From what I can tell, he certainly seems to have been the type to have willed it so. As I said on the show, I expect today he would have been a UA-cam or IG influencer type.
Larry Parks did a greet job; James Cagney was actuality approached to play Jolie but turned it down as he didn’t want to be typecast after ‘Yankee Doodle’ so Larry stepped in. William Demarest a great character actor perfect as Steve Martin
Jolson was never a "minstrel" in the traditional sense. (tambo and bones) He was a Broadway star who worked in blackface. He portrayed a character, Gus Jackson, who was black. At NO TIME was he demeaning, nor can we find ONE example from the black community that objects to Jolson's (or anyone else's) use of blackface. Jolson was, in fact, a hero among blacks. Look it up.
They do not mention that Jolson was ahead of his time in Race relations. As early as 1911 he put up money for the first Black written play on Broadway. He helped the careers of Black performers, he socialised with Blacks, being a Jew from Russia, experienced prejuduce and because of that felt a kinship with Blacks.
Some of my research did reflect that and I started to say that, but I held back for two reasons: a) I wasn't 100% sure about my sources and felt it might have been apocryphal and b) this show wasn't about that really. We are a movie review show and though I wanted to provide the guys a certain freedom to express themselves, I wanted to make sure we brought things back to the craft of the movie itself - completely independent from Jolson himself, his career or his political implications. But it's good to know that there is potentially some truth to that. Thank you for mentioning it and of course, thank you for watching!
This is very good and much appreciated over all, considering you three gentleman are coming from a now, contemporary aspect, not from one of a generation of the Jolson Story or Jolson himself certainly! Your many references to the racial content [ blackface etc ] does not include specifics, only that it was used and is now considered terrible!. As for suggesting he stole from Black Culture? in connection with him going to an African American Jam session, and then used, or stole their music etc? If you watch the movie again you will note he went back to Dockstader minstrels, and just mentioned hearing a new music, which had no real connection to the thread of the movie. One wanting to make something of such a thing would expand it into something not just there! As for the blackface minstrel thing it puts that into context where the Dockstader character refers to Parks [ Jolson ] Minstrels are a tradition, they have been singing the same songs for 50 years. Jolson was just on his way then, about 1910. Of course the movie is not done in exact time sequence, correct specifics on much anything else! Real names etc. That is mentioned in the follow up Jolson Sings Again. "I will give you a mess of things, you mix them around as you lik'e' ' What matters is the singing a man done'! and that is the greatest thing about both movies, Al Jolson had not made a record for 13 years, but did sing on radio, shows and movies over all that time, but his new deeper voice heard on the Bio Pics and radio resulted in a string of million selling discs, and albums, including the first ever album and extended play in history to sell over a million. On records and radio Jolson was for the last 5 years of his life in his 1960's the Biggest star in Entertainment AGAIN! There is a move to get both Jolson/Story Sings again out on blue Ray,with extras. Efforts like this here can only encourage that.. thanks again! Check out www.jolson.org Criterion to get the Bio Pics on Blu Ray and the many other Jolson Facebook sights etc. AS for the blackface thing.and I am not suggesting, even though it is taken out of proportion, that it IS not problematical now, without proper research into it. But still Al Jolson's most watched you tubes all contain blackface!
@@iandaniels8386 Yes! Should have said in his 60's,. not in the 1960's Yes he did pass in October 23 1950., and as you mention he was the biggest star of the 1920's, That began before to be exact, he became big about 1912. That is the problem with it all. He Just goes back so far, and other than in print there is no physical evidence of his real on stage eminence. An audience rapport that, despite all the bells and whistles to come later has never been equaled. movies, radio shows and records, give some idea, but they date back so far, much of it, particularly the early material, due to lack of quality and obvious dated !911!! Well what can you expect? The later material, particularly in the 1940's still holds up OK today, the Big Band type standard material like After Your Gone, I only Have Eyes for you etc, that Mike Buble, etc still do. Like you note though the Jolson Story goes back 75 years, and it was based on a career that began over 40 odd years prior to it's making. With all the different eras, idols, phenomenons etc etc we have had in all that time, the fact that 3 guys of your vintage think it worthwhile to do something like this says SOMETHING! Good luck with all your endevours!
I certainly agree that there is a fine line between cultural appropriation and being inspired by. Certainly other musical artists like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Beatles or perhaps even Eminem have been inspired by black culture as well as opposed to someone like Pat Boone who simply remade the same music. Where Jolson fits on that line is up to others to decide, but the film may complicate matters by the way it sets up the inspiration. I can see how Max got that idea from the film, though I didn't feel similarly. I'll let Max address that himself if he gets a moment, but I'm more inclined to agree with you. As to the last point in the paragraph, as someone with a UA-cam show, I don't know how much stock I put into YT views to make points about people's interests or preferences. There's a certain randomness to the algorithm that makes it unreliable in that sense. Thank you for watching and I appreciate the feedback. Very useful!
