Support NeoGAF

[Karsticles]

That is the best article I have read all year.

 

[Angry Grimace]

As I said earlier, I still think it's disingenuous to argue Man in the High Castle is less offensive because the world repudiated the Nazi's because that isn't a real comfort to the specific people offended by "Nazi's win" fiction.

If you're gonna make this argument, the consistent answer is to admit Man in the High Castle is also a repugnant concept, but Man In the High Castle was written in 1962 so we already know what the content is.

 

[Enzom21]

The bastion of diversity that is Judd Apatow decided to chime in on this.

https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/893611019297112064

 

[Bronx-Man]

The bastion of diversity that is Judd Apatow decided to chime in on this.
https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/893611019297112064

There's a 0.0000000000000001% chance he took out 10 minutes of time to actually read the damn thing.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

Everything this guy writes is worded perfectly. When are those two clowns behind Game of Thrones going to realize they fucked up? Take this L Hollywood bros. You aren't the first to expose yourself as out of touch and tone deaf. From that Starbuck's CEO "Race Together" campaign to the Oscars only nominating white people, so much cringe behind the so called "liberal elite" who like to talk big about change but don't actually give a shit besides their next big paycheck.

 

[LionPride]

I might be mistaken but I don't think they have statues of that kind there.

Plenty of confederate memorabilia and a few too many statues still around here

Not to mention the fight over the flag

 

[Vanillalite]

The only issue I have is the last part about GoTs and the rape part.

Shouldn't that be levied more in Martin and less on the duo? I mean if you read the first book it's not like Martin holds back on the writing in terms of the rape scenes.

 

[El Topo]

As incomplete/botched as denazification was, it was still far, far, FAR better than the outright lionization Confederate leaders received after the war (none of whom were executed or even tried if I remember right).

The problem is that it is a bad basis for a general rebuttal of MITHC comparisons. This argument ignores the complicated history of denazification and omisses Japan (with its incredibly problematic view of its own history), it ignores the similarities and problematic points of MITHC. It's simply not sufficient to refute the (as I would agree with him) fatuous comparison of MITHC with Confederate.

 

[Gabriel_Logan]

I wouldn't mind an HBO series about the actual Civil War, but an alt history written by the writers of Bad Pussy... Nah thanks.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

The only issue I have is the last part about GoTs and the rape part.

Shouldn't that be levied more in Martin and less on the duo? I mean if you read the first book it's not like Martin holds back on the writing in terms of the rape scenes.

There is a specific character in the television treatment they had get brutally raped over and over in order to sell the rapist as the worst scum possible, even though that shit wasn't in the book.

That was their call, not GRRM.

 

[metalslimer]

The only issue I have is the last part about GoTs and the rape part.

Shouldn't that be levied more in Martin and less on the duo? I mean if you read the first book it's not like Martin holds back on the writing in terms of the rape scenes.

It is certainly not a constant in the books of using rape as a means to advance a characters plot. The show added a lot more rape scenes than the books.

Anyway despite me dissing the concept I do think that the majority of the criticism comes from the talent behind the show.

 

[Byakuya769]

Beautifully written. I'm still not convinced that I should care that it's happening before seeing it. I'm skeptical, but I find it difficult to boycott expression before it's even made.

In for clowning the concept though. Your move HBO.

 

[kswiston]

There is a specific character in the television treatment they had get brutally raped over and over in order to sell the rapist as the worst scum possible, even though that shit wasn't in the book.

That was their call, not GRRM.

If you are talking about

Spoiler

Sansa

, then that was sort of in the book. Only it was a bit character and not a main character going through the ordeal.

They did decide to add some "spousal" rape in for no good reason though. That wasn't part of the novels.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

If you are talking about

Spoiler

Sansa

, then that was sort of in the book. Only it was a bit character and not a main character going through the ordeal.

They did decide to add some "spousal" rape in for no good reason though. That wasn't part of the novels.

Yes, they did and yes, that is my point.

 

[WillyFive]

The only issue I have is the last part about GoTs and the rape part.

Shouldn't that be levied more in Martin and less on the duo? I mean if you read the first book it's not like Martin holds back on the writing in terms of the rape scenes.

