CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.5/10
2 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Dos realizadores de documentales retroceden en el tiempo hasta el sur de los Estados Unidos antes de la Guerra Civil para filmar la trata de esclavos.Dos realizadores de documentales retroceden en el tiempo hasta el sur de los Estados Unidos antes de la Guerra Civil para filmar la trata de esclavos.Dos realizadores de documentales retroceden en el tiempo hasta el sur de los Estados Unidos antes de la Guerra Civil para filmar la trata de esclavos.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Dick Gregory
- Self
- (sin créditos)
Gualtiero Jacopetti
- Self
- (sin créditos)
Ernest Kubler
- Whip
- (sin créditos)
Yayoi Kusama
- Self
- (sin créditos)
Franco Prosperi
- Self
- (sin créditos)
Shelley Spurlock
- Girl
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Many people who have claimed to see this film have not. Most of those who have seen it, have not understood. GOODBYE UNCLE TOM was directed by Gualtiero Jacopetti & Franco E. Prosperi, the two men who pioneered the documentary movement that came to be known as the "Mondo" film, a term the two dislike immensely. Hot on the heels of their controversial and still-relevant AFRICA ADDIO, it was meant to exonerate them from accusations of racism. Ironically, it would do the exact opposite. It was developed as an idea to adapt the novel "Mandingo" as an historical, documentary style drama. What emerged was a shocking, difficult-to-watch-at-times, treatise on the horrors of slavery, and the source of racism in America, if not the world, today. It was the filmmakers' intention not to pander to a politically correct theory that slaves of the 1840's had a 1970's awareness of their situation. The events are all historically correct. Many of the characters are people who actually lived. The dialogue is verbatim from true manuscripts of the day. The racism is a genuine depiction of plantation life of the day. It was felt that glossing over the African experience in America would be an insult to the pain and suffering of the millions who survived the "middle passage' only to welcome a life a slavery, no different from an animal or piece of property.
Years after it's initial release, the directors have expressed a regret at not opening the film with an explanation stating that this was a film about the emotions of that bygone era, not of the filmmakers themselves.
The controversial final scenes, which take place in contemporary America, are based on "The Confessions of Nat Turner", and are meant to represent an angry, reactionary vengeance on behalf of the millions, with whom the character identifies. Malice for sure, but not unmerited malice. This film should cause strong emotions. Any film that tackles a moral issue must cause debate and conjecture if it is to succeed. What makes the film even more extraordinary is that it succeeds without claiming a moral superiority, or taking a moral stance. What appears on screen are the most graphic, realistic depictions of the North American slave trade of the 19th century, and this film should be required viewing in Black History classes on college campuses, and high schools all over the world, particularly in America. This film preceded ROOTS by six years and stands as a much harsher indictment of the evils of human bondage. This is one of the bravest works of cinema and remains a misunderstood humanitarian masterpiece.
Years after it's initial release, the directors have expressed a regret at not opening the film with an explanation stating that this was a film about the emotions of that bygone era, not of the filmmakers themselves.
The controversial final scenes, which take place in contemporary America, are based on "The Confessions of Nat Turner", and are meant to represent an angry, reactionary vengeance on behalf of the millions, with whom the character identifies. Malice for sure, but not unmerited malice. This film should cause strong emotions. Any film that tackles a moral issue must cause debate and conjecture if it is to succeed. What makes the film even more extraordinary is that it succeeds without claiming a moral superiority, or taking a moral stance. What appears on screen are the most graphic, realistic depictions of the North American slave trade of the 19th century, and this film should be required viewing in Black History classes on college campuses, and high schools all over the world, particularly in America. This film preceded ROOTS by six years and stands as a much harsher indictment of the evils of human bondage. This is one of the bravest works of cinema and remains a misunderstood humanitarian masterpiece.