@@jjgittes9 I indeed appreciate sincerely your consideration of a reply, and the common sense approach of discussion. Everybody's assessment. conclusions, understanding of , likes or dislikes of things does have much to do with the time they were born into, or the influences, and the culture around them. Re the blackface, or mixing of the races thing, is something that is certainly now, complicated, confusing, and generally presented as BAD! One thing is certain as an Entertainment mode it is long gone! As for the recent use of it, just for a suggestion of a dark complexioned person, that I feel there is no need for AT ALL! The use of it as a theatrical stable that goes back hundreds, even thousands of years, is of course more in depth and variable, and not always as something as only for bad, or the wrong intentions. Of more recent times are Kiss insulting white People? or David Bowie with his make up, and others? I realize slavery and other aspects can be added to the time when Blackface, minstrel was most prominent, and as time has progressed, that all gets compounded together, but there is also the other side to it, which is the coming together of the different races, cultures, in all these troubled times to produce magic, taking from one another. In the early 1950's Leadbelly, I believe a negro Prisoner,?wrote Irene Good Night which became a huge Folk HIT, for the weavers and others, and later they [ Weavers, and later Tokens and others, The Lion Sleeps tonight was from African origin? It has gone on through history. The General line used with everything that was wrong about Blackface was that it makes dark skinned people inferior, failures, in human, dim witted, slow, lazy etc etc. Yes in some instances, the same as for the 3 stooges. Marx Brothers. laurel and Hardy and others. BUT if anybody knows anything about AL JOLSON, or cares to examine it further he was entirely the opposite of all these suggestions of how minstrels depicted non white skinned human beings. I actually heard him before I saw the Bio Pics or even photos in blackface or not, So it was the voice that initially grabbed me! There is blackface in Both Bio Pics yes,but certainly not to the extent one imagines, in fact in all Jolson Movies, non blackface is the norm. Amazing though you tubes of his ones with blackface are the most viewed. Many in the core Jolson interest bases believe he would get better exposure and be appreciated more generally if some how the blackface aspect was eliminated, or at least admit it was all wrong! I do agree don't BOLD - Highlight, Focus on it Too much, as it was in the past but don't dismiss it entirely. It was part of his time, an ingredient he used in a most positive artistic way that was nothing to do with insult and put down! For that to be condensed in a minute or two have a look at the clip of toot Toot Tootsie from Rose Of Washington Square on You Tube. I do thank you sincerely for letting the likes of me, be involved in these discussions, and I will follow on with further postings of your's that look most interesting. I suggest others do too! As for Jolson, blackface, minstrels, the whole thing to all I suggest instead of accepting what is too often the first description now, He IT was no good, both Stole from Blacks etc etc Look into it further at www.jolson.org and other Sights, books, you tubes etc of those that have examined it all from a balanced historical aspect, not just from one that is the safest one, that of going along with the perceived contemporary one! Good luck with all your projects!
I really enjoyed this video. There are things i agree with and things that i don't. But i appreciate that people like yourselves are talking about one of my favorite films. Jolson was actually not a racist himself. Check out the video on him by todayifoundout, he did a lot of work for civil rights. On a related topic, both the jolson biopics are on youtube in 1080p if you look for them. I remastered them both last year. You mentioned how it might have needed a disclaimer at the start like the warner bros cartoons. Well i added them. look for "jolson remastered" on youtube if you plan to cover the sequel. You might as well see it in the best quality available. It's better quality than the official dvd release.
Thanks, Tom! It's quite possibly your version of the film that we watched to prepare. And thanks for adding the disclaimer. That sounds like a great idea and hopefully helpful to some to not be distracted by anything and just enjoy the craft of the film.
It is most gratifying to see the discussion that this has stimulated, and some strong views of opinion. As I may have mentioned previous we are strongly influenced by the time we are born into, or even where that may be. From as long as I can remember being born in 1950, and up until maybe near on the turn of the century, here in Australia, there was not one word in print, in the media, or any way in ref to the use of blackface being wrong, completely insulting and or anything else being mentioned as being anything bad about it.. Nor was there any refs to things that could be connected to it, laws of the times and practices like Blacks not allowed on stage etc. Some things are just totally wrong, such as that! The use of changing one's skin color to represent another goes back a long time, centuries in fact prior to the beginning of minstrels, generally said to be in the 1820's by a guy called Thomas Rice, but a guy called Fredericks something? I think a west Indian, light skinned used it in dramatic plays and things prior. It is generally claimed that Rice saw a black man drunk, a slave, or prisoner, or such? and mimicked a funny dance he did, The story varies to things like this Gentlemen ran on stage, in the raw when Rice did his act, and other, but like everything that dates back so far, specific details are impossible to substantiate. Lets look at it that this Rice Guy initially did do it as a mock, representation to a person whom history tells us was part of a people that in the United States then were considered inferior. THAT FACT IS WRONG! but then we have to look at it a bit further on. Blacking up or minstrels became a class act, it grew from basic ridicule to something that more than not represented a very entertaining product. OK this guy Rice might have for a while got laughs for mocking a black man, but audiences would have soon woke to that, and the effect would have worn off, because it would not have been too long before audiences would have looked at it, as he was mocking himself. Whatever color those audiences were. A good question that I have constantly asked myself even, of more recent times when the general representation of blackface, minstrels is one of horror full stop! is why did it happen at all? or why did not the reverse happen? Blacks whited up? Well often that did happen, and still does, such as with the Australian aboriginal. Both come back to the question that will always be within the preference of the individual were both or either done for insult, or for Entertainment purposes, which even being done for comedy. Is still intended for praise. The time the minstrel show developed was in a time of lots of immigration of Africans and others, and YES much of it at a time when they were, as much history suggests treated WRONG! but it to me is too simplistic to say that all that used the theatrical make up, the music, much of the mannerisms etc of blacks did it totally out of insult and to show that they were inferior to white people. Al Jolson himself recalled in about 1946? that he was the first person to use blackface in a main roll