"Baby It's Cold Outside", for modern audiences

[disykat]

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.

 

[bcla]

Should all art be revisited to update it with a modern take?

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 Certainly a lot of literature is revisited for themes that may be outdated, but typically in an environment when those themes can be discussed.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.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

That version doesn't even make sense-period.

If you want to leave he's saying that's fine....okay he was fine with it to begin with why do you keep making excuses for why you should leave..again he was fine with it to begin with.

I get why people don't like that. I know they were trying to make it about consent but it really should have just started and ended with "I really can't stay", "Baby I'm fine with that" and that be the end of their version. To go on and on to me gives a mixed signal. If your take on the song is no means no and that's what they are trying to convey then you don't need all the extra lyrics showing all the various ways of saying no...cuz the dude is already saying he understands that from the beginning.

 

[cabanafrau]

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 Certainly a lot of literature is revisited for themes that may be outdated, but typically in an environment when those themes can be discussed.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.

 

[Snap Crackle Pop]

The song is gross and creepy, no thanks.

 

[cabanafrau]

There are a lot of songs, movies, television programs, paintings, sculptures, etc. that I don't like and/or don't see the appeal of. I'm not forced to partake of any of them. I dislike fruitcake and don't eat that either. Easy peasy.

 

[bcla]

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.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

I see no issue with a filmmaker who disapproves with Birth of a Nation to use their disapproval of the message and their appreciation of the craft of filmmaking used to make it as inspiration to craft their own great piece of filmmaking with a message they stand behind. Their feelings about Birth of a Nation may have lit the flame of their inspiration, but surely they can craft their own film that stands on its own merits.

 

[bcla]

I think changing the line was unnecessary.

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?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

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.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

 

[bcla]

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?

 

[cabanafrau]

Then I'll be more direct. How appropriate do you believe that having a child voice having "just a cigarette more" would be?

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.

 

[bcla]

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.

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.

 

[bcla]

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.

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.

 

[punkin]

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.

"Skyrockets in flight...afternoon delight..." I can only imagine what my parents thought of preteen me singing that song. lol.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

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.

If you actually go to IMDb you'll see the variety of ways people have used "Birth of a Nation"..I mean how is history of folk music from the 1920s to the 1960s related to a movie from 1915 about the KKK for example. Or the film "Israel: Birth of a Nation" which is about Israel's first years. Or the episode of "How to Start your own country" entitled "Birth of a Nation".

In your example that's makes sense the correlation since it was explicitly made that way and was told to audiences that's how they should think about it but that is certaintly not how people actually view the phrase especially in 2017 when it's been used all over the place.

As far as my trademark comment--that wasn't to mean can it be trademarked it was just meant that there is no one usage of the phrase (or parts of the phrase). People say Kleenex for example even when it's not the brand Kleenex. People do not say "Birth of a Nation" and only mean the 1915 film.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

 

[bcla]

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.

I never said it was a child singer in the Disney special. I was asking about the video for the Menzel/Buble version, which uses child actors. You somehow conflated that with the Disney special, which is when I brought up it was an adult doing the singing.

 

[L&Lfan]

"Skyrockets in flight...afternoon delight..." I can only imagine what my parents thought of preteen me singing that song. lol.

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.