derekwsparks

The faith and efforts of pioneer women are spotlighted in this presentation. Reviews the influence of Kathryn Spencer, who would not deny her faith for help, of Aurelia Spencer Rogers, who organized the first Primary, and of many other women. Produced during the famous "Camelot" years of the LDS Church History department.

S01E05

16 Civil War Era Songs

Musician Joe Cocker and band plays the song With A Little Help From My Friends in 1968.

The song Jeremiah Was A Bullfrog by Three Dog Night.

"Midnight Rider" is a song by the American rock band the Allman Brothers Band. It was the second single from their second studio album, Idlewild South (1970), released on Capricorn Records. The song was primarily written by vocalist Gregg Allman, who first began composing it at a rented cabin outside Macon, Georgia. He enlisted the help of roadie Robert Kim Payne to complete the song's lyrics. He and Payne broke into Capricorn Sound Studios to complete a demo of the song. While the original Allman Brothers release of the song did not chart, "Midnight Rider" was much more successful in cover versions. Gregg Allman's solo version of the song, released in 1973, was its biggest chart success; it was a top 20 hit in the U.S. and Canada. A cover by Jamaican singer Paul Davidson represented its biggest peak in the United Kingdom, where it hit number ten. Country artist Willie Nelson also recorded a version of the song that peaked at number six on U.S. country charts. Background "Midnight Rider" originated during the group's time spent at Idlewild South, a $165-a-month farmhouse they rented on a lake outside Macon, Georgia.[1] Allman felt free to smoke marijuana with no police around, which contributed to his writing at the cabin.[2] Its genesis was quick: the song came to him out of nowhere, and he completed a rough draft in just over an hour of writing.[3] He found himself stuck on the song's third verse, which he regarded as an especially important component of the song: "it's kind of the epilogue to the whole thing," he later wrote.[2] In the middle of the night, he went to roadie Kim Payne, who was keeping watch over the band's warehouse, where they kept their equipment.[3] Payne helped him write the first two lines of the third verse: "We were getting high and, honestly, he was starting to irritate me—because he was singing this song over and over and I got sick of hearing the band play the same shit over and over again until they got it right," Payne later recalled. "So I just threw out the line, 'I've gone past the point of caring / some old bed I’ll soon be sharing.'"[3][4] Thankful for Payne's help, Allman told him he would give him a percentage of its royalties should it become a success.[5] Payne was not originally listed as a songwriter on the song, so he later had Allman contact Phil Walden to produce a contract that allowed him five percent of its future royalties.[6] Recording and production Allman wanted to record it immediately, but had no keys to Capricorn Sound Studios, which was adjacent to the warehouse. They phoned both producer Johnny Sandlin and Paul Hornsby who "told us to go to hell, come back in the morning," according to Payne.[5] Intent on recording the song, Allman and Payne broke into the building, with Payne smashing a window on a door to allow him to unlock it.[4] After managing to turn on the recording console and microphones, Allman recorded a demo by himself on acoustic guitar.[5] Unable to find the band members, he enlisted friend Twiggs Lyndon to perform bass guitar on a rough demo, though Lyndon did not know how to play the instrument. Allman instructed him to play the bassline he had envisioned and Lyndon practiced it multiple times to prepare.[3] He later found Allman Brothers drummer Jaimoe and had him perform congas on the demo. In the final studio recording, Duane Allman plays acoustic guitar, as he had enough studio experience to produce a nice acoustic sound.[7] Gregg Allman called it "the song I’m most proud of in my career."[2] Composition "Midnight Rider" uses traditional folk and blues themes of desperation, determination, and a man on the run: I've got one more silver dollar, But I'm not gonna let 'em catch me, no ... Not gonna let 'em catch The midnight rider. The verses arrangement features Duane Allman's acoustic guitar carrying the song's changes, underpinned by a congas-led rhythm section and soft, swirling organ.