on Broadway, others might have in a small part, a butler or something? before. Even his manager of then, makes a point about Al getting a part in a big Broadway Show, and in blackface, one in fact to open a great new theater on Broadway - the IMMORTAL WINTER GARDEN! Looking back at it now, it easy to conclude so what?? That was his thing.Audiences were white anyway?? He was not really a black guy, It would all be accepted, but then even a representation of a non white person would have been, in fact was a problem. OF course a bit later non whites produced and did there own shows etc, quite justifiably so, helped very much by the endeavours and the MONEY of one Mr Al Jolson, and when a negro chorus sang with him in Big Boy 1925 it was not long before a fully racially mixed one was used in the great Historical production SHOWBOAT! OF course in the times all this was going on, things were not perfect, that is why there was depression and wars etc. There will always be those who will never try to meet on a level ground of understanding or compromise, and because of color and much other will always be adamant that they are right, and, or better than others. Of more recent times it is safer to go along with the general rhetoric that blackface was bad, a total insult, something that made blacks look idiots etc etc!! Even the slightest research into it, indicates that this is not totally true in every instance. Take for example the sequence of Mammy in the Jolson Story, YES if viewed in an out of context way, and just focusing on the fact Parks is wearing blackface, and clouding one with all the negativeness out and about it now, It would take away the real possibility of enjoyment! BUT not if viewed in the context of the plot of the movie, Here is his big Broadway chance, and I don't care what anybody thinks but the great gestures and all Larry implies, and that thrilling JOLSON voice never fails to give me goose bumps! YES it is not reality. Mammy came out in 1920 But it does not matter, nor does it that he is in blackface, but either way, like with Rockabye and others done later with out it, the thrill to me is just the same! I think that even if Jolie did not do blackface, or not as much things would be much difference, he is seen now as the Elvis, the Micheal Jackson the Mick Jagger and anybody else that is still thrown up of more recent times HE is anyone of them of 70 or more years ago, THAT IS WHERE the real problem lies of LONG AGO!! TODAY'S MOGULS, big business is NOT GOING to promote something, or body, that is not contemporary or more recent! THE FIRST THOUGHT IS OBVIOUS THAT MARKET IS DEAD! THEY DON'T BUY ANYTHING! I personally don't think there is any need for disclaimers etc, if people want to they will find out about the blackface thing, the NOW angle without going too far, the real truth they will have to dig somewhat deeper. If they are a necessity instead of putting things into a general broad context it was totally wrong etc etc! Which is a generalized one, note the specifics of the movie whatever that does particularly indicate it is being discriminatory to certain peoples etc?
Surely, the mere definition of "racism" is to belittle or discriminate against a race of people. Can someone please tell me where Jolson through the use of blackface is indeed belittling or discriminating against black people. Anyone who takes even the shortest amount of time to study the life of Jolson will realise that Jolson, by using blackface, was in-fact paying homage to the music of the South and indeed black people. Isn't it about time that people started thinking for themselves instead of always looking for something that just isn't there?
Well I hate speaking for the others, but I feel confident all three of us are thinking for ourselves. We're pretty independent. But as a reminder, we are a movie review show and though it's conversational in nature and that conversation led us to talk about some of the social implications of the film from a modern perspective, we weren't really about judging Jolson himself or his career. And while I wanted to allow the others a certain freedom to express themselves, I did try to consistently bring it back to the movie. So this wasn't about studying Jolson per se. As to Jolson's intentions in performing in blackface, who's to say? As I said on the show, he certainly wasn't alone. He was just the most successful. Thank you for watching! I, for one, appreciate the feedback.
@@jjgittes9 Agree with and certainly well said the who's to say bit. Accessing something from a time long before any of us were around can only be coming from conclusions taken from interpretation of actual events presented in print, movies and elsewhere of years after the event.
I think the thing they missed most in this discussion is the singing of the great man himself! What about how great Al Jolson sang these songs for the movie?? He became one of the biggest singing stars on earth again after these movies! By the time these movies were made we had Bing Crosby and even Frank Sinatra but Jolson was able to capture the audience again and he was in his late 50s by this time! What a legend he was.
Exactly Steve! Parks and all involved do a superb JOB! but the moment the Columbia lady with the lamp disolves into " LET ME SING A FUNNY SONG etc etc, and the mood change LET ME CROON A LOW down Blues to lift you etc etc THERE is NO Doubt it is the Jolson VOICE that is the icing on the cake. the catalyst that will dominate this movie, and introduce the magic of Jolson to a new generation!
@@stevewilliams3492 Steve think of Singing in the rain. Easter Parade, Yankee Doodle Dandy. My Wild Irish Rose and other musicals , or bio picks generally about some Entertainment star They are great too, and always use the voice of the main actor or some times a ghost? Try and imagine the voice of Fred Astaire James Cagney, Gene Kelly, or even the voice of Larry Parks himself in The Jolson Story/Sings Again.Even popular singers around then Como. Hames or even Crosby or Sinatra? If any of this had of happened it still could have been successful for a while BUT I doubt very much it would have sparked a come back of interest in the voice of and a then legend that has lasted ever since!
@@margaretthomas8899 Without Al Jolson singing in that movie it would never have been as good because simply none of those you mentioned could even come close to the singing style of Al Jolson! I also love Bing and Frank and Dean Martin and they were all greats in there own right but nobody had that extra thing that Al Jolson had! Al Jolson was like the Elvis of the first half of the last century! I was not even born until 14 years after Al died but i have ears and i listen to everything....There was no one like Al Jolson......
@@stevewilliams3492 and @Margaret Thomas - I can agree that Jolson had a unique sound and because of that, I can agree that it was the right choice to have Parks dub him for the film. I disagree that was the choice that made the film enjoyable to me. As I state in the video, it's the performances and the nuance that they found in their respective characters that makes the film special. As to why we didn't talk about Jolson's singing more, we did mention I believe that it was his voice, but beyond that, it didn't seem like there was more beyond that to discuss especially given that we had a lot more to get to. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, this show was not about Jolson, but about the film. That doesn't seem to have sunk in with any of the commenters, but I assure you while they are related, the are still very different things.
