A Serious Question --- Why Is Sanford And Son and All In The Family Okay And Amos And Andy Not (1 Viewer)

[uncledougie]

Very fine essay, MartinP. I recall watching Amos ‘n’ Andy as a child; it was when it was in syndication, as I wouldn’t have been quite old enough during its 1951-55 original time frame. I can readily admit that it’s difficult to put oneself in the mindset of a member of any minority, where life experiences may leave one sensitive to onscreen stereotype portrayals. But as a child, this show not only didn’t make me feel disdain for the characters, it made me very fondly amused because the comedy was well written and the actors were really memorable. The situations were in the same vein as I Love Lucy or My Little Margie or any number of shows where the characters got into ridiculous predicaments, and all was resolved by the end of the half hour. Likewise, I think Disney is wrongheaded about Song of the South, which I saw upon it’s re-release at age four, and was captivated by the wonderful James Baskett as Uncle Remus. What a marvelous character whose aura was positive and uplifting. It’s a real shame that youngsters can’t be allowed to view this film, with appropriate disclaimers giving whatever context necessary for viewers to understand that a 1946 movie isn’t going to reflect 21st century sensibilities. But that doesn’t mean the positive artistic qualities cannot be seen and appreciated by broad minded audiences. Same goes with Amos ‘n’ Andy. Too bad so many retreat to their corners with closed minds rather than look for what’s valuable, or at least entertaining, in older, dated, films and TV shows.

 

[RobertMG]

Very fine essay, MartinP. I recall watching Amos ‘n’ Andy as a child; it was when it was in syndication, as I wouldn’t have been quite old enough during its 1951-55 original time frame. I can readily admit that it’s difficult to put oneself in the mindset of a member of any minority, where life experiences may leave one sensitive to onscreen stereotype portrayals. But as a child, this show not only didn’t make me feel disdain for the characters, it made me very fondly amused because the comedy was well written and the actors were really memorable. The situations were in the same vein as I Love Lucy or My Little Margie or any number of shows where the characters got into ridiculous predicaments, and all was resolved by the end of the half hour. Likewise, I think Disney is wrongheaded about Song of the South, which I saw upon it’s re-release at age four, and was captivated by the wonderful James Baskett as Uncle Remus. What a marvelous character whose aura was positive and uplifting. It’s a real shame that youngsters can’t be allowed to view this film, with appropriate disclaimers giving whatever context necessary for viewers to understand that a 1946 movie isn’t going to reflect 21st century sensibilities. But that doesn’t mean the positive artistic qualities cannot be seen and appreciated by broad minded audiences. Same goes with Amos ‘n’ Andy. Too bad so many retreat to their corners with closed minds rather than look for what’s valuable, or at least entertaining, in older, dated, films and TV shows.

Another great really great written essay - Amos an Andy was a first along with Buelah featuring our wonderfully talented actors and actresses of color in starring roles. SOTS too featured talented actors/actresses of color - they were talented sadly their work is not being seen which could be used as a teaching tool too. I did get to see SOTS on a reissue and had the laser we never read anything into it except a well made OLD movie. I got to see the Cosby Show filmed in person one show when Danny Kaye was a guest then I got to meet Cosby in his dressing room one Thursday night after filming his later show- NOT going into his troubles - but he was a great person to spend time with and no denying his talent. NBC promoted his classic show and it changed the TV landscape more Father Knows Best not Good Times. We continue to improve as a country and we learn - so we should see the product of the years gone by.

 

[Mark-P]

Also 40 years later, guess which movie modern gay men like better, Cruising or Making Love?

I’m dying to know the answer to this, Martin. Being of the old-fashioned variety, I honestly don’t know!

 

[uncledougie]

Different animals altogether as to Cruising or Making Love. The latter is certainly dear to my heart, but Arthur Hiller isn’t the stylist William Friedkin sought to be (not that the rather idealized romance lent itself to such flourishes). I thought the controversy at the time of initial release gave Cruising more credit than was due. It wore its daring subject matter on its sleeve while actually pulling its punches in many regards, trying to have it both ways.