[8][9] Dickey Betts' lead guitar phrases ornament the choruses and the instrumental break, while Gregg Allman's powerful, soulful singing, featuring harmony-producing reverb, has led to the song becoming known by some as Allman's signature piece.[8] Music writer Jean-Charles Costa stated in 1973 that, "'Midnight Rider' has been recorded by other bands and it's easy to see why. The verse construction, the desperate lyrics, and the taut arrangement make it standout material,"[9] while musician and writer Bill Janovitz said that the recording successfully blended elements of blues, country music, soul music, and Southern rock.[8] "Midnight Rider" has been a concert staple for the band in decades since; it is usually played fairly closely to the original template, and was not used as the basis for long jams until the Allman Brothers' annual New York City run in 2010. Charted versions The original version of "Midnight Rider" by The Allman Brothers Band never charted, but the song later became a hit for four other artists: In November 1972, British rock singer Joe Cocker, who specialized in treating recently written songs by others, released a version on his album Joe Cocker, the single from which reached #27 on the Billboard Hot 100;[10] it was billed as Joe Cocker with The Chris Stainton Band.[10] In fall 1973, Gregg Allman released a re-imagined version of the song on his first solo album, Laid Back, that featured the addition of horns and a solo rather than harmony vocal line. It reached #19 on the Billboard Hot 100 in early 1974.[10] In early 1976, a reggae version by the Jamaican singer, Paul Davidson, on the Tropical Records label, reached #10 in the UK Singles Chart.[11][12] In 1980, Willie Nelson recorded a cover of the song for inclusion in the soundtrack to the film The Electric Horseman. Nelson's version was released as a single, and peaked at #6 on the Hot Country Singles chart.[13] Nelson later re-released the song in 2004 as a duet with Toby Keith, although this rendition did not chart. Other versions Many other versions have been recorded as well, starting in 1971 with Drummer Buddy Miles on his "A Message to the People" LP on Mercury Record.- when jazz guitarist Maynard Parker released a 1973 version on an album named for the song.[14] Since that time, the song has gone on to be The Allman Brothers Band's most covered song,[8] performed by artists ranging from country legend Waylon Jennings to punk rock legend Patti Smith; from bluegrass fiddler/singer Alison Krauss to ska revivalists Bad Manners to doo-wop vocalists The Drifters. O.A.R. also covers Midnight Rider frequently at live shows,[15] as well as Bon Jovi guitarist Richie Sambora, who sometimes uses it as an intro to Wanted Dead or Alive; during his solo shows but also with his main band, he had also sung "Midnight Rider" before the mentioned. Buckcherry has also played "Midnight Rider" before live, Michael McDonald does a rendition of "Midnight Rider", and it has also appeared on a Hank Williams, Jr. album. Bob Seger covered the song on his long out of print Back in '72 album. An edited and remastered version of his version, which eliminates the breakdown and Seger's scatting towards the end of the track, appears on his 2009 Early Seger Vol. 1 album. Stephen Stills included the song on his 1978 Thoroughfare Gap album, and later played "Midnight Rider" in 2009 on The Howard Stern Show, saying that he and Gregg Allman used to sing it together. In summer 2010, he and his bandmates in Crosby, Stills and Nash performed the song on their European tour, during a covers section in their set. Gregg Allman's solo version is featured during the opening scenes of the 2004 remake of Walking Tall. Fury in the Slaughterhouse covered this song on their 2002 album The Color Fury. Theory of a Deadman covered the song on the 2003 special edition of their 2002 self-titled debut album. UB40 also covered the song on their 2013 Getting Over the Storm album. Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings recorded a Soul/Funk version in 2016 for Lincoln Motor Company to use in a commercial.[16] In 2017 Lydia Lunch & Cypress Grove covered the song on their album Under the Covers.[17] Christian singer Zach Williams covered the song on his 2017 deluxe version of his album Chain Breaker.[18]

