If the cartoon Coal Black is so racist then...

[gorak]

Why did they portray the dwarfs in army uniforms? And why would they take the time to make Coal Black so cute and so beautiful? Don't you find that unusual? I mean they made her sexy, but no differently than they would have made a white woman sexy, right?

[Daff Doc]

right?

Exactly right! It don't make sense to me either.:sowhite:

It just don't add up!

[Marty26]

Nowadays, the liberal media is insanely sensitive about such things. As long as some ethnic minority is seen in a pre-1970 cartoon, movie, etc. they'll automatically deem it "racist." And even in today's movies, TV programs, etc.; that generally fallacious sensitivity still runs rampant.

[doctoon]

The complaints about COAL BLACK are not just "nowadays" things. The NAACP tried to get the film withdrawn from theaters when it was released sixty-four years ago. The group called the film "a decided caricature of Negro life and an insult to the race." It especially did not like Prince Chawmin's dice-for-teeth.

It didn't exactly help that the black soldiers were depicted as tiny, big-lipped, and out-of-shape. To the NAACP the imagery reinforced the problem of blacks serving in a segregated army, ironically fighting Hitler's race plan. It also didn't help that the official Warner Brothers "release sheet" for COAL BLACK called the film "a dusky satire on Snow White" and said "All the characters are portrayed as darkies."

As for So White herself, while she is more shapely than the usual overweight mammy figure, she is still a washerwoman. Other animated women were seen as "Rosie the Riveter" types--even skinny Olive Oyl. So for So White to be essentially a sexy rural mammy figure instead of a black "Rosie" underscored the segregation that existed back then.

[gdX]

The complaints about COAL BLACK... black soldiers were depicted as tiny, big-lipped, and out-of-shape... she is still a washerwoman.Yup – all the while forgetting that the original storyline features a washerwoman and seven tiny guys, race notwithstanding.

You can't please everybody – then, and now even moreso.

The best that can happen is that this film quietly gets released on home video so we toonologists can enjoy it... but if you seek to have this cartoon celebrated to the point where it's regularly aired on TV like it's no big deal, then you're just asking for pointless confrontations.

GAC fans know it and like it, and that's good enough... we'll get it sooner or later.

:sowhite:

[J. B. Warner]

Someone needs to tell the higher-ups that there's a quick and easy solution to the problem that this and other cartoons present - if you don't like it, just don't watch it.

[doctoon]

Yup – all the while forgetting that the original storyline features a washerwoman and seven tiny guys, race notwithstanding.

That's true. But from what I've seen in the NAACP papers about the film, the stereotyped depictions of black soldiers really upset the group. It took offense to blacks actually dying in a segregated army abroad and being treated like comical "darkies"--as WB said--back home.

Also, while both So White and Snow White were washerwomen, there was no other black female image in animation back then besides washerwomen. Even in SCRUB ME MAMA, the sexy black female figure there sings about washing clothes. So, for So White to be a washerwoman was to be expected more for her being black than for her spoofing Snow White.

[gdX]

Yup, understood and acknowledged.

Coal Black and Scrub Me constitute a legitimate problem for a not-insignificant segment of the population... I'd like to think original intentions were generally good if misguided, and that the filmmakers have made their acknowledgements after the fact... I've at least seen footage of Walter Lantz expressing regret and apologies.

But the films exist and merit preservation – each brings quite a bit more to the table than controversy.

It is entirely plausible to get restored copies in the hands of film afficionados in an understated manner – with referential framing if necessary – while at the same time keeping them from easy-access broadcast TV.

:sowhite:

[Chow Hound]

while at the same time keeping them from easy-access broadcast TV.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a problem for ANY classic cartoons today. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Semaj]

Any point where you're censoring or banning a film with questionable racial content is about the same as banning any book that covers pre-Civil War slavery or the WWII Holocaust.

No matter who hates what, it all boils down to history.

[Larry T]

There's a quick and easy solution to the problem that this and other cartoons present - if you don't like it, just don't watch it.


Hear, Hear J.B.!!

But there many, MANY people who think that if they formulate an opinion, then the whole world has to agree with them.

I've been subjected to hours of media which I would love to deem 'beyond appropriate'.... but since I can't, and am not willing to, waste time trying to change the world, I empower myself by choosing to not watch it.

As I mentioned before, the mentality is like ordering dog food off a menu at a restaurant, eating it all, and then blaming the restaurant because it tasted so awful. The restaurant just offered it- the patron made the choice to order and eat it... nobody is at fault, until the patron starts thinking that everybody else agrees with his/her personal tastes because he/she didn't like the flavour....

[wackyoverkhaki]

Well, y'all already know my position on this cartoon.


Yeah I know I don’t like the idea that just because a character is sexy and black that she’s automatically an “exploited exotic sex object”- that's racist. I mean do you hear any complaints about Betty and Red and Jessica? I hear a couple haters complaining and accusing about how she got away from the hitmen, but I really think that was just a double entendre, you know, catering to people with different tastes, the first simplest meaning that she just kissed them, for people that want to keep her innocent (like yours truly;) ), and for those hound dogs overseas, they can choose to believe it was something else. All the directors like Clampett and Avery pulled these types of creative double entendres so they could cater to the biggest audience possible and please everyone, as well as poke fun at the hypocritical censors. They did the same types of things in some Betty Boop cartoons and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I think double entendres are so clever and you don’t see much of that anymore- you just see nothing but plain old smut since censors became virtually nonexistent. Exceptions put aside, ever since the 70’s the bars have just been dropping lower and lower in both creativity and taste. That may sound priggish, but it’s the truth.


Annnnd...yes people, she was a washerwoman, I'll give you that. However, aside than that she was no different that a sexy white girl. She got the Betty Boop sweetheart treatment, as well as the all-American private cap-wearing pinup girl cook, which doesn't fall short of a Rosie-type variation. I think this was a positive contrast to the hypersexualized exotic "jungle woman". Black patriotic military pinups were also feature in The Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company 'B'. I can also think of some other pretty black cartoon girls that weren't washerwoman- like Goldilocks, the lindy-hopping swing sweetheart, the girl from the Jasper toons who was a sultry bombshell torch-singing diva, and the girl from Scrub Me Mama wasn't actually a washerwoman herself, but a spunky urban swing singer. And So White was a country girl, so what? I can think of another country girl Daisy Mae of the Dogpatch comics that was basically her white anologue. A wonder if she drew any inspiration from her because she has the same figure and fashion sense.:) :sowhite: :)

(Man is it just me or are the colors of the smilies looking funky today?)

[wackyoverkhaki]

Nowadays, the liberal media is insanely sensitive about such things. As long as some ethnic minority is seen in a pre-1970 cartoon, movie, etc. they'll automatically deem it "racist." And even in today's movies, TV programs, etc.; that generally fallacious sensitivity still runs rampant.

No kidding! I couldn't have worded it better myself. Well anyway, a fan of the toon wrote a great essay about it, I wish I could've met him myself because I 95-100% agree on everything he said- it's nice to know that several blacks and whites take the same stand together on this issue. One part of the article especially stood out and I thought you guys would get a total kick out of it; I know I did;):

"Take for example Disney's Ichabod and the Headless Horseman. If the characters were painted brown, here's a Politically Correct movie review that we could expect to see:

'Racist Disney: Walt Disney's latest release, Ichabod and the Headless Horseman, is the most offensively racist film yet from Hollywood, being a virtual encyclopedia of racial clichés and stereotypes. Ichabod Crane, the lead character, is the most derogatory black caricature since Stepin Fetchit. Ichabod is depicted as excessively ugly, and displays gangly long limbs with awkwardly large hands and feet. He is lazy, scheming, vain and superstitious. Even the movie's title song pointedly ridicules Ichabod's build and character. The action takes place in a small and (we are pointedly told) superstitious community named Sleepy Hollow. Brom Bones, the local black buck, is singularly deceitful; the rest of the men are depicted as dummies. Katrina, the excessively buxom female lead, exploits black women. Rated G.'"