"As seen through today's eyes." Means to me, "as seen through extremely bigoted, myopic, and uniformed, eyes." Ugh. Racist??? I challenge you to view, "Big Boy," which is the only film version of an actual Jolson Broadway vehicle and find ONE MOMENT where you can point to that says, "Oh, that's Jolson is being SO RACIST!"
It was a week ago or so, but I don't remember anyone ever calling Jolson himself racist. I certainly never did. I think it was just the practice of blackface specifically that was discussed. Furthermore, this discussion is not really about Jolson himself. This is a movie review show about the biopic from 1946. Jolson's life comes up as a tangent, but that's not what this about. But since you brought it up, I have seen Big Boy, but I have also seen Wonder Bar, which features a number toward the end (I believe) which features innumerable racial stereotypes which African-Americans have objected to. And so that sequence in particular is highly racially charged. But film is a collaborative artform so that in and of itself doesn't suggest that Jolson himself was racist. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. But there is a difference between art and the artist and some of the art that he left behind is hurtful to certain groups.
@@jjgittes9 You attempt to squeeze through a very tight space but fail: you say you're discussing the film, not Jolson, but the film is Jolson's life, and you show pictures of him in blackface while discussing the racist nature of the movie. Jolson life is NOT a tangent, as you would like it to be, but the very meat of the movie, and so, you DO make the point that Jolson himself MUST HAVE been racist due to his use of blackface. Certainly the "Going to Heaven on a Mule," scene in Wonder Bar is unbearable, but Jolson didn't write it, he didn't produce it, direct it, etc, etc, etc... To him, it was just another blackface role. On the whole I guess I would have liked more on Jolson's benevolence towards blacks, only because the subject of racism is brought up, which, by the way, it needn't have been. That was a choice. thanks.
@@LazlosPlane I disagree that Jolson's life is the meat of the movie because most of it just isn't true. Which is fine because I thought the movie was good. For me personally, I think the actual events of his life are indeed tangential - at least to what I wanted to talk about, but I do not do the show alone and the others did feel like it was more relevant and I didn't want to outright dismiss them. That's not how we do things. But if you listen carefully, you'll see that I am consistently trying to steer the conversation back to the film itself. Or at least that's how I remember it - feeling frustrated that we were getting off-target. And I did say in my previous comment that film is a collaborative art form and did not vilify Jolson for Wonder Bar. As to the benevolence towards blacks, I did have it in my notes and thought about mentioning it, but I wasn't 100% sure about my source and I felt like we were running long so I opted to try and get back to the discussion about the craft of the film. It was a choice in the moment and we've been doing these shows long enough not to worry about all that we didn't say. We can't get it all in. One last thing - who's to say what needs to be brought up. I promise you I did not want to discuss racism on this show, but the others did and that's their prerogative. If they felt like it was relevant, then yes, it's their choice, but one they have every right to.
I don't know if you guys, of a younger demographic than me, born in 1950, access The Jolson Story as being overall somewhat flowery, prim and proper, honor thy mother and father, children should be seen and not heard, all the traits, the attitudes that were the thing in those pre youth revolution days. As a kid I was not allowed to watch Ozzie and Harriot, when I was about 9? YOUR NOT WATCHING THAT BOGIES, ROCKING AND ROLLING STUFF. MY mother would say. IT IS ABOVE YOUR HEAD. [ RICKY NELSON ? ] The Jolson Story, was made in the mid 1940's, based on earlier times, but. like other movies of that time depicting earlier, it sort of gives an impression nobody even Burped in those by gone days, to the point of just BEING unrealistic. It is said by some AL had a foul MOUTH, and more problems than one wife leaving him. I am not suggesting. then, now, or whenever? things should, could be taken to the other extreme, than the very nice nostalgic. sweet movie we have, just that more recent generations might respond a bit more to something toughened up a bit, or at least more realistic to life? Any thoughts please anybody?
Easy there, tiger. If you watch carefully, I agree with you in that I'm not sure it qualifies as cultural appropriation and if you scroll through these comments, I've repeated that to others. However, I won't speak for myself, but those guys are incredibly intelligent. Jim won on Jeopardy, for Pete's sake.
@@jjgittes9 Oh! He won on Jeopardy! Well, now, that makes a WORLD of difference!!! Wow! "Those guys," don't know * $)^ about blackface or minstrelsy or, for that matter, Jolson. But I will listen again. If I can take it. Tiger.
@@LazlosPlane I only mention Jeopardy as a reaction to the word stupid. It may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does seem to require a certain amount of intelligence. As I didn't have access to SAT scores and GPAs, it seemed like an easy, recognizable thing to point to. As to myself, I feel confident about my level of intelligence, but if I came off as stupid, I certainly have to re-evaluate my approach because that doesn't reflect our goals for the show. Quite the opposite. But I think the take-home point here was that just because you disagree with him (as I did), them or us doesn't by nature make them stupid.
Jolson would have been popular in any era I’m sure
From what I can tell, he certainly seems to have been the type to have willed it so. As I said on the show, I expect today he would have been a UA-cam or IG influencer type.
Larry Parks did a greet job; James Cagney was actuality approached to play Jolie but turned it down as he didn’t want to be typecast after ‘Yankee Doodle’ so Larry stepped in. William Demarest a great character actor perfect as Steve Martin
Jolson was never a "minstrel" in the traditional sense. (tambo and bones) He was a Broadway star who worked in blackface. He portrayed a character, Gus Jackson, who was black. At NO TIME was he demeaning, nor can we find ONE example from the black community that objects to Jolson's (or anyone else's) use of blackface. Jolson was, in fact, a hero among blacks. Look it up.
Yes Demarest is seen in ‘Jazz Singer’ sitting down at a table before Jolson starts singing in ‘Coffee Dan’s’
They do not mention that Jolson was ahead of his time in Race relations. As early as 1911 he put up money for the first Black written play on Broadway.
He helped the careers of Black performers, he socialised with Blacks, being a Jew from Russia, experienced prejuduce and because of that felt a kinship with Blacks.
Some of my research did reflect that and I started to say that, but I held back for two reasons: a) I wasn't 100% sure about my sources and felt it might have been apocryphal and b) this show wasn't about that really. We are a movie review show and though I wanted to provide the guys a certain freedom to express themselves, I wanted to make sure we brought things back to the craft of the movie itself - completely independent from Jolson himself, his career or his political implications. But it's good to know that there is potentially some truth to that. Thank you for mentioning it and of course, thank you for watching!
This is very good and much appreciated over all, considering you three gentleman are coming from a now, contemporary aspect, not from one of a generation of the Jolson Story or Jolson himself certainly! Your many references to the racial content [ blackface etc ] does not include specifics, only that it was used and is now considered terrible!. As for suggesting he stole from Black Culture? in connection with him going to an African American Jam session, and then used, or stole their music etc? If you watch the movie again you will note he went back to Dockstader minstrels, and just mentioned hearing a new music, which had no real connection to the thread of the movie. One wanting to make something of such a thing would expand it into something not just there! As for the blackface minstrel thing it puts that into context where the Dockstader character refers to Parks [ Jolson ] Minstrels are a tradition, they have been singing the same songs for 50 years. Jolson was just on his way then, about 1910. Of course the movie is not done in exact time sequence, correct specifics on much anything else! Real names etc. That is mentioned in the follow up Jolson Sings Again. "I will give you a mess of things, you mix them around as you lik'e' ' What matters is the singing a man done'! and that is the greatest thing about both movies, Al Jolson had not made a record for 13 years, but did sing on radio, shows and movies over all that time, but his new deeper voice heard on the Bio Pics and radio resulted in a string of million selling discs, and albums, including the first ever album and extended play in history to sell over a million. On records and radio Jolson was for the last 5 years of his life in his 1960's the Biggest star in Entertainment AGAIN! There is a move to get both Jolson/Story Sings again out on blue Ray,with extras. Efforts like this here can only encourage that.. thanks again! Check out www.jolson.org Criterion to get the Bio Pics on Blu Ray and the many other Jolson Facebook sights etc. AS for the blackface thing.and I am not suggesting, even though it is taken out of proportion, that it IS not problematical now, without proper research into it. But still Al Jolson's most watched you tubes all contain blackface!
you got that mixed up jolson passed away 23rd oct 1950
@@iandaniels8386 Yes! Should have said in his 60's,. not in the 1960's Yes he did pass in October 23 1950., and as you mention he was the biggest star of the 1920's, That began before to be exact, he became big about 1912. That is the problem with it all. He Just goes back so far, and other than in print there is no physical evidence of his real on stage eminence. An audience rapport that, despite all the bells and whistles to come later has never been equaled. movies, radio shows and records, give some idea, but they date back so far, much of it, particularly the early material, due to lack of quality and obvious dated !911!! Well what can you expect? The later material, particularly in the 1940's still holds up OK today, the Big Band type standard material like After Your Gone, I only Have Eyes for you etc, that Mike Buble, etc still do. Like you note though the Jolson Story goes back 75 years, and it was based on a career that began over 40 odd years prior to it's making. With all the different eras, idols, phenomenons etc etc we have had in all that time, the fact that 3 guys of your vintage think it worthwhile to do something like this says SOMETHING! Good luck with all your endevours!
I certainly agree that there is a fine line between cultural appropriation and being inspired by. Certainly other musical artists like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Beatles or perhaps even Eminem have been inspired by black culture as well as opposed to someone like Pat Boone who simply remade the same music. Where Jolson fits on that line is up to others to decide, but the film may complicate matters by the way it sets up the inspiration. I can see how Max got that idea from the film, though I didn't feel similarly. I'll let Max address that himself if he gets a moment, but I'm more inclined to agree with you. As to the last point in the paragraph, as someone with a UA-cam show, I don't know how much stock I put into YT views to make points about people's interests or preferences. There's a certain randomness to the algorithm that makes it unreliable in that sense. Thank you for watching and I appreciate the feedback. Very useful!