Goodbye Uncle Tom is a downright jaw-dropping and surprisingly professional production in the Mondo Cane series. Terrifically shot documentary-style, this film explores the interaction between the races in modern America. Slavery, Black Rage, White Oppression...Jacopetti and Prosperi are all showing it uncensored and without mercy. It's repulsive, shocking and the violence subtly get more under your skin as opposed to the average teenage horror slasher. The inhumanity of previous generations makes you bow your head in shame. Guided by a thrilling Riz Ortolani score (perhaps known best for his Cannibal Holocaust music) Goodbye Uncle Tom shows how black people are being exploited, raped and killed for no reason other than being "inferior". The films opens with a truly atmospheric portrait of how Martin Luther King's death mobilized the black community. Right from that moment, you just know that you're about to see a film that is a lot more intelligent than it seems and ahead of its time when it comes to being provocative. A history lesson that sticks to you! Of course, because of its realism, it cannot be recommended to everyone. Goodbye Uncle Tom is better not watched by the faint-hearted. Highly recommended piece of revolutionary cinema!
I viewed this particular film in the summer of 1972 in New York City. I remember that it was opening day and the turnout was surprisingly large. The other thing that I remembered was that I thought the filmmakers had taken an original approach as far as their documentary-style on slavery. As if I were actually there, watching the events take place. As an African-American man, I found the film fascinating and enlightening. The only thing I did find questionable was, once again, the Black man was depicted as a sexual beast with over-sized reproductive organs. I do believe that this, to some, is what made the movie so titillating. Overall, I still had a pleasant movie going experience. I would like to ask any readers of this commentary that if they have any knowledge of how I may a obtain a copy of this film to please contact me through my e-mail.
The story goes that when this played Times Square it caused a riot. I have no idea if its true or not, but if it did happen I can see why.
The film is an examination of race relations that focuses on slavery. As an indictment of the institution of slavery this film can not be topped. This is a nightmarish look at what slave mills must have been like almost 200 years ago.
The film exists in two versions that are very different different, and if you ever wanted to see how one film could end up as two different films, look no farther than this film (both versions are in the Mondo Cane box set)
Both films contain much of the same footage cut for different effect.The original Italian cut deals more heavily with race relations now, while the American version deals more with the slavery aspect. The final moments of both versions makes more sense in context of the Italian version since in the final moments we see that in many ways things have not gotten all that much better for the black race. Both films also have a good amount of footage unique to that version. I doubt seriously that the footage could be combined to make one super film since you'd end up with a third film with a third point of view.
I like both versions of the film. I think that right or wrong this is a film that will get you talking and thinking and wondering, which is what the film is suppose to do. I can't say that one is better than the other, both are flawed, however both should be seen, preferably with in a day or so of each other since the duel versions play off each other in unexpected ways.
See these films., But be prepared to get angry. You may not get through them, you may not like them, but you will be provoked into a reaction on some level. For better or worse you will be challenged and moved which is what the point of the film is.
9 out of 10.
The film is an examination of race relations that focuses on slavery. As an indictment of the institution of slavery this film can not be topped. This is a nightmarish look at what slave mills must have been like almost 200 years ago.
The film exists in two versions that are very different different, and if you ever wanted to see how one film could end up as two different films, look no farther than this film (both versions are in the Mondo Cane box set)
Both films contain much of the same footage cut for different effect.The original Italian cut deals more heavily with race relations now, while the American version deals more with the slavery aspect. The final moments of both versions makes more sense in context of the Italian version since in the final moments we see that in many ways things have not gotten all that much better for the black race. Both films also have a good amount of footage unique to that version. I doubt seriously that the footage could be combined to make one super film since you'd end up with a third film with a third point of view.
I like both versions of the film. I think that right or wrong this is a film that will get you talking and thinking and wondering, which is what the film is suppose to do. I can't say that one is better than the other, both are flawed, however both should be seen, preferably with in a day or so of each other since the duel versions play off each other in unexpected ways.
See these films., But be prepared to get angry. You may not get through them, you may not like them, but you will be provoked into a reaction on some level. For better or worse you will be challenged and moved which is what the point of the film is.
9 out of 10.