 

[Clark Green]

This is a topic that will obviously be viewed differently based on age, race, personal experiences and perhaps other factors. I don't know [or care] what sort of controversy may be brewing around the topic today. What I do know is I don't come to HTF for this sort of fare. If it interested me [which it does not] I'd search the web for more appropriate forums to air my views.

Then no need to view this particular thread or any other you aren't interested in sir.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

A Serious Question --- Why Is Sanford And Son and All In The Family Okay And Amos And Andy Not

"Amos 'n' Andy" comes out of the minstrel tradition, beginning as a radio program with the characters voiced by white actors Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll, who were familiar with the minstrel tropes. When RKO made a feature film, it featured Gosden and Correll playing the characters in blackface.

When the franchise made the jump to television, the characters were recast with black actors. Alvin Childress and Spencer Williams were undeniably trailblazers for black performers in the new medium, but they were also hemmed in by the franchise's minstrel roots; people expected Amos and Andy on television to speak like they did on the radio, so the starting point for the performances by Childress and Williams had to be basically be an impersonation of what Gosden and Correll had established. It accepted as a given that its black characters would reflect the dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, or happy-go-lucky archetypes that minstrel shows had trafficked in.

"All in the Family", by contrast, is a satire of white working class racism. You're not laughing with Archie Bunker, you're laughing at him. Archie's ignorance and prejudices were a means of confronting and interrogating points of view that otherwise wouldn't have been scrutinized. Meathead and Gloria were also subjects of ridicule, but the clash of their ideologies and opinions drove those conversations.

"Sanford and Son" is a bit more complicated. Fred, Esther, and Grady are all undeniably heightened characters. But the generational conflict between Fred and Lamont also sparks a similar type of conversation about real issues.

"Good Times" is even more complicated, a sitcom that mostly attempts to provide an accurate and nuanced portrayal of a poor, inner-city black family. But then you have Jimmie Walker as J.J., who is a stock sitcom character at best, and a minstrel character at worst. He often feels like he's on a completely different show than the rest of the family.

All three Lear shows allowed the black characters more nuance and complexity of thought and action than "Amos 'n' Andy" did.

 

[John Dirk]

Then no need to view this particular thread or any other you aren't interested in sir.

This comment is obvious and therefore unnecessary. You don't own the forum; we are all guests here, so speaking in an authoritative fashion like this amounts to nothing. The OP and I had already "agreed to disagree" in a respectful manner. I don't see a post where he requested you to come to his rescue.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Well why are the black crows in The Wiz ok but the black crows in Dumbo not?

 

[Sam Posten]

Mods are definitely watching this thread closely and won't put up with anything over the line. Also, let's stop trying to elevate things with additional what ifs and what abouts.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A Serious Question --- Why Is Sanford And Son and All In The Family Okay And Amos And Andy Not

Well, I would not say one is OK and the others are not. Basically, I think the only way to look at these shows is in the context of the times they were made because that tells you what the goals of the shows were and what they were attempting to do.

I will point out what I think is an important difference between Amos and Andy and the other two shows you mentioned and that is simply that for Amos and Andy there was no attempt at creating a discussion of where we were as a country and society whereas in the other two shows you mentioned there certainly was.

Amos and Andy was meant as pure comic entertainment to make the audience for the show laugh. The other shows were comedy designed to make you think and ponder what went on with a message about where we might be going as people.

When you take a look as well at the times they came out of the 1970s shows were coming after social movements in our country that altered us as a society and also had the intention of bringing people of color into living rooms each week to show we are all alike and have the same issues no matter our skin color.

So, honestly I don't think you have an apples to apples comparison there.

My stance on the shows is we should not try to hide or bury our past. We should be able to watch it, hopefully understand the context of the times these shows were made, and hopefully learn something in the process.

Times and social norms change. You can't change the past by erasing it and our future does depend on how we understand our past and learning from our mistakes. You can't learn from mistakes if you don't examine them.

 

[Clark Green]

Well said.

Especially this sentiment (that is sadly happening) "we should not try to hide or bury our past."

 

[TravisR]

Times and social norms change. You can't change the past by erasing it and our future does depend on how we understand our past and learning from our mistakes. You can't learn from mistakes if you don't examine them.

Respectfully, I think that's true for actual human history (something far more important that some people are trying to bury today) but society is not in danger if we don't see Song Of The South or reruns of Sanford And Son, etc. anymore. That's not to say that those things should be buried but to simply point out that a movie or TV show is of far less value than real history and the horrors that were committed.

 

[RobertMG]

Respectfully, I think that's true for actual human history (something far more important that some people are trying to bury today) but society is not in danger if we don't see Song Of The South or reruns of Sanford And Son, etc. anymore. That's not to say that those things should be buried but to simply point out that a movie or TV show is of far less value than real history and the horrors that were committed.

I always felt best censorhip put it out there and let pple watch or not too bad but all of these are a sign of their times ----- but those who want to see them should have the chance

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well said.

Especially this sentiment (that is sadly happening) "we should not try to hide or bury our past."

The other aspect I did not touch upon is that there is strictly a business decision at play in many cases like this, in that a company does not want to associate itself with something made by people many years ago which in these times no longer conforms to our current social standards. In this case I don't see it as erasing history, just not continuing to attempt to profit from something many people may see as negative.

In the age of social media the attacks on the company or people that decided to release a show or film that may be considered objectionable by today's standards can be intense and costly. So, lawyers will advise the way around that is to just not release the show or film.

I can totally understand this idea and why the lawyers advise this. However, I don't think this is the best course of action when it comes to entertainment properties. In most cases I think shows or films do allow for more open discussion and are far less harmful than say, statues or symbols that celebrate negative aspects or people from our past.

I just don't think a show or a film is as harmful as typically they were made to entertain not to inflict damage.

People can debate that and the stereotypes in these shows but today I would think that anybody watching a show like Amos and Andy would know it is a fabrication and not representative of the people portrayed.

I think the way to releasing shows or films like this would be potentially to do so through having a "historical" line of releases where the proceeds of sales of these releases go toward a charity or museum that works toward preserving and explaining this history.

Of course, that impacts the owner of the property's profit motivation so you would be relying on their good will and intentions more than "You can make a buck off of this."

 

[RobertMG]

The other aspect I did not touch upon is that there is strictly a business decision at play in many cases like this, in that a company does not want to associate itself with something made by people many years ago which in these times no longer conforms to our current social standards. In this case I don't see it as erasing history, just not continuing to attempt to profit from something many people may see as negative.

In the age of social media the attacks on the company or people that decided to release a show or film that may be considered objectionable by today's standards can be intense and costly. So, lawyers will advise the way around that is to just not release the show or film.

I can totally understand this idea and why the lawyers advise this. However, I don't think this is the best course of action when it comes to entertainment properties. In most cases I think shows or films do allow for more open discussion and are far less harmful than say, statues or symbols that celebrate negative aspects or people from our past.

I just don't think a show or a film is as harmful as typically they were made to entertain not to inflict damage.

People can debate that and the stereotypes in these shows but today I would think that anybody watching a show like Amos and Andy would know it is a fabrication and not representative of the people portrayed.

I think the way to releasing shows or films like this would be potentially to do so through having a "historical" line of releases where the proceeds of sales of these releases go toward a charity or museum that works toward preserving and explaining this history.

Of course, that impacts the owner of the property's profit motivation so you would be relying on their good will and intentions more than "You can make a buck off of this."

Proves we here are all respectful and can question things in a positive way -- you are all the best - one company in the vid biz does it right thats warners with their disclaimer about the films or toons that might offend stating to hide them is wrong too

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Respectfully, I think that's true for actual human history (something far more important that some people are trying to bury today) but society is not in danger if we don't see Song Of The South or reruns of Sanford And Son, etc. anymore. That's not to say that those things should be buried but to simply point out that a movie or TV show is of far less value than real history and the horrors that were committed.