@@jjgittes9 I indeed appreciate sincerely your consideration of a reply, and the common sense approach of discussion. Everybody's assessment. conclusions, understanding of , likes or dislikes of things does have much to do with the time they were born into, or the influences, and the culture around them. Re the blackface, or mixing of the races thing, is something that is certainly now, complicated, confusing, and generally presented as BAD! One thing is certain as an Entertainment mode it is long gone! As for the recent use of it, just for a suggestion of a dark complexioned person, that I feel there is no need for AT ALL! The use of it as a theatrical stable that goes back hundreds, even thousands of years, is of course more in depth and variable, and not always as something as only for bad, or the wrong intentions. Of more recent times are Kiss insulting white People? or David Bowie with his make up, and others? I realize slavery and other aspects can be added to the time when Blackface, minstrel was most prominent, and as time has progressed, that all gets compounded together, but there is also the other side to it, which is the coming together of the different races, cultures, in all these troubled times to produce magic, taking from one another. In the early 1950's Leadbelly, I believe a negro Prisoner,?wrote Irene Good Night which became a huge Folk HIT, for the weavers and others, and later they [ Weavers, and later Tokens and others, The Lion Sleeps tonight was from African origin? It has gone on through history. The General line used with everything that was wrong about Blackface was that it makes dark skinned people inferior, failures, in human, dim witted, slow, lazy etc etc. Yes in some instances, the same as for the 3 stooges. Marx Brothers. laurel and Hardy and others. BUT if anybody knows anything about AL JOLSON, or cares to examine it further he was entirely the opposite of all these suggestions of how minstrels depicted non white skinned human beings. I actually heard him before I saw the Bio Pics or even photos in blackface or not, So it was the voice that initially grabbed me! There is blackface in Both Bio Pics yes,but certainly not to the extent one imagines, in fact in all Jolson Movies, non blackface is the norm. Amazing though you tubes of his ones with blackface are the most viewed. Many in the core Jolson interest bases believe he would get better exposure and be appreciated more generally if some how the blackface aspect was eliminated, or at least admit it was all wrong! I do agree don't BOLD - Highlight, Focus on it Too much, as it was in the past but don't dismiss it entirely. It was part of his time, an ingredient he used in a most positive artistic way that was nothing to do with insult and put down! For that to be condensed in a minute or two have a look at the clip of toot Toot Tootsie from Rose Of Washington Square on You Tube. I do thank you sincerely for letting the likes of me, be involved in these discussions, and I will follow on with further postings of your's that look most interesting. I suggest others do too! As for Jolson, blackface, minstrels, the whole thing to all I suggest instead of accepting what is too often the first description now, He IT was no good, both Stole from Blacks etc etc Look into it further at www.jolson.org and other Sights, books, you tubes etc of those that have examined it all from a balanced historical aspect, not just from one that is the safest one, that of going along with the perceived contemporary one! Good luck with all your projects!
I really enjoyed this video. There are things i agree with and things that i don't. But i appreciate that people like yourselves are talking about one of my favorite films. Jolson was actually not a racist himself. Check out the video on him by todayifoundout, he did a lot of work for civil rights.
On a related topic, both the jolson biopics are on youtube in 1080p if you look for them. I remastered them both last year. You mentioned how it might have needed a disclaimer at the start like the warner bros cartoons. Well i added them. look for "jolson remastered" on youtube if you plan to cover the sequel. You might as well see it in the best quality available. It's better quality than the official dvd release.
Thanks, Tom! It's quite possibly your version of the film that we watched to prepare. And thanks for adding the disclaimer. That sounds like a great idea and hopefully helpful to some to not be distracted by anything and just enjoy the craft of the film.
It is most gratifying to see the discussion that this has stimulated, and some strong views of opinion. As I may have mentioned previous we are strongly influenced by the time we are born into, or even where that may be. From as long as I can remember being born in 1950, and up until maybe near on the turn of the century, here in Australia, there was not one word in print, in the media, or any way in ref to the use of blackface being wrong, completely insulting and or anything else being mentioned as being anything bad about it.. Nor was there any refs to things that could be connected to it, laws of the times and practices like Blacks not allowed on stage etc. Some things are just totally wrong, such as that! The use of changing one's skin color to represent another goes back a long time, centuries in fact prior to the beginning of minstrels, generally said to be in the 1820's by a guy called Thomas Rice, but a guy called Fredericks something? I think a west Indian, light skinned used it in dramatic plays and things prior. It is generally claimed that Rice saw a black man drunk, a slave, or prisoner, or such? and mimicked a funny dance he did, The story varies to things like this Gentlemen ran on stage, in the raw when Rice did his act, and other, but like everything that dates back so far, specific details are impossible to substantiate. Lets look at it that this Rice Guy initially did do it as a mock, representation to a person whom history tells us was part of a people that in the United States then were considered inferior. THAT FACT IS WRONG! but then we have to look at it a bit further on. Blacking up or minstrels became a class act, it grew from basic ridicule to something that more than not represented a very entertaining product. OK this guy Rice might have for a while got laughs for mocking a black man, but audiences would have soon woke to that, and the effect would have worn off, because it would not have been too long before audiences would have looked at it, as he was mocking himself. Whatever color those audiences were. A good question that I have constantly asked myself even, of more recent times when the general representation of blackface, minstrels is one of horror full stop! is why did it happen at all? or why did not the reverse happen? Blacks whited up? Well often that did happen, and still does, such as with the Australian aboriginal. Both come back to the question that will always be within the preference of the individual were both or either done for insult, or for Entertainment purposes, which even being done for comedy. Is still intended for praise. The time the minstrel show developed was in a time of lots of immigration of Africans and others, and YES much of it at a time when they were, as much history suggests treated WRONG! but it to me is too simplistic to say that all that used