I know there are a lot of people who absolutely loathe this film (granted, the thought of someone "loving" it is disturbing), but I think that anger is a little mis-directed. Should we be shocked and grossed out by it? Of course. But I don't think the point of "Goodbye Uncle Tom" is merely to make people queasy, as so many of these reviews suggest. One could certainly claim that this is nothing more than a smut film, but that's fairly reductionist considering how depraved American slavery actually was.
White Americans (particularly if you grew up in the south) have typically been taught a hyper-sanitized version of our slave-holding, racist history. Perhaps we find it offensive because we don't want to believe that it's accurate. No matter how cruel and disgusting it is, there is nothing shown in this movie that white Americans didn't actually do to black Americans (rape, brandings, castrations, torture, auctions, pseudo-scientific studies, etc) over and over for generations. These exact atrocities occurred in America for centuries. And as implied by all the smiling, sadistic slave owners and the happy-clappy score, very few white people thought there was anything wrong with it. It was accepted and encouraged. Of course we should be outraged, but how about at our ancestors rather than the guys that actually had the 'nads to show it?
My one real qualm with the film is that aside from the Nat Turner sequence at the end, there's very little representation of the resistance, resilience, and pride that so many African Americans maintained through these horrific years. The Kunta Kintes of the time are completely written out, although I recognize that including those stories might distract from the overall point of the film, which I assume is that the self-righteous, "Land of The Free" was actually a twisted, obscene hell hole for most of its existence. But Franco Prosperi also said in an interview that they wanted to show that "the black man was not aware of his situation. He had no sense of who and where he was," etc. They wanted to make a point of making the slaves look helpless and stupid, and it's not only inaccurate, it's lowkey racist.
I still recommend "Roots" for younger audiences, the squeamish, or if you're looking for the black side of the story. But if you can handle the on-screen degradation, the nudity, and the general nightmarish, hopeless state the film leaves you in, it is for my money the most accurate, most undiluted portrait of African-American slavery to ever have been made. But don't be mad at the film-makers. Be mad at the people whose acts inspired this movie.
P.S. I recommend the Italian version "Addio Zio Tom" over the American. It includes more about the civil rights movement and makes a little more sense (if you don't mind subtitles).
White Americans (particularly if you grew up in the south) have typically been taught a hyper-sanitized version of our slave-holding, racist history. Perhaps we find it offensive because we don't want to believe that it's accurate. No matter how cruel and disgusting it is, there is nothing shown in this movie that white Americans didn't actually do to black Americans (rape, brandings, castrations, torture, auctions, pseudo-scientific studies, etc) over and over for generations. These exact atrocities occurred in America for centuries. And as implied by all the smiling, sadistic slave owners and the happy-clappy score, very few white people thought there was anything wrong with it. It was accepted and encouraged. Of course we should be outraged, but how about at our ancestors rather than the guys that actually had the 'nads to show it?
My one real qualm with the film is that aside from the Nat Turner sequence at the end, there's very little representation of the resistance, resilience, and pride that so many African Americans maintained through these horrific years. The Kunta Kintes of the time are completely written out, although I recognize that including those stories might distract from the overall point of the film, which I assume is that the self-righteous, "Land of The Free" was actually a twisted, obscene hell hole for most of its existence. But Franco Prosperi also said in an interview that they wanted to show that "the black man was not aware of his situation. He had no sense of who and where he was," etc. They wanted to make a point of making the slaves look helpless and stupid, and it's not only inaccurate, it's lowkey racist.
I still recommend "Roots" for younger audiences, the squeamish, or if you're looking for the black side of the story. But if you can handle the on-screen degradation, the nudity, and the general nightmarish, hopeless state the film leaves you in, it is for my money the most accurate, most undiluted portrait of African-American slavery to ever have been made. But don't be mad at the film-makers. Be mad at the people whose acts inspired this movie.
P.S. I recommend the Italian version "Addio Zio Tom" over the American. It includes more about the civil rights movement and makes a little more sense (if you don't mind subtitles).