two women are in a trap as individuals and they both are dealing with realizing their uncomforts. The story destroys the tragic mullattess
35:22 Clare is releaved when she is amongst black people cause she has spent years worried at every gesture, while Irene has yearned for more than her comfortable life.
38:43 interesting, the director maintained that query. I offer a question. Imagine being two women , who are phenotypically white, as children, alone among a midst of black children. It will pull both female children together. My point is, when people are pushed into proximity to each other against all others, it creates a closeness to each other that may not lead to intercourse but comes as praise or adoration.
43:39 Interesting Nicole, I think Larson was trying to get away from the tragic mulatto , but you are saying the director pushed the tragic position.  HAHA! PAssing 2!:) I know the title for PAssing 3, it is PAssing 3 the grands Great point by Nicole
45:30 Like the book, the movie ends on the cliffhanger , like a who dunnit detective novel, all we need now is the stuff dreams are made of:) 
46:40 I agree, a sense of total failure, exists, but it isn't merely the lies, it is the bad marriages, it is the country. Two men who don't know their wives good enough. Children who don't know their parents.  Look at the RHinelander trial, that LArson admitted knowing about < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinelander_v._Rhinelander > 
49:20 Nicole makes an interesting point, to out Clare is to out himself , specifically, to injure his social standing. Some white men will not associate with clare's husband if they found out. 
51:24 Yes, there was a time where the black community in nyc in particular had the wealth and had a cultural desire to be considered upstanding. Most black people lived in the southern states and were dirt poor.  Well, that harlem is gone, and the architecture of harlem was meant for whites, rich whites, so harlem itself in some way was passing. The polo grounds was meant to play polo, not baseball, like the ny giants or ny yankees that played there. So, harlem's architecture was meant to be for wealthy whites. but black people got harlem cause rich whites went away.
55:36 good point about the reality in another time Nicole, it works for all things. Ala the people of Hong Kong and their britishness.

Video Link- if embedding fails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DnBaH5KDo

IN AMENDMENT
CLotel more information : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clotel

A lasting thought was about the label Karen. Do we need to use the label Irene for Yella black women that like to be uppity? OR use the label Clare for Yella black women that want to be blackity black?
 

My intial reply to the video

nina simone was a polymath... the problem with black people when we gather in public is, for events meant for music or community, march on washington/summer of jazz/ jazzmobile/million man march/black film festival.. black people don't produce violence. But, we do produce violence when the tipping points are reached. ... I disagree with both of you. I don't think the lack of media outlets wanting to display the Summer of Soul is a shame. Ownership matters folks. You both mentioned how Gil Scott Heron or the Last Poets were not on the bill. But that was and is part of the problem. White people own media outlets that allow all spectrums of the white community to speak. Name me one Black owned media outlet that serves five unique black segments in the black community? Yes, my parents remember that concert. To be blunt, Harlem has a long history of similar events. That famous photo at Duke Ellington's house is not a joke. Harlem between the 1920s -1970s had the greatest collection of black entertainers for a region in any city in the usa. The recording of the concert was a surprise for my parents. ... Don, no one is a complete encyclopedia:)

Someone somewhere in the internet stated the Black community ended the great era of Black Music in the 1970s, I oppose that position. The following is my reply

We didn't end it. All musical eras end. To be blunt, the black community in usa had many great musical times after the war between the states. The st louis/to harlem slide jazz era. The big band era. The R&B initial era. Motown. Many great black songwriters in each of those eras. We didn't end , we changed. Black people in the usa's music changes as we change. The reason why we made the blues is cause right after the war between the states, many of us had a sadness, a blue mood. When we started growing more financially positive, actually getting whites to allow us to own businesses or get paid to do ork while still being nonviolent <not saying all black people wanted that but I comgress>, we turned the blues into rhythm and blues. After world war II when the black community oddly enough had large financial growth for individuals, we created rock and roll from R&B which is from the Blues. We created Funk as a blues version of the motown sound. Where motown was manicured black music for the white audience, in the same vein as scott joplin's minstrel music, which he did alongside his ragtime works. Ragtime was in my view, a piano version of jazz, which was started with horned instruments in new orleans.  Jazz progressed from the northern expansion. Starting from the storyville's of new orleans to St Louis, to Chicago to HArlem, to every bar from Shanghai to Berlin to Rio de janeiro to calcutta to Cairo all around the earth, jazz was played at one time, a rare achievement for one art form. So much so that colleges throughout humanity teach jazz. Many surviving jazz musicians were able to financially survive being the first jazz teachers in schools where only white jazz teachers may exist today.  No, black music changes as black people change. House Music comes from the urban black community, which in the vein of funk fuses all the many prior musical forms from Blues or Jazz. But with a larger technological capability than Funk, which began using tech in unique ways for music. We didn't end it. Today you can hear way too many excellent black blues musicians under 50, black jazz musicians under 50. White owned media companies dominate the industry and they prefer pop music, which is hat Motown or the Ragtime was. All three are intended to appeal to mass audiences, be good to sell. All three evaded or try to evade cultural friction. So, all is good, the black musical heritage lives in the black community for me, and continuous to grow or change, becoming more global, having more linguistical width than in the past, more cultural variance. All is good. 

Movies That Move We video Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1bNVo8gYU
 

My Thoughts on Movies That Move We discussion on Harlem Nights

Eddie did get lucky, and to be blunt, time was of the essence, anumber of comedy movies of that period, like caddyshack united comedians of a certain age who were soon to be deceased. so... in terms of purpose, I think he wanted to do a number of things, be on screen with his elders, do a film with mostly black people in suits, have a cast of black characters that had all the cultural variance often not provided by white led productions. ala same with coming to america. In the end of the day, the monied classes of any community dictate the media. For the black community, not merely in the usa but globally, who don't have a financial elite based on enslavers/murderers/prohibition era gangsters/ or the myriad of others using criminal or illegal financial schemes that the white community has been totally privy too, we have to rely on those who earned their money fairly to be our rockefellers/duponts/jp morgans/carnegies/kennedy . I live in NYC, all those names I just mentioned had a history of criminality/illegality/violence that most black people will say is , doing bad. But, those same names financed the museums/art galleries/opera houses all the arts of NYC. All the arts of NYC was financed by all the rich white people who made their fortunes doing a lot of bad. Black people don't have those people in our community. The largest financial criminals black people get are drug dealers every decade or two with four corners. No way near the volume of pop rockefeller. So, black people have to rely on the black rich who are all from labors. Black athletes/entertainers/singers/small business chain owners like the brother who helped finance MLK jr's activities. But we don't have someone to finance a whole film studio+theater chain+ advertising network from scratch. So, black people like Eddie Murphy/oprah winfrey/poitier/denzel/et cetera , no matter what any think of them , through their attempts in the white owned media industry of the usa, which isn't a rude or mean thing to say, get whites to produce or have enough pennies to produce things like harlem nights, where black people can see a glint of what black owned media would had provided for centuries if possible/allowed.