the theatrical make up, the music, much of the mannerisms etc of blacks did it totally out of insult and to show that they were inferior to white people. Al Jolson himself recalled in about 1946? that he was the first person to use blackface in a main roll on Broadway, others might have in a small part, a butler or something? before. Even his manager of then, makes a point about Al getting a part in a big Broadway Show, and in blackface, one in fact to open a great new theater on Broadway - the IMMORTAL WINTER GARDEN! Looking back at it now, it easy to conclude so what?? That was his thing.Audiences were white anyway?? He was not really a black guy, It would all be accepted, but then even a representation of a non white person would have been, in fact was a problem. OF course a bit later non whites produced and did there own shows etc, quite justifiably so, helped very much by the endeavours and the MONEY of one Mr Al Jolson, and when a negro chorus sang with him in Big Boy 1925 it was not long before a fully racially mixed one was used in the great Historical production SHOWBOAT! OF course in the times all this was going on, things were not perfect, that is why there was depression and wars etc. There will always be those who will never try to meet on a level ground of understanding or compromise, and because of color and much other will always be adamant that they are right, and, or better than others. Of more recent times it is safer to go along with the general rhetoric that blackface was bad, a total insult, something that made blacks look idiots etc etc!! Even the slightest research into it, indicates that this is not totally true in every instance. Take for example the sequence of Mammy in the Jolson Story, YES if viewed in an out of context way, and just focusing on the fact Parks is wearing blackface, and clouding one with all the negativeness out and about it now, It would take away the real possibility of enjoyment! BUT not if viewed in the context of the plot of the movie, Here is his big Broadway chance, and I don't care what anybody thinks but the great gestures and all Larry implies, and that thrilling JOLSON voice never fails to give me goose bumps! YES it is not reality. Mammy came out in 1920 But it does not matter, nor does it that he is in blackface, but either way, like with Rockabye and others done later with out it, the thrill to me is just the same! I think that even if Jolie did not do blackface, or not as much things would be much difference, he is seen now as the Elvis, the Micheal Jackson the Mick Jagger and anybody else that is still thrown up of more recent times HE is anyone of them of 70 or more years ago, THAT IS WHERE the real problem lies of LONG AGO!! TODAY'S MOGULS, big business is NOT GOING to promote something, or body, that is not contemporary or more recent! THE FIRST THOUGHT IS OBVIOUS THAT MARKET IS DEAD! THEY DON'T BUY ANYTHING! I personally don't think there is any need for disclaimers etc, if people want to they will find out about the blackface thing, the NOW angle without going too far, the real truth they will have to dig somewhat deeper. If they are a necessity instead of putting things into a general broad context it was totally wrong etc etc! Which is a generalized one, note the specifics of the movie whatever that does particularly indicate it is being discriminatory to certain peoples etc?
Surely, the mere definition of "racism" is to belittle or discriminate against a race of people. Can someone please tell me where Jolson through the use of blackface is indeed belittling or discriminating against black people. Anyone who takes even the shortest amount of time to study the life of Jolson will realise that Jolson, by using blackface, was in-fact paying homage to the music of the South and indeed black people. Isn't it about time that people started thinking for themselves instead of always looking for something that just isn't there?
Well I hate speaking for the others, but I feel confident all three of us are thinking for ourselves. We're pretty independent. But as a reminder, we are a movie review show and though it's conversational in nature and that conversation led us to talk about some of the social implications of the film from a modern perspective, we weren't really about judging Jolson himself or his career. And while I wanted to allow the others a certain freedom to express themselves, I did try to consistently bring it back to the movie. So this wasn't about studying Jolson per se. As to Jolson's intentions in performing in blackface, who's to say? As I said on the show, he certainly wasn't alone. He was just the most successful. Thank you for watching! I, for one, appreciate the feedback.
@@jjgittes9 Agree with and certainly well said the who's to say bit. Accessing something from a time long before any of us were around can only be coming from conclusions taken from interpretation of actual events presented in print, movies and elsewhere of years after the event.
Not a terrible review. As a Jolson scholar and having studied the history and meaning of blackface for over 30 years, my reactions are below.
Thanks for the review, enjoyed it
I'm very glad. Thank you so much for watching and participating in the discussion.
Baron is developing a very nice style - Very nice!
I think the thing they missed most in this discussion is the singing of the great man himself! What about how great Al Jolson sang these songs for the movie?? He became one of the biggest singing stars on earth again after these movies! By the time these movies were made we had Bing Crosby and even Frank Sinatra but Jolson was able to capture the audience again and he was in his late 50s by this time! What a legend he was.
Exactly Steve! Parks and all involved do a superb JOB! but the moment the Columbia lady with the lamp disolves into " LET ME SING A FUNNY SONG etc etc, and the mood change LET ME CROON A LOW down Blues to lift you etc etc THERE is NO Doubt it is the Jolson VOICE that is the icing on the cake. the catalyst that will dominate this movie, and introduce the magic of Jolson to a new generation!
@@margaretthomas8899 Exactly Margaret
@@stevewilliams3492 Steve think of Singing in the rain. Easter Parade, Yankee Doodle Dandy. My Wild Irish Rose and other musicals , or bio picks generally about some Entertainment star They are great too, and always use the voice of the main actor or some times a ghost? Try and imagine the voice of Fred Astaire James Cagney, Gene Kelly, or even the voice of Larry Parks himself in The Jolson Story/Sings Again.Even popular singers around then Como. Hames or even Crosby or Sinatra? If any of this had of happened it still could have been successful for a while BUT I doubt very much it would have sparked a come back of interest in the voice of and a then legend that has lasted ever since!
@@margaretthomas8899 Without Al Jolson singing in that movie it would never have been as good because simply none of those you mentioned could even come close to the singing style of Al Jolson! I also love Bing and Frank and Dean Martin and they were all greats in there own right but nobody had that extra thing that Al Jolson had! Al Jolson was like the Elvis of the first half of the last century! I was not even born until 14 years after Al died but i have ears and i listen to everything....There was no one like Al Jolson......