Not exactly a "humanitarian masterpiece" as someone else said (yeah right!). More like cryptic super-exploitation. This is wildly, hilariously, rollickingly misguided pseudo-history at best. Outright race-baiting at worst. Made by the sleazoids who barfed up "Africa Addios" (giving Africans their own country back so soon just wasn't the right idea, was it!!), a film that featured the genuinely bizarre white South African girls on trampolines montage. A fervent call-to-arms for African-Americans made by white Europeans must inherently ring false, I am afraid. (we enslaved you. kill us!) Manages to be both numbing and completely, hideously insulting at the same time.
The film is, under its very "SO racist it isn't being racist" exterior a sly work of racism. Presents blacks as nothing more than animals and savages, capable only of violence or submission to the will of whites. All the while remaining mute and mindless. No African-American in the film is presented as having a personality, substance, or intelligence. Every white all but glows. Every caucasian is a verbose, mercurial, immaculate sprite.
That said, the film does (I would assume) approximate the way Africans were treated during the slave era more closely than other films. In that respect it deserves respect. The conditions are shown as filthy, disgusting, cruel. Every imaginable indignity is portrayed (and some you probably could not imagine).
However, the film does have some power. The camera work is very inventive and the directors handle some of the chaotic scenes around the plantation very well. Some of the imagery is genuinely striking. There's a general feeling of chaos that comes through that's very effective. I'm not sure what the point is. But it's effective.
Anyway, see the movie if you really want to be grossed out and insulted. File this one under SUPER exploitation. The directors may have had good intentions when they started out, but I think they just lost it when they got onto the set and decided to see how far out they could go. And no one, it seemed, was around to tell them to tone it down or put on the breaks. This is up there with Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind the Sun. It's that sort of a deal.
But don't kid yourselves, this AIN'T no humanitarian masterpiece.
The film is, under its very "SO racist it isn't being racist" exterior a sly work of racism. Presents blacks as nothing more than animals and savages, capable only of violence or submission to the will of whites. All the while remaining mute and mindless. No African-American in the film is presented as having a personality, substance, or intelligence. Every white all but glows. Every caucasian is a verbose, mercurial, immaculate sprite.
That said, the film does (I would assume) approximate the way Africans were treated during the slave era more closely than other films. In that respect it deserves respect. The conditions are shown as filthy, disgusting, cruel. Every imaginable indignity is portrayed (and some you probably could not imagine).
However, the film does have some power. The camera work is very inventive and the directors handle some of the chaotic scenes around the plantation very well. Some of the imagery is genuinely striking. There's a general feeling of chaos that comes through that's very effective. I'm not sure what the point is. But it's effective.
Anyway, see the movie if you really want to be grossed out and insulted. File this one under SUPER exploitation. The directors may have had good intentions when they started out, but I think they just lost it when they got onto the set and decided to see how far out they could go. And no one, it seemed, was around to tell them to tone it down or put on the breaks. This is up there with Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind the Sun. It's that sort of a deal.
But don't kid yourselves, this AIN'T no humanitarian masterpiece.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe movie was originally released in Italy in a 119-minute version and immediately withdrawn when the directors were sued for plagiarism by writer Joseph Chamberlain Furnas. It was re-released in March 1972 in a re-cut 136-minute version under the title 'Zio Tom.'
- Créditos curiosos'Questo film è un documentario. I fatti sono storicamente avvenuti ed i personaggi sono realmente esistiti.' Which translates to: 'This film is a documentary. The facts historically happened and the persons really existed.'
- Versiones alternativasBefore receiving a UK cinema certificate in 1973 the film was extensively cut by around 30 minutes by the BBFC with heavy edits to rape scenes, footage of sexual experiments, graphic violence, the fantasy murder sequence, and the opening scenes on the slave ship.
- ConexionesFeatured in Adam & Yves (1974)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Goodbye Uncle Tom?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Goodbye Uncle Tom
- Locaciones de filmación
- Port-au-Prince, Haiti(Majority of interiors and exteriors)
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta