| Now On |
 |
|
NETFLIX e-mailed that to many subscribers today.
Why? To enrage them even more? Last week, NETFLIX announced it had cancelled the show. It's the latest in a series of cancellations that's angered many.
- @netflix you’re a hoe for canceling daredevil
Deadline: ‘Daredevil’: Netflix Turned A Blind Eye To Viewer Demand By Canceling Marvel Series.
https://deadline.com/2018/12/daredevil-netflix-marvel-studios-luke-cage-iron-fist-jessica-jones-punisher-disney-1202514072/ …
via @GoogleNews
‘Daredevil’: Netflix Turned A Blind Eye To Viewer Demand By Canceling Marvel Series https://deadline.com/2018/12/daredevil-netflix-marvel-studios-luke-cage-iron-fist-jessica-jones-punisher-disney-1202514072/ … via @deadline
We angered a lot of people six months ago when we offered "TV: Is NETFLIX the new DUPONT?" These days, people tend to agree with us. We noted the economic model was not feasible. That's only more true now that they're yet again borrowing money and now that they keep cancelling existing shows -- largely to avoid paying the bumps required. They can pay millions to "TV star" Barack Obama (that's sarcasm) but can't up a show runner's salary by 10%?
NETFLIX is getting deeper and deeper into debt yet has so little to show for it. Over eight billion in debt, in fact, and how long is that going to be allowed to continue? As angry subscribers become former subscribers, how does NETFLIX keep the banks at bay?
It's something they better figure out quickly before they are the new DUPONT. We wrote about it, back in June, because it was true and it was reality. It might not have been pleasing, but we don't do pleasing. We offer a weekly take on the media, a feminist take. Not "the" feminist take, mind you.
Last week’s piece got a lot of
e-mails. Some positive, some not. On the latter, Ty explained to us
that some readers were furious that Norman Lear and ALL IN THE FAMILY
were questioned. Never having taken communion in the Church of Tandem
Productions, we really don’t care that some of you are appalled by the
truth.
And to be clear, that is the truth.
Never having familiarized yourself with it, you might be surprised. But
what we shared was neither new nor novel. We get it, the years since
the show ceased production have led to nothing but Norman
Lear propaganda. Norman is a good producer, by the way. He’s provided
much entertainment. We applaud most of his offerings. But we’re not
the first people to find the show appalling. Caroll O’Connor, for
example, felt the show promoted racism and was
at war with the writers over some of the stuff they wanted Archie to
do.
And it wasn’t just O’Connor. Harrison Ford was offered the role of Mike but turned it down because he found the pilot script racist. The Urban League protested the show. Jabari Asim noted in THE N WORD: WHO CAN SAY IT, WHO SHOULDN'T AND WHY:
At one point, CBS commissioned a study, which found that Bunker's posturing indeed appeared to strengthen racial prejudices, not weaken them.
The Harvard psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint, an African American, argued that Bunker's spite was "dangerous because it's disarming."
The "dangerous because it's disarming" statement appears frequently -- especially in AP reports (such as here) -- but no one bothers to note the doctor made it to Charles Sanders for an article in EBONY in 1972: "It's a very dangerous show because it's disarming. Blacks, for their own survival, should be in a posture of being very angry with bigots, of seeing bigots as enemies -- as people who are dangerous to us. We have to see the Archie Bunkers as our adversaries, feel that the show is so dangerous it should have been taken off the air long ago." It's interesting how the larger press strips EBONY out of the equation. Yet another whitewashing of history -- or Whitewashing.
The CBS commissioned study actually backed the doctor up. So? CBS decided to destroy the study -- realizing that making it public would result in a push for the network to cancel the show. But that was only one of many studies that demonstrated ALL IN THE FAMILY was reinforcing racism. For another study, see Randall M. Miller's ETHNIC IMAGES IN AMERICAN FILM AND TELEVISION. Dr. Alvin Poussaint addressed the topic again in 2001 on CNN:
Well, it depends on how offensive it is and it depends on whether you
are the victim or not. I remember with all -- "All In The Family" -- I
remember that show came on in the 1970s where people in the civil rights
moment in the country were trying get white Americans not to use
particularly derogatory terms against blacks, which were so prevalent at
the time. So it was hard for me when Archie Bunker used those words
to see it as funny. You understand what I'm saying? It was too close.