In case if anyone else is interested you can read the entire essay here
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Essays/Milt_Gray/Gray_on_Coal_Black.htm

[fan4life]

Nowadays, the liberal media is insanely sensitive about such things. As long as some ethnic minority is seen in a pre-1970 cartoon, movie, etc. they'll automatically deem it "racist." And even in today's movies, TV programs, etc.; that generally fallacious sensitivity still runs rampant.


Personally, I think the cartoons of the censored 11-and I've seen all of them at one time or another- were fun and lighthearted and enjoyable. I never bought into any other context other than it being a vintage cartoon, a piece of Americana, sheer entertainment and nothing more though the artwork and animation and writing were top-notch as always. And yes, Coal Black is a pretty character, full of fun and life. Just as all the characters in the Merrie Melodies library.

As for the remarks concerning the so-called liberal media, there's no such animal. Even certain neoconservative pundits will admit that it's something of a myth.

[Treadwell]

I wonder what all the millions of real-world washerwomen out there, of any race, would have to say about their honest day's work being considered an example of denigration.

Who doesn't like a nice, hot stack of flapjacks? Or some well-prepared rice on your plate? There's nothing at all dishonorable about preparing a nice meal. And yet there are those who object to Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben. Makes no sense.

[Marty26]

One thing about Coal Black where I can see people deeming it "racist," though, is with the accents of the characters. I was actually a little shocked when I saw the cartoon's opening with "Mammy" asking So White what kind of story she wanted to hear, and she responded "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs" in that stereotypical African American way of speaking. And let's not forget how Prince Charming was called "Prince Chawmin'."

[FleischerFan]

To pretend that you cannot see the racial stereotyping in "Coal Black & De Sebbin Dwarves" (note the ebonics in the title even, er, "eben") is disingenous at best.

Let me get a few things on record right at the top. I love this cartoon. I own a print of this cartoon on VHS. I hope someday to have a restored copy of this cartoon fresh from the Warners vaults on DVD. But it is naive to think that there wouldn't be those who would find the cartoon offensive - and with perfectly legitimate reasons.

To focus solely on the depiction of the title character is also disingenuous. The Dwarves themselves are the thick-lipped, bug-eyed racial stereotypes then common in the media. Prince Charming is depicting as a zoot-suited Harlem gambler.

One of the points of those who object to the cartoon is that there were no positive depictions of blacks in the mass media at the time. Sure, Ichabod Crane was depicted as gangly and lazy, but how many other white cartoon characters were not?

Where is the black equivalent of Popeye in the cartoons of the 30's-40's-50's? Or Superman? Or even Bram Bones?

I was very happy to see some of the long supressed Betty Boop cartoons on the "Definitive Collection" VHS box set of a few years back. But I'd be lying to you if I didn't admit that I cringed at some of the base racial jokes they contained (I still have trouble watching "Making Stars"). And any reasonable adult should be able to understand why these cartoons are not currently shown on broadcast television.

Yes, these cartons should be preserved and it would be nice to have them available to those of us adults who love cartoons, but the companies that own the cartoons are not purely historical repositories. They are companies engaged in commerce with the general public and, as such, they need to generate as much good will with the general public as possible. Inviting negative publicity is rarely a good move for those companies.

I'd like to see Disney finally release "Song of the South" in America on home video (a far less racist film than "Coal Black"). I'm looking forward to the finally uncensored version of "Mother Goose Goes Hollywood" Disney is releasing this year. I hope we eventually get "Pop-Pie A La Mode" on the upcoming Popeye DVD sets. But I think making today's media the villain in all this is wrong-headed. Today's media did not place those racial caricatures in the original cartoons. And the owner of any piece of property (which is what these films really are) should be free to do with their property whatever they please in a free, democratic, capitalist society. Or are you arguing a more socialist view that these films really belong to "the masses" and not to private industry?