I read the first book, it makes the HBO adaptation look like a porn parody. They turned a straightforward Middle Ages political drama into a strict Adults-Only show. GRRM certainly alluded to dark and adult stuff, and had a few parts that could not be shown on TV in any capacity, but what the showrunners did was absurd and exploitative far beyond anything in the first book (obviously to gain viewers).

 

[Enzom21]

There's a 0.0000000000000001% chance he took out 10 minutes of time to actually read the damn thing.

That's a pretty good assumption.

 

[WedgeX]

Glad to read Ta-Nehisis' thoughts, and powerful as always.

 

[TyrantII]

That is the best article I have read all year.

You think this is good, read his long form piece on reparations and redlining.

Dude is something special.

 

[East Lake]

This seems like a dumb show to me but his arguments aren't very strong

We do not need to wait to observe that this supposition is, at best, dicey. For over a century, Hollywood has churned out well-executed, slickly produced epics which advanced the Lost Cause myth of the Civil War. These are true “alternative histories,” built on “alternative facts,” assembled to depict the Confederacy as a wonderland of virtuous damsels and gallant knights, instead of the sprawling kleptocratic police state it actually was.

That is not because its conceivers are personally racist, or seek to create a show that endorses slavery. Far from it, I suspect. Indeed, the creators have said that their hope is to use science fiction to “show us how this history is still with us in a way no strictly realistic drama ever could.”

So the creators probably aren't racist, and don't endorse slavery but the amorphous concept of hollywood is, so we can't have this show.

And he continues.

And that really is the problem. African Americans do not need science-fiction, or really any fiction, to tell them that that “history is still with us.” It’s right outside our door. It’s in our politics. It’s on our networks. And Confederate is not immune. The show’s very operating premise, the fact that it roots itself in a long white tradition of imagining away emancipation, leaves one wondering how “lost” the Lost Cause really was.

Isn't this justification to eliminate basically any historically based movie, or even movies in general? Do we need Black Panther, or any story with fictional events that reflect reality in some fashion?

 

[kswiston]

Yes, they did and yes, that is my point.

I just realized that last sentence was ambigious. By spousal rape, I meant

Spoiler

that scene in the church with Cersei and Jaime

 

[nomis]

this guy might be my favourite living person

 

[timmy]

The bastion of diversity that is Judd Apatow decided to chime in on this.

https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/893611019297112064

Aaaaand we've reached the criticism = censorship point in the discussion. Everything is proceeding according to schedule.

 

[Socreges]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

For over a century, Hollywood has churned out well-executed, slickly produced epics which advanced the Lost Cause myth of the Civil War. These are true “alternative histories,” built on “alternative facts,” assembled to depict the Confederacy as a wonderland of virtuous damsels and gallant knights, instead of the sprawling kleptocratic police state it actually was. From last century’s The Birth of a Nation to this century’s Gods and Generals, Hollywood has likely done more than any other American institution to obstruct a truthful apprehension of the Civil War, and thus modern America’s very origins.

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

 

[Zero315]

The bastion of diversity that is Judd Apatow decided to chime in on this.

https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/893611019297112064

Ugh... fuck off, Apatow.

Beautifully written by Coates. Managed to put into words a lot of the negativity I've had towards this project.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I just realized that last sentence was ambigious. By spousal rape, I meant

Spoiler

that scene in the church with Cersei and Jaime

That was added too to develop character...but we should trust them to be responsible with this powder keg they signed up for?

 

[kswiston]

That was added too to develop character...but we should trust them to be responsible with this powder keg they signed up for?

I am not really for this series. I was just chiming in on the GOT stuff. I agree that GOT is heavy on the often tone-deaf sexploitation, and that those particular writers might be better suited for something else where tact isn't as crucial.

On a related note, how was Underground Airlines received? That dealt with a similar premise, and I believe the author was white. It painted the southern states as evil, and the northern ines as spineless though.

 

[Staccat0]

I think this puts it pretty well. It's the kind of subject matter that I think COULD be done well, but there is no harm in letting HBO and the creators know that they are gonna have to thread that tricky-ass needle.