Well, I do think we can see history through what we made as entertainment in the past. How much value we place on those shows or films varies. I think in many ways entertainment from the past is an easy way to get a look at where we once were as a society. I would not advocate teaching entertainment history over historical events, people, moments that changed us but I think there is room for both. Looking at the old shows or pictures is just sort of a shortcut to see what the social norms were.

Hopefully, one big thing people would get out of Amos and Andy is how far we've come. The pendulum can and does swing back and forth through time. Sadly, we get to witness that in these times.

 

[RobertMG]

Well, I do think we can see history through what we made as entertainment in the past. How much value we place on those shows or films varies. I think in many ways entertainment from the past is an easy way to get a look at where we once were as a society. I would not advocate teaching entertainment history over historical events, people, moments that changed us but I think there is room for both. Looking at the old shows or pictures is just sort of a shortcut to see what the social norms were.

Hopefully, one big thing people would get out of Amos and Andy is how far we've come. The pendulum can and does swing back and forth through time. Sadly, we get to witness that in these times.

Well, I do think we can see history through what we made as entertainment in the past. How much value we place on those shows or films varies. I think in many ways entertainment from the past is an easy way to get a look at where we once were as a society. I would not advocate teaching entertainment history over historical events, people, moments that changed us but I think there is room for both. Looking at the old shows or pictures is just sort of a shortcut to see what the social norms were.

Hopefully, one big thing people would get out of Amos and Andy is how far we've come. The pendulum can and does swing back and forth through time. Sadly, we get to witness that in these times.

Mentioned this show Buelah this would be great in a legit release The show gets 545K views on youtube there is interest in quality shows like this

 

[TallPaulInKy]

As posted previous, "the NAACP mounted a formal protest almost as soon as the television version began, describing the show as "a gross libel of the Negro and distortion of the truth". In 1951 it released a bulletin on “Why the ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy’ TV Show Should Be Taken Off the Air.”
However they were a small organization then and the show had a respectable run on network TV then went into an even more successful run in syndication by CBS.
Eventually with the strong civil rights movement in the early 60s, led by Dr. Martin Luther King as a spokesperson, the show was pulled from syndication as a bow to the NAACP and it's power.
The organization has gotten bigger and never acknowledged the fine black actors that performed in the show. Most all of them were seasoned veterans of screen and the live stage, before being selected to be on Amos N Andy.
The actors could not find work anymore, one of the black actors mentioned he got a bit part in a western and received more fan mail than the star. Hollywood studios did not like that, so he never worked again.

It's really sad.

 

[RobertMG]

As posted previous, "the NAACP mounted a formal protest almost as soon as the television version began, describing the show as "a gross libel of the Negro and distortion of the truth". In 1951 it released a bulletin on “Why the ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy’ TV Show Should Be Taken Off the Air.”
However they were a small organization then and the show had a respectable run on network TV then went into an even more successful run in syndication by CBS.
Eventually with the strong civil rights movement in the early 60s, led by Dr. Martin Luther King as a spokesperson, the show was pulled from syndication as a bow to the NAACP and it's power.
The organization has gotten bigger and never acknowledged the fine black actors that performed in the show. Most all of them were seasoned veterans of screen and the live stage, before being selected to be on Amos N Andy.
The actors could not find work anymore, one of the black actors mentioned he got a bit part in a western and received more fan mail than the star. Hollywood studios did not like that, so he never worked again.

It's really sad.

NAACP does great work but it would be great if they changed course and wanted these seen the actors broke the color barrier to star in a hit tv show that was a major shift from the film years when they were relagated to maids and butlers or props looking scared at ghosts

 

[RobertMG]

This comment is obvious and therefore unnecessary. You don't own the forum; we are all guests here, so speaking in an authoritative fashion like this amounts to nothing. The OP and I had already "agreed to disagree" in a respectful manner. I don't see a post where he requested you to come to his rescue.

John my inbox is full they say I reached my 50 conversations u can message me thru my facebook the big parade history project and I will give you my email