And I, for one, am getting tired of people who think the word "liberal" is automatically a part of the word "media." Last time I looked, the ownership of media in this country has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of some very conservative corporations.

This same "liberal media" also gives us noted "liberal" Rush Limbaugh and his endless legion of imitators, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the entire Fox News operation. My observation is that the media in this country is a pretty equal opportunity employer. ;)

[fan4life]

It's all a part of America's cultural history, these cartoons. Let's not condemn something that so richly contributes to that, and these cartoons do indeed contribute to that history. They were all well-written, well-acted, and well-drawn; I suspect that rather than going out of their way to offend-and I do not believe they were looking to offend- they were simply trying to tell stories and entertain. That's the beauty of Merrie Melodies, anybody could watch them and enjoy them.

Let's put it into perspective, and I'll use myself as an example. I'm New Orleans-born and raised, it was my home until last year, until certain circumstances of a meteorological nature forced me to leave there. Now, I've seen movies and other entertainment media that portray my hometown and the people therein in a less-than-favorable light. Consequently, I'm also Southern, and have also seen media that also depict Southerners in general in negative terms. And I suppose if I was watching these things in a context other than sheer entertainment, I may take offense to these. But I don't, because I keep it all in context. Do I call for a boycott or a ban on these? No. It's just a movie or TV show, and pure entertainment. And keeping it in that context will spare everyone from any grief or anxiety or angst.

[ThePeterNetwork]

Isn't this basically what Whoopi Goldberg explains, annoying as it is, on LTGC3?

And I've always wanted to see what the reactions toward Coal Black would be from a primarily African American audience.

[J Lee]

The problem is that because of some of the truly derogatory images and actions given to black characters in some cartoons of the 30s and 40s, it's really hard today to differentiate between the nastier images and the ones that merely are just standard operating procedure for cartoon characters. So there's no seperating something like "Jungle Jitters" or "Angel Puss" from "Malibu Beach Party" or Chuck Jones' Inki cartoons.

In part, that's why you can have problems with the dwarfs' characterizations in "Coal Black", while no one has problems with the Private Snafu or the Mr. Hook cartoons of the same era, even though the former is a total foul-up and the later is almost Fuddian in his cluelessness (the Stepin Fetchit dwarf is probably the biggest source of the trouble, since it recalls some of the more unpleasant images in other shorts. There's nothing really wrong with the other ones, unless you're just against the concept of vertically-challenged soliders being shown at all).

As for the other parts of Clampett's film, the prince's front teeth and the offer to wipe out Japs for free by Murder Inc. are the two other things that will keep the short from ever showing on TV or from Warners releasing it on DVD without some heavy explanation/condemnation of the more sterotypical parts.

[Marty26]

The problem is that because of some of the truly derogatory images and actions given to black characters in some cartoons of the 30s and 40s, it's really hard today to differentiate between the nastier images and the ones that merely are just standard operating procedure for cartoon characters. So there's no seperating something like "Jungle Jitters" or "Angel Puss" from "Malibu Beach Party" or Chuck Jones' Inki cartoons.

In part, that's why you can have problems with the dwarfs' characterizations in "Coal Black", while no one has problems with the Private Snafu or the Mr. Hook cartoons of the same era, even though the former is a total foul-up and the later is almost Fuddian in his cluelessness (the Stepin Fetchit dwarf is probably the biggest source of the trouble, since it recalls some of the more unpleasant images in other shorts. There's nothing really wrong with the other ones, unless you're just against the concept of vertically-challenged soliders being shown at all).

As for the other parts of Clampett's film, the prince's front teeth and the offer to wipe out Japs for free by Murder Inc. are the two other things that will keep the short from ever showing on TV or from Warners releasing it on DVD without some heavy explanation/condemnation of the more sterotypical parts.

I have a question about black stereotypes in the 30s and 40s: What was the deal with black people playing dice anyway? Were they stereotyped as having a gambling addiction (a stereotype that's probably long gone) or what?