 

[krazen]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

Hollywood in general has a 'quaint' view of the countries early origins...while not necessarily pro-slavery for decades the portrayal of the Civil War was one where slavery was secondary or third of the reasons for succession and the old South is portrayed with a positive historical slant. The slaves are off screen and the women/men of the plantations were seen as noble.

Similar to how Westerns ignored the ongoing genocide tend to focus on the horrible conditions that Americana survived in through protestant work ethic and morals with a periodic 'Injun' attack showing the grit of Americans.

 

[Ponn]

The official answer for when someone comes in saying "Why are you mad about this but not The Man in the High Castle????"

Well, on top of that we have seen a rise in the Alt-right and neo-nazism in years so I don't feel shows like Man in the High Castle are appropriate anymore either. If you have a not so small group actually cheering for the premise of shows like these thats a problem.

 

[Kin5290]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

Gone With The Wind is a classic movie that also serves as Confederate apologia and glorification of slavery. The Birth of A Nation, basically the original feature film, inspired the rise of the Second Klu Klux Klan. Those two films basically set the tone for Hollywood depictions of the Confederacy and the American South.

 

[Drifters]

I personally think the hatred of the content that HBO is trying to produce is misplaced. Time and time again the dialogue always will skew to which voice is representing who? If a white man slants a certain race one way but not another, he's racist. If a black man slants a white man a certain way, he's racist too. It's sad that works of fiction like this can't simply tell a story and let the audience decide based on the characters choices but ergo, who wrote the characters?

Unfortunately it seems a forever chicken and egg complex. Makes me sad to think we'll never get 'Brave New World' in either a movie or TV series for entirely the same reasons if not more so.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

On a related note, how was Underground Airlines received?

Dunno.

 

[ttimebomb]

Are people actually fucking serious about this controversy? There is 0% chance that the Confederacy isn't portrayed negatively in this show.

 

[Opto]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

Gods and Generals (2003) is probably the most recent. But pop entertainment has been reluctant to paint the South/Confederacy in a completely negative light. Hell, in the most recent adaption of The Beguiled, the slave character was completely taken out. Even before Birth of a Nation, Buster Keaton's The General had the hero (Keaton) on the side of the South.

EDIT: I got the order wrong. The General came out 11 years after Birth of a Nation.

 

[KingV]

I think people are fooling themselves to think that the controversy over this show is going to be anything but good for its initial ratings.

They'll get a lot of people to watch it just to see what the controversy is about.

I don't really get exactly what Coates is calling for with this. It's actually something I struggle with a lot in his writing. He raises a lot of questions but stops short
of trying to draw a conclusion. Like he never explicitly says "this show shouldn't be made", but just effectively says "here's why people have a problem with this".

It's like, if he doesn't think the show should be made, he should say so. If he thinks it's fine that the show will be made, but here are some potential pitfalls, or why he has mixed feelings about the premise, he should be explicit about his feelings there too.

I suspect he doesn't want to take heat for calling for censorship, but doesn't want to say "they deserve the right to make whatever show they want, even if I don't agree with the premise". He seems to ride that middle line a lot, and avoid taking an actual stance often.

He's one of my favorite columnists, and raises a lot of interesting perspectives but at the end I usually wish he had actually tried to bring it to some sort of conclusion.

 

[Stoop Man]

Gods and Generals (2003) is probably the most recent. But pop entertainment has been reluctant to paint the South/Confederacy in a completely negative light. Hell, in the most recent adaption of The Beguiled, the slave character was completely taken out. Even before Birth of a Nation, Buster Keaton's The General had the hero (Keaton) on the side of the South.

Don't wanna risk pissing off potential ticket buyers. :/ Hell, pick up a high school history book. They generally treat the Civil War with kid gloves so they don't lose customers in southern states.

Like he never explicitly says "this show shouldn't be made", but just effectively says "here's why people have a problem with this".

That was my takeaway. It's a complicated sentiment, one that a lot of people have, and he wanted to elaborate on it.

 

[norm9]

Apatow got a blast from people about his lack of poc casting. Good.

