It’s interesting to me how the left thinks people could be offended by this great movie but that we shouldn’t be offended by transgender policies including men pretending to be women having unlimited access to women’s locker rooms!
Thank you for an excellent piece. It's not just art that's being censored, it's the people who write about the arts. I spent a lot of time of my earlier years among the top movie critics - especially Pauline Kael, the most important film critic The New Yorker ever published. Pauline was a close friend and I often went to film screenings with her. She was more than a film reviewer, she was a huge cultural figure, someone people loved to read because she made them question their own lives and beliefs through art. She was a real Berkeley left leaning liberal, but she bore little if any resemblance to leftists today. The biggest difference was that she believed art should set us free, not be a brainwashing device for those in power. I doubt she'd be hired by any mainstream publication today. Because her reviews would inspire too much independent thinking.
Some of us go back to the days when "Banned in Boston" was the kiss of death for any media piece - books or movies. The arbitrary decree of the Boston Catholic Archdiocese created national reverberations. Including the demand school cafeterias in California must serve only fish on Fridays. Separation of church from state is not such a bright line after all. As government support for the cult of "climate change" forces us to witness every day.
I can never look at a frozen fish stick again after my every Friday California grammar school trauma. Some memories never leave you. Nor smells when entering the cafeteria.
Yep, seems like AMC totally overreacted. Typically 'trigger warnings' are just another content advisory to warn folks that are suffering from some form of PTSD or the such that there might be content that could upset them. Just like some are offended by the naked body - or sex - or language.
What offends me is when a description of a film gives away the ending. Let the viewer experience it on their own, and experience it the way the producer intended, revealing layers. As for triggering, I am capable of looking away or turning it off.
‘Art is a lie that tells the truth' - Pablo Picasso…sad that the powers-that-be include preconditions for the open mind prior to viewing movies & art in general…more mind control by the Globalists…
we don’t need no education, we don’t need no thoughts control, all-in-all, it’s just another brick in the wall…
Does anybody else find it funny how triggered people like the author of this article are by trigger warnings? One of the most harmless things a network or cable channel can do drives you bananas. I also find it funny how you're against that network interpreting art and then you write a whole article interpreting said art. Do you get mad when a newspaper says the views and opinions expressed in this opinion piece do not represent that of the publisher? Heaven forbid. And to be clear, Goodfellas is great cinema.
Justin is triggered by The Current. This substack is salt and Justn is a snail. Because The Current has a conservative tone, Justin is moved to be critical of whatever is written here. Justin writes like a midwit. Justin is empowered by the attention he gets here. Best to ignore Justin.
How "triggered people" such as the author are triggered by trigger warnings? Yes that statement is funny. But beyond that, you seem to be intentionally missing the point, but I concede you may indeed genuinely miss it.
Is there something which implies the author would offended by a views expressed disclaimer? Consider this scenario to understand the difference...
you're watching TV and at the commercial break there is a disclaimer which says "Warning: the following contains images which may be offensive to some viewers, viewer discretion is advised"
Then what follows is a scene of two grown men holding hands in a romantic scene -- or a man and a woman, but she is white and he is black.
I am willing to bet that you would be offended by that warning -- as would I. The suggestion that I might find that offensive, is both insulting to me, as well as offensive itself, as no reasonable person today would accept that either scene could be deemed offensive, even though just a half century ago, the majority would consider it offensive.
That is why triggered people such as the author are triggered by trigger warnings -- the implicit judgement of entity issuing the warning (in the author's case AMC) which suggests the majority population of AMC viewing audience would find Goodfellas offensive based on "cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today's standards of inclusion and tolerance."
We're good, thank you. Few intelligent viewers would take offense to cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today's "standards of inclusion and tolerance" but many would and should take offense to being told what is to be deemed offensive. AMC is not Justice Potter Stewart nor being ask to arbitrate 'standards' of matters such as "inclusion and tolerance" LOL!
Very well stated. It is an interesting analogy to use, but I think your argument falls apart at the end. Unfortunately I'm on mobile, my formatting will be awful, and I have to get some work done while I have the opportunity. Here is my 5 minute response:
How do you feel about the disclaimer in front of Dumbo when the crows are obviously very negative stereotypes? 50 years ago the majority would find an interracial relationship offensive. What happens in another 50 years? AMC is not the supreme Court, you are free to criticize them and not use their service and they are free to add disclaimers in front of movies however they wish. I think one of the major reasons we are culturally pushing people to understand their implicit biases is that it does have an effect. If I have time, I'll try and find the article where a white man took pills for several months that darkened his skin. He wrote about his experiences and how differently he was treated. I think it was back in the '70s if I recall correctly, so you could try and argue that it was a different time. However I feel that many people would say that the same undercurrent of stereotyping still exists in a major way.
The same people who wrote the warning for this movie are likely the same ones who would write a warning for our founding documents. They are already trying to convince school children that the founders were a bunch of rich white unitarian slave owners, whose statues should be toppled.
I'm so very thankful to have grown up before all this nonsense. 'Triggered' is a word for today's whiney, got a trophy for showing up, confused weak humans. We as a society NEED to be triggered, offended, laughed at, as it makes US as individuals think and solidify our place in this word. What is being created is a blind, walk this way at all costs, worthless group of sheeple. I don't even want to think where society will be in even 10 years. Might as well remove the brain organ at birth because it won't be needed, it will all be fed to us. (Matrix, anyone?)
For me, trigger warnings are like the text on food that says whether the product was prepared in a facility that processes peanuts -- a message for a tiny minority who may be harmed. Or that the show contains flashing lights. A small inconvenience to me that may spare somebody else serious harm.
Taking a trigger warning as something attempting interpretation for a mass audience seems to me a total misreading
Well said, Mr. McCalmont. "Goodfellas" is on my all time list of great gangster films, along with the Godfather and Casino.
It’s interesting to me how the left thinks people could be offended by this great movie but that we shouldn’t be offended by transgender policies including men pretending to be women having unlimited access to women’s locker rooms!
That is truly insane.
Cheers
Thank you for an excellent piece. It's not just art that's being censored, it's the people who write about the arts. I spent a lot of time of my earlier years among the top movie critics - especially Pauline Kael, the most important film critic The New Yorker ever published. Pauline was a close friend and I often went to film screenings with her. She was more than a film reviewer, she was a huge cultural figure, someone people loved to read because she made them question their own lives and beliefs through art. She was a real Berkeley left leaning liberal, but she bore little if any resemblance to leftists today. The biggest difference was that she believed art should set us free, not be a brainwashing device for those in power. I doubt she'd be hired by any mainstream publication today. Because her reviews would inspire too much independent thinking.
This is great. It captures and deconstructs an oddity in today’s world that feels more nefarious than it pretends to be.
Some of us go back to the days when "Banned in Boston" was the kiss of death for any media piece - books or movies. The arbitrary decree of the Boston Catholic Archdiocese created national reverberations. Including the demand school cafeterias in California must serve only fish on Fridays. Separation of church from state is not such a bright line after all. As government support for the cult of "climate change" forces us to witness every day.
"they demand school cafeterias in California must serve only fish on Fridays" You're kidding!
I can never look at a frozen fish stick again after my every Friday California grammar school trauma. Some memories never leave you. Nor smells when entering the cafeteria.
Yep, seems like AMC totally overreacted. Typically 'trigger warnings' are just another content advisory to warn folks that are suffering from some form of PTSD or the such that there might be content that could upset them. Just like some are offended by the naked body - or sex - or language.
. . . or lefties :)
Sad that some see it that way.
Awesome depiction of how life “used” to be! Sadly, Hollyweird has taken front and center in minding its own demise!
Any artist creating today should HATE this. I like the writer’s summation. Content warning - okay - the kids should be in bed.
🤔 It’s “offensive” IS offensive. 🤬
For a musical interlude: the official Cole Porter "Anything Goes" .........a musical trigger warning from 100years ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN2KHeEWqZM
What offends me is when a description of a film gives away the ending. Let the viewer experience it on their own, and experience it the way the producer intended, revealing layers. As for triggering, I am capable of looking away or turning it off.
Goodfellas is one of my all-time favorite movies. This is one of the greatest movie scenes in cinema history. Pesci was a legend.
https://www.google.com/search?q=joe+pesci+scene+goodfellas&sca_esv=69d501c9217a3f8b&source=hp&ei=EU5OZrS5CLa8kPIP47GU2Ak&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZk5cIUt6vDkZGOzXcyjyr1Bd_cpq-MIh&oq=pesci+scene&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:59001b9e,vid:Pfcy15ZUE2c,st:0
Hi Lou - a bit off topic, but this site - https://tinyurl.com/app - lets you reduce long web addresses like yours above to this: - https://tinyurl.com/4speaher Both go to the same site.
Thank you.
‘Art is a lie that tells the truth' - Pablo Picasso…sad that the powers-that-be include preconditions for the open mind prior to viewing movies & art in general…more mind control by the Globalists…
we don’t need no education, we don’t need no thoughts control, all-in-all, it’s just another brick in the wall…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
Does anybody else find it funny how triggered people like the author of this article are by trigger warnings? One of the most harmless things a network or cable channel can do drives you bananas. I also find it funny how you're against that network interpreting art and then you write a whole article interpreting said art. Do you get mad when a newspaper says the views and opinions expressed in this opinion piece do not represent that of the publisher? Heaven forbid. And to be clear, Goodfellas is great cinema.
Justin is triggered by The Current. This substack is salt and Justn is a snail. Because The Current has a conservative tone, Justin is moved to be critical of whatever is written here. Justin writes like a midwit. Justin is empowered by the attention he gets here. Best to ignore Justin.
How "triggered people" such as the author are triggered by trigger warnings? Yes that statement is funny. But beyond that, you seem to be intentionally missing the point, but I concede you may indeed genuinely miss it.
Is there something which implies the author would offended by a views expressed disclaimer? Consider this scenario to understand the difference...
you're watching TV and at the commercial break there is a disclaimer which says "Warning: the following contains images which may be offensive to some viewers, viewer discretion is advised"
Then what follows is a scene of two grown men holding hands in a romantic scene -- or a man and a woman, but she is white and he is black.
I am willing to bet that you would be offended by that warning -- as would I. The suggestion that I might find that offensive, is both insulting to me, as well as offensive itself, as no reasonable person today would accept that either scene could be deemed offensive, even though just a half century ago, the majority would consider it offensive.
That is why triggered people such as the author are triggered by trigger warnings -- the implicit judgement of entity issuing the warning (in the author's case AMC) which suggests the majority population of AMC viewing audience would find Goodfellas offensive based on "cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today's standards of inclusion and tolerance."
We're good, thank you. Few intelligent viewers would take offense to cultural stereotypes that are inconsistent with today's "standards of inclusion and tolerance" but many would and should take offense to being told what is to be deemed offensive. AMC is not Justice Potter Stewart nor being ask to arbitrate 'standards' of matters such as "inclusion and tolerance" LOL!
Very well stated. It is an interesting analogy to use, but I think your argument falls apart at the end. Unfortunately I'm on mobile, my formatting will be awful, and I have to get some work done while I have the opportunity. Here is my 5 minute response:
How do you feel about the disclaimer in front of Dumbo when the crows are obviously very negative stereotypes? 50 years ago the majority would find an interracial relationship offensive. What happens in another 50 years? AMC is not the supreme Court, you are free to criticize them and not use their service and they are free to add disclaimers in front of movies however they wish. I think one of the major reasons we are culturally pushing people to understand their implicit biases is that it does have an effect. If I have time, I'll try and find the article where a white man took pills for several months that darkened his skin. He wrote about his experiences and how differently he was treated. I think it was back in the '70s if I recall correctly, so you could try and argue that it was a different time. However I feel that many people would say that the same undercurrent of stereotyping still exists in a major way.
The book was “Black, Like Me.”
The same people who wrote the warning for this movie are likely the same ones who would write a warning for our founding documents. They are already trying to convince school children that the founders were a bunch of rich white unitarian slave owners, whose statues should be toppled.
Not sure if the following founders were considered “rich”, but history shows that (and schools rightfully teach) that the
following key Founding Fathers who owned slaves were:
George Washington.
Benjamin Franklin.
Thomas Jefferson.
James Madison.
James Monroe.
John Hancock.
Patrick Henry. (Quoted as the originator of “give me freedom or give me death”). Interesting proclamation for a slave owner and well worth teaching…
One wonders if we shall all be put on a list 200 years from now and shamed across the centuries, for having used fossil fuels.
200 years from now? How about next week!
I'm so very thankful to have grown up before all this nonsense. 'Triggered' is a word for today's whiney, got a trophy for showing up, confused weak humans. We as a society NEED to be triggered, offended, laughed at, as it makes US as individuals think and solidify our place in this word. What is being created is a blind, walk this way at all costs, worthless group of sheeple. I don't even want to think where society will be in even 10 years. Might as well remove the brain organ at birth because it won't be needed, it will all be fed to us. (Matrix, anyone?)
For me, trigger warnings are like the text on food that says whether the product was prepared in a facility that processes peanuts -- a message for a tiny minority who may be harmed. Or that the show contains flashing lights. A small inconvenience to me that may spare somebody else serious harm.
Taking a trigger warning as something attempting interpretation for a mass audience seems to me a total misreading