[LooneyLover81]

Speaking of that bit about Disney's "Ichabod and the Headless Horseman," (?) does anyone know about Hanna-Barbera's "The Scooby-Doo Show" (1976) episode entitled "The Headless Horseman of Halloween," to see if it was as racist as Disney's theatrical release? It originally aired on October 9, 1976.

Ben (LooneyLover81)

[Do-Do]

Speaking of that bit about Disney's "Ichabod and the Headless Horseman," (?) does anyone know about Hanna-Barbera's "The Scooby-Doo Show" (1976) episode entitled "The Headless Horseman of Halloween," to see if it was as racist as Disney's theatrical release? It originally aired on October 9, 1976.

Ben (LooneyLover81)

That was a joke.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

And I, for one, am getting tired of people who think the word "liberal" is automatically a part of the word "media." Last time I looked, the ownership of media in this country has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of some very conservative corporations.

This same "liberal media" also gives us noted "liberal" Rush Limbaugh and his endless legion of imitators, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the entire Fox News operation. My observation is that the media in this country is a pretty equal opportunity employer. ;)
Amen, brother!

[J Lee]

Censorship today comes more from the politically correct left than from the politically correct right -- the Rev. Donald Wildmon did get CBS to yank the Bakshi-John K Mighty Mouse off the air for inferred drug refernces, but that was 18 years ago, and his rantings today (or those of others like Jerry Falwell) are mostly laughed off as an impotent joke. The heyday of the PC right was actually during the period the theatricals were being made and the Hays Office enforced pre-release censorship. Over the past 35-40 years, most of the censorship comes from anti-gun/anti-violeance advocates and folks such as Ted Turner, who think they're protecting people from racist images like Speedy Gonzales, even though the character remains popular in the U.S. and foreign Hispanic communities. And when you actually are the major stockholder of the company that owns the cartoons, you have clout.

The best example of the change to PC problems on the left from PC problems on the right is Freleng's "Clean Pastures". When it came out in 1936, nobody cared about the images of the musicaians charactured, but the cartoon ran afoul of the Hays Office over fears that it was mocking religion. Today, no one would be bothered by that (well, maybe with the exception of the Rev. Wildmon), but the cartoon is in ever more trouble do to its un-PC drawings, which keeps almost everyone from seeing it (other than the exerpts in "Speaking of the Weather" ) or hearing its great musical score, unless you go out and buy the "That's All, Folks!" CD of WB cartoon scores.

[J Lee]

I have a question about black stereotypes in the 30s and 40s: What was the deal with black people playing dice anyway? Were they stereotyped as having a gambling addiction (a stereotype that's probably long gone) or what?

The dice, along with other items like watermellon or switchblades, were sterotypcial references to black not being able to handle money, being violent and liking foods that were associated with the Old South (AFAIK, none of the cartoons ever got southern fried chicken in there as a racial reference, but it was along the same lines).

Since gags like those were also seen in feature films and live action shorts, and before that, vaudeville and regular theatrical shows, the audiences of the day were supposed to be attuned to the references and laugh accordingly. Today, people who aren't angered by the stereotypes and don't know their backgrounds are just puzzled about why they were supposed to be funny in the first place.

[captchucky]

To pretend that you cannot see the racial stereotyping in "Coal Black & De Sebbin Dwarves" (note the ebonics in the title even, er, "eben") is disingenous at best.
... ...
And I, for one, am getting tired of people who think the word "liberal" is automatically a part of the word "media." Last time I looked, the ownership of media in this country has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of some very conservative corporations.

This same "liberal media" also gives us noted "liberal" Rush Limbaugh and his endless legion of imitators, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the entire Fox News operation. My observation is that the media in this country is a pretty equal opportunity employer. ;)

I find that I agree with Fleischerfan an awful lot of the time. I think there should be a separate rating on old films that contain material that is offensive to modern viewers but left intact as a matter of historical record. I do think it is important that such material should not be erased from memory.

