Should all art be revisited to update it with a modern take?
That version doesn't even make sense-period.A couple of people got together to "redo" the lyrics to make it less controversial.
As you can tell from the comments, it wasn't that well received.
I think it's fine to revise and make new versions from a different outlook. That doesn't change the original, it just makes more art.
A lot of things are being revisited while questioning how appropriate they are with a modern understanding. Certainly a lot of literature is revisited for themes that may be outdated, but typically in an environment when those themes can be discussed.
Within the past few years many schools named after historical figures have been renamed because the legacy of those figures. For instance, there's controversy over the naming of a middle school in Palo Alto, California for David Starr Jordan. He was a noted educator, but also a proponent of eugenics and forced sterilization of those deemed unworthy.
It's one thing to use something for inspiration because it makes you feel something, happens all the time. It's altogether different to use art specifically to remake it because someone suddenly deems it inappropriate or offensive. In that case, make your own piece from your own inspiration with the sweat of your own brow.
Then what do you make of the line about "just a cigarette more" being modified? Most contemporary versions change that line.
There's a issue of the controversial movie The Birth of a Nation, which pretty much anyone will concede was a great piece of filmmaking with a troubling message. There have been variations on this, including someone who provided a new soundtrack to what was a silent film, but using the now public domain images. There was a movie from last year that used the same title as an ironic twist to tell the story of a slave rebellion.
I think changing the line was unnecessary.
The title "Birth of a Nation" isn't trademarked.Then what do you make of the line about "just a cigarette more" being modified? Most contemporary versions change that line.
There's a issue of the controversial movie The Birth of a Nation, which pretty much anyone will concede was a great piece of filmmaking with a troubling message. There have been variations on this, including someone who provided a new soundtrack to what was a silent film, but using the now public domain images. There was a movie from last year that used the same title as an ironic twist to tell the story of a slave rebellion.
Disney clearly thought it was inappropriate. There was a link to the Idina Menzel/Michael Bublé version, which has children in the video lipsyncing to the music. How awkward would have been to have someone underage voice about smoking one more cigarette?
I thought you asked for my opinion? I do my own thinking and whatever Disney does or does not find appropriate doesn't factor in to my thoughts.
Then I'll be more direct. How appropriate do you believe that having a child voice having "just a cigarette more" would be?
The title "Birth of a Nation" isn't trademarked.
IMDb has 83 hits on the phrase "Birth of a Nation" in which people have used that phrase in their movie titles, the names of TV show episodes, documentaries, etc. There's even a British movie that is called that but is also known as "Tales out of School" and is based on corporal punishment. There's a 3-pary documentary series called Folk America that has an episode called "Birth of a Nation". That documentary is about "American folk music, tracing its history from the recording boom of the 1920s to the folk revival of the 1960s."
As far as irony---the guy who directed/wrote the screenplay, etc said he used the same title as the 1915 version on purpose. But if he hadn't explained that he did it on purpose as a direct ironic link to the 1915 version I don't know how many people would have actually thought that unless someone else had said something. At the very least anyone can use that phrase and it have no correlation to the 1915 movie. In other words the irony comes only because that was what the intent was. If there was no intent for it to be an irony of the 1915 film then there wouldn't have been any irony.
It's a shame Disney was left with only a Sophie's Choice dilemma. If only they were free to have an adult sing or if there were any other song choices available.
I have always loved that song, but at the same time have always considered it wildly inappropriate. I can think of popular songs from almost every generation that were wildly inappropriate. I grew up with my dad singing "Helen Brown" and "A Huggin and a Chalkin" to me. (from the 20's and 30's) Then there were the years of singing along to "Afternoon Delight" on the radio as a child!
I do think it's worth talking about because it's an issue worth talking about. No means no. That doesn't make the song less catchy.
I'm overall very conservative by nature, but if I had a nickel for every song, movie, joke, book, etc. that was wildly inappropriate that I've still enjoyed - I'd have a lot of nickels!
Oh - and I like the updated more conservative versions too. I have no problem with entertainers playing what is appropriate for their audiences.
Hmm..you're talking about a subset of culture--not the majority. IDK really if a student of American history or filmaking actually would..unless that was something they were taught to associate with.Still - the DW Griffith movie is probably the one that would come to mind first for anyone who is a student of American history or filmmaking.
I don't think at this point the title can be trademarked. That it wasn't around the time of the 1915 movie allowed it to be in the public domain after its use for other works.
It was Lea Michele, who I believe is in her late 20s.
The Menzel/Bublé version wasn't from Disney. It was released through Warner Bros, which was Menzel's record label.
Why are you posting as if I claimed Lea Michele was a child? You raised the issue of Disney and child singers and the inappropriateness of a child voicing those words. You asked me a question and I answered your question. I also did not raise the issue of the Menzel/Buble version. What you're doing now is twisting our discussion to suggest I said something or made a claim I did not make.
Or Cyndi Lauper's She Bop. Except for that one line about going blind, I wouldn't have a clue it was about what it's supposed to be about."Skyrockets in flight...afternoon delight..." I can only imagine what my parents thought of preteen me singing that song. lol.