 

[The Kree]

The bastion of diversity that is Judd Apatow decided to chime in on this.

https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/893611019297112064

Fuckwit doesn't know what censorship is.

 

[dlauv]

I think people are fooling themselves to think that the controversy over this show is going to be anything but good for its initial ratings.

They'll get a lot of people to watch it just to see what the controversy is about.

I don't really get exactly what Coates is calling for with this. It's actually something I struggle with a lot in his writing. He raises a lot of questions but stops short
of trying to draw a conclusion. Like he never explicitly says "this show shouldn't be made", but just effectively says "here's why people have a problem with this".

It's like, if he doesn't think the show should be made, he should say so. If he thinks it's fine that the show will be made, but here are some potential pitfalls, or why he has mixed feelings about the premise, he should be explicit about his feelings there too.

I suspect he doesn't want to take heat for calling for censorship, but doesn't want to say "they deserve the right to make whatever show they want, even if I don't agree with the premise". He seems to ride that middle line a lot, and avoid taking an actual stance often.

He's one of my favorite columnists, and raises a lot of interesting perspectives but at the end I usually wish he had actually tried to bring it to some sort of conclusion.

My take: It's not about whether it should or shouldn't be made (it will be made and it's HBO's right to make it regardless). Wishing for it not to be made and demanding it not be made are different things. He's telling HBO to pipe the fuck down with their requests to critics to withhold judgement, as there's a lot to reasonably judge from conception. He's also stating that it will likely be problematic and the ways it's already problematic. If he'd told HBO outright that it shouldn't be made then that would be a tire fire, and frankly, it's a position too juvenile for the article's author.

 

[Veelk]

I suspect he doesn't want to take heat for calling for censorship, but doesn't want to say "they deserve the right to make whatever show they want, even if I don't agree with the premise". He seems to ride that middle line a lot, and avoid taking an actual stance often.

He does effectively say so though.

Storytellers have the right to answer any question they choose. But we do not need to wait to examine all the questions that are not being chosen: What if John Brown had succeeded? What if the Haitian Revolution had spread to the rest of the Americas? What if black soldiers had been enlisted at the onset of the Civil War? What if Native Americans had halted the advance of whites at the Mississippi? And we need not wait to note that more interesting than asking what the world would be like if the white South had won is asking why so many white people are enthralled with a world where the dreams of Harriet Tubman were destroyed by the ambitions of Robert E. Lee.

He's perfectly clear. He's not advocating for censorship both because he doesn't believe in it but also because if he said anything approaching that, people would use it to disregard anything else he might say. There isn't a simple solution to him trying to unmake this show because him unmaking it itself would be a wrong action.

So instead he's focusing on the more potent idea: Storytellers have a right to tell the story they want, but it's worth asking the question of why they would want to tell this story? Using those showrunners?

 

[Angelus Errare]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

I'll say this, I don't think there is a Hollywood movie that doesn't romanticize the Confederacy.

 

[_Ryo_]

Absolutely amazing article. I agree with all of it. There's so much truth in there.

 

[Enduin]

I agree with everything he says. But wondering about this:

Is the bolded true? Churned out? Are there really that many pro-Confederacy Hollywood movies?

And for the second bolded part, are there not more Hollywood movies showing the civil war for what it was than those that don't? Honestly not sure, but I'd have thought so...

I found this to be a good, albeit long, article on the subject. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/civil-war-cinema-confederacy-keaton-lost-cause

TLDR: You can basically count the number of pro-Union/Anti-Slavery Civil War films on two hands, while there's dozens of either blatantly romanticized films about the Confederacy and Old South or at the very least films that take a "neutral"/both sides stance that either outright ignores or skirts the issues of slavery and just come to the conclusion that war is bad and hurts everyone.

 

[IrishNinja]

Coates is that dude - panther introduced me to him but ive loved pieces like this, need to get to reading his actual books soon. kills me seeing popular twitter hoteps praised over him.

There's a 0.0000000000000001% chance he took out 10 minutes of time to actually read the damn thing.

strongly agreed here

 

[Elegant Weapon]

Coates, eloquent as usual, lays out what most of us have already explained but at the end of the day white america is infatuated with certain images of black people. From dehumanizing mascots on products, Mammy, Brute, Jezebel etc stereotypes, Birth of a Nation to the reason Donald freaking Glover didn't have any white writers on Atlanta; mass media depiction of black people in america have been exploitative & disgusting.

I remember when Snoop came out and basically said "Fuck all those slave narratives, we sick of that shit" about "12 years a slave", "Roots" & "Underground." In general, black americans have been over chattle slavery narratives. Actual popular shows like Insecure & Atlanta excite black audiences & critics, but those shows needs black creators to get made. White creators like the Thrones guys don't even think of black leads unless they exploit black pain with wonderfully imaginative ideas like "what if America still had slavery?!"

It's obvious who the show is created by & for, and it's not black people, despite the "black friends' the thrones guys got to cover their asses. But why didn't they have any black friends help them write game of thrones? Oh, cause that's a fantasy drama and badass flight of fantasy narratives aren't something white american creators like to include black or other people of color in. Creators like Aptow will only manage to hire people of color in supporting roles to their white leads.

So yeah, it honestly comes down to the fact that most black people ain't trying to watch that shit, no matter who it comes from. Spike Lee never made a slave film, yet he's made films ranging from coming of age to vampire stories.

At the end of the day, America is going to get off on depicting black people in fucked up ways so this show is probably going to be pretty popular. Meanwhile, we'll be watching Atlanta and Insecure, which already has a running joke about slave stories. http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/insecure-shonda-rhimes-parody-due-north.html

 

[enzo_gt]

Damn, that's a well written response right there. Certainly the best I've seen and made me understand the criticism a lot more.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Coates, eloquent as usual, lays out what most of us have already explained but at the end of the day white america is infatuated with certain images of black people. From dehumanizing mascots on products, Mammy, Brute, Jezebel etc stereotypes, Birth of a Nation to the reason Donald freaking Glover didn't have any white writers on Atlanta; mass media depiction of black people in america have been exploitative & disgusting.

I remember when Snoop came out and basically said "Fuck all those slave narratives, we sick of that shit" about "12 years a slave", "Roots" & "Underground." In general, black americans have been over chattle slavery narratives. Actual popular shows like Insecure & Atlanta excite black audiences & critics, but those shows needs black creators to get made. White creators like the Thrones guys don't even think of black leads unless they exploit black pain with wonderfully imaginative ideas like "what if America still had slavery?!"

It's obvious who the show is created by & for, and it's not black people, despite the "black friends' the thrones guys got to cover their asses. But why didn't they have any black friends help them write game of thrones? Oh, cause that's a fantasy drama and badass flight of fantasy narratives aren't something white american creators like to include black or other people of color in. Creators like Aptow will only manage to hire people of color in supporting roles to their white leads.

So yeah, it honestly comes down to the fact that most black people ain't trying to watch that shit, no matter who it comes from. Spike Lee never made a slave film, yet he's made films ranging from coming of age to vampire stories.

At the end of the day, America is going to get off on depicting black people in fucked up ways so this show is probably going to be pretty popular. Meanwhile, we'll be watching Atlanta and Insecure, which already has a running joke about slave stories. http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/insecure-shonda-rhimes-parody-due-north.html

This is a great post, thanks.

 

[AndersK]

This topic shook me proper. I'm sorry i didnt really grasp the essence of the backlash against the project, before i read through this.

I've always assumed confederate leadership was tried for their actions and complicity. No fuckin' wonder the sentiment lingers.

 

[kswiston]

This topic shook me proper. I'm sorry i didnt really grasp the essence of the backlash against the project, before i read through this.

I've always assumed confederate leadership was tried for their actions and complicity. No fuckin' wonder the sentiment lingers.

A lot of compromises were made in the name of reunification following the civil war. Black people suffered for most of them. The US would be very different today if an actual attempt was made to integrate the emancipated slave population into American society. But the white population of the North was still racist, even if they didn't think that human beings were livestock. Freeing the slaves was noble and all, but few people wanted said free slaves in their neighborhoods.

 

[Fuu]

Ta-Nehisi Coates' writing always leaves me shook. He's so good.