[Marty26]

The dice, along with other items like watermellon or switchblades, were sterotypcial references to black not being able to handle money, being violent and liking foods that were associated with the Old South (AFAIK, none of the cartoons ever got southern fried chicken in there as a racial reference, but it was along the same lines).

Since gags like those were also seen in feature films and live action shorts, and before that, vaudeville and regular theatrical shows, the audiences of the day were supposed to be attuned to the references and laugh accordingly. Today, people who aren't angered by the stereotypes and don't know their backgrounds are just puzzled about why they were supposed to be funny in the first place.

I think the fact that black stereotypes are so different now (again, they've changed from being lazy Mississippi-bread farmers to urban rap-loving "gangstas") makes a lot of the jokes in these cartoons all the more puzzling to today's audiences.

[doctoon]

(AFAIK, none of the cartoons ever got southern fried chicken in there as a racial reference, but it was along the same lines).

The only cartoon that comes close to a chicken reference is the very end of Van Beuren's DIXIE DAYS. After Uncle Tom and the rest of the slaves sing "Dixie," a rooster crows and the slaves proceed to chase it.

Also, what was the Terrytoons cartoon FRIED CHICKEN (1930) about, for anyone who has seen it?

[fan4life]

I think the fact that black stereotypes are so different now (again, they've changed from being lazy Mississippi-bread farmers to urban rap-loving "gangstas") makes a lot of the jokes in these cartoons all the more puzzling to today's audiences.

And in another 30 years, what do you want to bet that THOSE cartoons will be on a new list of controversial cartoons of the past, left to molder in a studio vault, never to see the light of day?

[Cartman]

And in another 30 years, what do you want to bet that THOSE cartoons will be on a new list of controversial cartoons of the past, left to molder in a studio vault, never to see the light of day?
Then we'll have a whole new stereotype of black people.

[fan4life]

I find that I agree with Fleischerfan an awful lot of the time. I think there should be a separate rating on old films that contain material that is offensive to modern viewers but left intact as a matter of historical record. I do think it is important that such material should not be erased from memory.

No ratings or labeling for me. It's bad enough that some of my music has a warning sticker on it when I buy it, so where would one draw the line with that sort of thing?

[FleischerFan]

I really don't see the problem with "warning" stickers on products. It's the equivalent of ingrediants stickers on food packaging.

You may know what some CD or DVD contains, but a lot of people don't. As a parent and an uncle, I have often been asked to buy music or video as gifts. Hence, I have consulted those stickers as a guide. Not every parent has the same standards for their kids. For example, I am far more lenient than my older sister, who in turn, is more lenient than my younger sister.

In the case of cartoons, how many adults have already pigeonholed cartoons as "kiddie stuff?" Say Warners does release "Coal Black" on a DVD set and some parent picks up the set - never knowing what kind of cartoon "Coal Black" is because it has been out of public view for decades. Their kids are watching the DVD unsupervised with some of the neighbor kids. Would you want to be the WB PR person who has to handle that embarassing nightmare?

You may wish for a different world, but this is the one we're stuck with. Disney has released controversial short subjects with "warning" intros from Leonard Maltin. Warners stuck a little baby toe in the water with their recent "warnings" from Whoopie Goldberg. If that's what it takes to get this material into the hands of collector's, so be it.

[Marty26]

Then we'll have a whole new stereotype of black people.

As with every other race.

I'd venture to guess that, in some cultures, white people are also stereotyped.

[fan4life]

I really don't see the problem with "warning" stickers on products. It's the equivalent of ingrediants stickers on food packaging.


Fleischerfan, I respect your opinion, as much as I enjoy reading your posts (and I do respect and enjoy your posts), but I must regretfully but respectfully disagree with you on that one; that kind of labelling upon movies and music are nowhere close to food packaging, not even in the same area code as food packaging. Not even in the same solar system....

Food packaging gives one some advice on the nutritional value of its contents and how to prepare the food product. Warning labels on media are sort of a Scarlet Letter as it were, a potential stigmatizing of the artist and/or of their product both personally and artistically. And it is a Catch-22 of the worst kind if one is involved in the performing arts. They can't get their projects off the ground unless they agree to be "labelled" or at least take it down a notch, and yet in many cases, they can't get their projects sold or distributed if labelled. And taking it down a notch kinda waters down the content....

The warning labels, to me and so many others, are an arbitrary decision as to what is and what is not considered acceptable, and to my way of thinking, obviously made by a small cadre of people who think they alone can set some moral tone upon society. Who gets to ultimately decide what is obscene or objectionable, or potentially controversial, and what gives them that right anyway? Matters like this are best left to the individual, not to a committee.

This form of labelling is also rather impractical, in my humble opinion (and don't even get me started on movie ratings or even the V-Chip). Those entertainments in terms of movies and music that are restricted become a little more desirable and arouse the curiosity of those who are denied these entertainments. And people will find a way to get it regardless of a label.

If I'm denied the fundamental consumer right to go buy the latest Snoop Dogg CD, I'll still find a way to get it, regardless of that warning label. If I'm denied entry to the latest Scorsese film, I'll still find a way to see it, no matter the rating. And if there's a certain classic US theatrical cartoon (or even a group of them) from the 1930's-1940s that's just suddenly stirred up controversy many years after its release but before my time, and I'm still curious enough to want to find out why it was banned, I'll find a way to see it for myself. And then I'll decide for myself if any of these things are offensive to me alone. And if they are, I just won't deal with these specific things. No label or warning sticker can quench the human curiosity, and it sure can't replace personal choice.

Labelling is not a substitute for doing one's own research into a matter. To find out what an entertainer is all about requires researching their body of work through television, magazines, the net, and yeah, it's hard work as much as it is rewarding, but parenting can be that way sometimes.

[captchucky]

No ratings or labeling for me. It's bad enough that some of my music has a warning sticker on it when I buy it, so where would one draw the line with that sort of thing? I'm not talking about anything more than another rating. ...like G, PG, PG-13, etc. Probably something like "H" for historical.

[fan4life]

I'm not talking about anything more than another rating. ...like G, PG, PG-13, etc. Probably something like "H" for historical.

And where would we draw the line, as in enough ratings? There'd be no end to it. There'd always be "just one more" rating, or "just one more" label, so we add "just one more," and another and another. In my humble opinion, the MPAA is obsolete and ought to be dissolved as the irrelevancy that it's proven itself to be. It's proven itself to be out of touch with what regular people want to see and experience in terms of movies, and just as out of touch with regular people and their values.

[captchucky]

And where would we draw the line, as in enough ratings? There'd be no end to it. There'd always be "just one more" rating, or "just one more" label, so we add "just one more," and another and another. In my humble opinion, the MPAA is obsolete and ought to be dissolved as the irrelevancy that it's proven itself to be. It's proven itself to be out of touch with what regular people want to see and experience in terms of movies, and just as out of touch with regular people and their values.
I think something like a special rating for old film could open up the release of a lot of old movies. This would simply allow parents to see that an old film that seems to be aimed at children, may no longer be appropriate for the originally intended audience.

[janiepooh34]

The rating systems we have today are a joke and there is nothing you can do to improve them. Everyone has a different opinion as to what is offensive and what is violent, etc. You can never make everyone happy with any system.

[fan4life]

The rating systems we have today are a joke and there is nothing you can do to improve them. Everyone has a different opinion as to what is offensive and what is violent, etc. You can never make everyone happy with any system.

Which ought to be the appropriate pretext to scrap alot of it, (if not all of it) as so much of it is incrediobly outdated and irrelevant and so out of step with the times. People change, tastes change, and as a result, methods of creative expression changes, and as a result, the mediums of movies and music changes. Ratings systems ought to reflect those changes accordingly, but the powers-that- be that impose such ratings don't seem to be as able or as willing to change with the times as everyone else seems to be.