@@stevewilliams3492 and @Margaret Thomas - I can agree that Jolson had a unique sound and because of that, I can agree that it was the right choice to have Parks dub him for the film. I disagree that was the choice that made the film enjoyable to me. As I state in the video, it's the performances and the nuance that they found in their respective characters that makes the film special. As to why we didn't talk about Jolson's singing more, we did mention I believe that it was his voice, but beyond that, it didn't seem like there was more beyond that to discuss especially given that we had a lot more to get to. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, this show was not about Jolson, but about the film. That doesn't seem to have sunk in with any of the commenters, but I assure you while they are related, the are still very different things.
"As seen through today's eyes." Means to me, "as seen through extremely bigoted, myopic, and uniformed, eyes." Ugh. Racist???
I challenge you to view, "Big Boy," which is the only film version of an actual Jolson Broadway vehicle and find ONE MOMENT where you can point to that says, "Oh, that's Jolson is being SO RACIST!"
It was a week ago or so, but I don't remember anyone ever calling Jolson himself racist. I certainly never did. I think it was just the practice of blackface specifically that was discussed. Furthermore, this discussion is not really about Jolson himself. This is a movie review show about the biopic from 1946. Jolson's life comes up as a tangent, but that's not what this about. But since you brought it up, I have seen Big Boy, but I have also seen Wonder Bar, which features a number toward the end (I believe) which features innumerable racial stereotypes which African-Americans have objected to. And so that sequence in particular is highly racially charged. But film is a collaborative artform so that in and of itself doesn't suggest that Jolson himself was racist. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. But there is a difference between art and the artist and some of the art that he left behind is hurtful to certain groups.
@@jjgittes9 You attempt to squeeze through a very tight space but fail: you say you're discussing the film, not Jolson, but the film is Jolson's life, and you show pictures of him in blackface while discussing the racist nature of the movie. Jolson life is NOT a tangent, as you would like it to be, but the very meat of the movie, and so, you DO make the point that Jolson himself MUST HAVE been racist due to his use of blackface. Certainly the "Going to Heaven on a Mule," scene in Wonder Bar is unbearable, but Jolson didn't write it, he didn't produce it, direct it, etc, etc, etc... To him, it was just another blackface role.
On the whole I guess I would have liked more on Jolson's benevolence towards blacks, only because the subject of racism is brought up, which, by the way, it needn't have been. That was a choice. thanks.
@@LazlosPlane I disagree that Jolson's life is the meat of the movie because most of it just isn't true. Which is fine because I thought the movie was good. For me personally, I think the actual events of his life are indeed tangential - at least to what I wanted to talk about, but I do not do the show alone and the others did feel like it was more relevant and I didn't want to outright dismiss them. That's not how we do things. But if you listen carefully, you'll see that I am consistently trying to steer the conversation back to the film itself. Or at least that's how I remember it - feeling frustrated that we were getting off-target. And I did say in my previous comment that film is a collaborative art form and did not vilify Jolson for Wonder Bar. As to the benevolence towards blacks, I did have it in my notes and thought about mentioning it, but I wasn't 100% sure about my source and I felt like we were running long so I opted to try and get back to the discussion about the craft of the film. It was a choice in the moment and we've been doing these shows long enough not to worry about all that we didn't say. We can't get it all in. One last thing - who's to say what needs to be brought up. I promise you I did not want to discuss racism on this show, but the others did and that's their prerogative. If they felt like it was relevant, then yes, it's their choice, but one they have every right to.
I’m just checking this out
I don't know if you guys, of a younger demographic than me, born in 1950, access The Jolson Story as being overall somewhat flowery, prim and proper, honor thy mother and father, children should be seen and not heard, all the traits, the attitudes that were the thing in those pre youth revolution days. As a kid I was not allowed to watch Ozzie and Harriot, when I was about 9? YOUR NOT WATCHING THAT BOGIES, ROCKING AND ROLLING STUFF. MY mother would say. IT IS ABOVE YOUR HEAD. [ RICKY NELSON ? ] The Jolson Story, was made in the mid 1940's, based on earlier times, but. like other movies of that time depicting earlier, it sort of gives an impression nobody even Burped in those by gone days, to the point of just BEING unrealistic. It is said by some AL had a foul MOUTH, and more problems than one wife leaving him. I am not suggesting. then, now, or whenever? things should, could be taken to the other extreme, than the very nice nostalgic. sweet movie we have, just that more recent generations might respond a bit more to something toughened up a bit, or at least more realistic to life? Any thoughts please anybody?
Just putting the focus on the movie. Explain to me. all the horror you are putting on the blackface!
Some VERY ignorant views here, especially those of "cultural appropriation." How absurd. And stupid, frankly.
Easy there, tiger. If you watch carefully, I agree with you in that I'm not sure it qualifies as cultural appropriation and if you scroll through these comments, I've repeated that to others. However, I won't speak for myself, but those guys are incredibly intelligent. Jim won on Jeopardy, for Pete's sake.
@@jjgittes9 Oh! He won on Jeopardy! Well, now, that makes a WORLD of difference!!! Wow!
"Those guys," don't know * $)^ about blackface or minstrelsy or, for that matter, Jolson. But I will listen again. If I can take it. Tiger.
@@LazlosPlane I only mention Jeopardy as a reaction to the word stupid. It may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but it does seem to require a certain amount of intelligence. As I didn't have access to SAT scores and GPAs, it seemed like an easy, recognizable thing to point to. As to myself, I feel confident about my level of intelligence, but if I came off as stupid, I certainly have to re-evaluate my approach because that doesn't reflect our goals for the show. Quite the opposite. But I think the take-home point here was that just because you disagree with him (as I did), them or us doesn't by nature make them stupid.