At the same time I understand that Archie Bunker was satire in a lot
of ways. It didn't just poke fun at one group, but everyone in many
different ways.
I also think Carroll O'Connor was a tremendous comedian, very funny, and that role was the pinnacle I think in his career, but yet, people were offended by that show. But at the same time, there was not even uniform opinion in the black community.
In 1972 the Los Angeles chapter of the National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People gave that show and Archie Bunker their Image Award for improving race relations in the United States, even though there was no proof it was improving race relations or anything else. In fact, some people said it was reinforcing and teaching, particularly children, a lot of bigoted terms that in fact they didn't know existed.
I also think Carroll O'Connor was a tremendous comedian, very funny, and that role was the pinnacle I think in his career, but yet, people were offended by that show. But at the same time, there was not even uniform opinion in the black community.
In 1972 the Los Angeles chapter of the National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People gave that show and Archie Bunker their Image Award for improving race relations in the United States, even though there was no proof it was improving race relations or anything else. In fact, some people said it was reinforcing and teaching, particularly children, a lot of bigoted terms that in fact they didn't know existed.
Had the hype been
challenged in just the last ten years, we wouldn’t be at all surprised
if ALL IN THE FAMILY went the way of AMOS & ANDY – not carried by
any outlet. We're not calling for the show to be banned. Our idea of censorship is "turn the channel." But we're not going to pretend we think it's a show worth watching either.
We're also not going to pretend that the racism issue involving ALL IN THE FAMILY never existed before we wrote our piece last week. The cultural 'expert' CRAPAPEDIA does note that there were “Archie Bunker for
President” pins but they fail to note that this wasn’t a ‘joke’ to the
ones wearing them. The ones wearing the pins and buttons agreed with
Archie. Archie spoke for them. That was the
true key to the show’s popularity. Not
Ty quoted one e-mail where the person
wrote, “You complain about sitcoms being single-cam and here’s one that
was multi-cam and actually funny but you’re ragging on it. Don’t you
realize that every critic in the world loved the show?”
Well, every critic didn’t love it. White male critics – usually straight – loved it.
The whole point of doing a feminist critique is to put out questions and raise issues. We’re not trying to run with The Water Cooler Set. As for the show being funny? No. Sally Strothers is a good sport and that’s about all you can say about her work on the show. Rob Reiner is irritating and hectoring on the show – some compassion on his part might have made the character better. And then there’s Jean Stapleton’s Edith.
When Ralph, on THE HONEYMOONERS, threatens “One of these days . . .,” we never worry for Alice. She smart and surefooted and you know that if Ralph ever did do something, Alice would take care of it pretty quick. We also don’t think Ralph, despite his bluster, would ever actually hurt her.
But watch ALL IN THE FAMILY. Watch it
very closely. Jean Stapleton is wonderful as Edith; however, Edith
always seems at risk. She’s a victim and she’s not very strong. In
many of their scenes, it is easy to worry about Edith’s safety. As PEOPLE magazine noted of Archie Bunker, "He bullies his 'dingbat' wife."
Right now, we live in a time where too many in the entertainment industry feel they have to demonize those who have supported Donald Trump. We’ve never called for that. Some Donald Trump voters are wonderful, we’re sure. That’s not sarcasm. We don’t lump people together. But Archie preached racism. No dog whistles – or claims of dog whistles. He preached sexism. He was made to be the shining example of all the things that are wrong in society and he was written to be admired and loved.
Yeah, we have a problem with that.
And many others did in real time. But we all have other battles to fight and so those voices got silenced and instead we had the megaphone of Norman’s preening ego. And a lot of White people seem to enjoy laughing at racism. So they write pieces at SALON and HUFFINGTON POST about how great the show as and how it changed everything.
A lot of White people do that.
We don’t see a lot of people of color spending time praising the show. Do those whining not notice that? Do they not care that maybe they, as White people, really aren’t the last say on what is or not racism? By all means weigh in, we should all weigh in, that’s the point of a dialogue in the public square. But grasp that maybe you’re not the best judge of what is racism if you’re not the person who would be targeted with it.
BIRTH OF A NATION was praised as ground breaking art at one point; however, even in real time, the NAACP was calling the film out for its racism. The film's narrative is no longer praised -- that's progress.
We would always encourage people to question and we would always caution against assuming that the dominant culture’s narrative is correct just because it’s the popular one.