The largely forgotten war of 1812. This documentary shows how the glories of war become enshrined in history. How failures are quickly forgotten and how inconvenient truths are ignored forever. With stunning reenactments, evocative animation and the incisive commentary of key experts, The War of 1812 presents the strange and awkward conflict that shaped the destiny of a continent.

Original Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z86JNeWvk-I

Lolita is an American 1962 black comedy-psychological drama film[9] directed by Stanley Kubrick based on the eponymous 1955 novel by Vladimir Nabokov. The black-and-white film follows a middle-aged literature lecturer who writes as "Humbert Humbert" and has hebephilia. He is sexually infatuated with young, adolescent Dolores Haze (whom he calls "Lolita"). It stars James Mason as Humbert, Shelley Winters as Mrs. Haze, Peter Sellers as Quilty, and Sue Lyon (in her film debut) as Dolores "Lolita" Haze. The novel was considered "unfilmable" when Kubrick acquired the rights around the time of its U.S. publication. Owing to restrictions imposed by the Motion Picture Production Code (1934–68), the film toned down the most provocative aspects, sometimes leaving much to the audience's imagination. Sue Lyon was 14 at the time of filming and played a 14-year-old, whereas the Lolita of Nabokov's novel is just 12 years old when Humbert Humbert first meets her. Lolita polarized contemporary critics with its theme of child sexual abuse but was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at the 35th Academy Awards. Years after its release, Kubrick expressed doubt that he would have attempted to make the film had he fully understood how severe the censorship limitations on it would be. Regardless, the film has since received critical acclaim. In the late 1990s, British director Adrian Lyne again adapted the novel to the big screen. Plot In a remote mansion, Clare Quilty, drunk and incoherent, plays Frédéric Chopin's Polonaise in A major, Op. 40, No. 1, on the piano before he is shot to death by Humbert "Hum" Humbert, a middle-aged European professor of French literature. Four years earlier, Humbert arrives in Ramsdale, New Hampshire, intending to spend the summer before his professorship begins at Beardsley College, Ohio. He searches for a room to rent, and Charlotte Haze, a cloying, sexually frustrated widow, invites him to stay at her house. He declines until seeing her 14-year-old daughter, Dolores, affectionately nicknamed "Lolita", with whom he becomes infatuated. To be close to Lolita, Humbert accepts Charlotte's offer and becomes a lodger in the Haze household. However, Charlotte wants all of Humbert's time for herself and tells him that she will be sending Lolita to an all-girl sleepaway camp for the summer. After the Hazes depart for camp, the maid gives Humbert a letter from Charlotte, confessing her love for him and demanding he vacate at once unless he feels the same way. The letter says that if Humbert is still in the house when she returns, Charlotte will know her love is requited, and he must marry her. Though he roars with laughter while reading the sadly heartfelt yet characteristically overblown letter, Humbert marries Charlotte. Things turn sour for the couple in the absence of the child: glum Humbert becomes more withdrawn, and Charlotte grows increasingly unfulfilled and upset. Charlotte discovers Humbert's diary entries detailing his passion for Lolita and describing Charlotte as "obnoxious" and "brainless". In an outburst, she runs outside, but is hit by a car and dies. Humbert arrives to pick up Lolita from camp; she does not yet know her mother is dead. They stay the night in a hotel that is handling an overflow influx of police officers attending a convention. One of the guests, a pushy, abrasive stranger, insinuates himself upon Humbert and keeps steering the conversation to his "beautiful little daughter", who is asleep upstairs. The stranger implies that he too is a policeman and repeats, too often, that he thinks Humbert is "normal". Humbert escapes the man's advances. The next morning, Humbert and Lolita play a "game" she learned at camp, and it is implied that they have a sexual encounter. The next day, Humbert confesses to Lolita that her mother is not sick in a hospital, as he had previously told her, but dead. Grief-stricken, she stays with Humbert. The two commence a trip cross country, traveling from hotel to motel. In public, they act as father and daughter. In the fall, Humbert reports to his position at Beardsley College, and enrolls Lolita in high school there. Before long, people begin to wonder about the relationship between the father and his over-protected daughter. Humbert worries about her involvement with the school play and with male classmates. One night he returns home to find Dr. Zempf, a pushy, abrasive stranger, sitting in his darkened living room. Zempf, speaking with a thick German accent, claims to be the psychologist from Lolita's school and wants to discuss her knowledge of "the facts of life". He convinces Humbert to allow Lolita to participate in the school play, for which she had been selected to play the leading role. While attending a performance of the play, Humbert learns that Lolita has been lying about how she was spending her Saturday afternoons when she claimed to be at piano practice. They get into a row and Humbert decides to leave Beardsley College and take Lolita on the road again. Lolita objects at first but suddenly changes her mind and seems very enthusiastic. Once on the road, Humbert realizes they are being followed by a mysterious car that never drops away but never quite catches up. When Lolita becomes sick, he takes her to the hospital. However, when he returns to pick her up, she is gone. The nurse tells him she left with another man who claimed to be her uncle. Humbert is devastated, left without a clue as to her disappearance or whereabouts. Some years later, Humbert receives a letter from Mrs. Richard T. Schiller, Lolita's married name. She writes that she is now married to a man named Dick and that she is pregnant and in desperate need of money. Humbert travels to their home and demands that she tell him who kidnapped her three years earlier. She tells him it was Clare Quilty, the man who was following them. A famous playwright, he had a fling with her mother in Ramsdale. She states Quilty is also the one who disguised himself as Dr. Zempf, the pushy stranger who kept crossing their path. Lolita admits she was infatuated by Quilty and also carried on an affair with him at Beardsley, then left the hospital with him when he promised her a Hollywood contract. However, he then demanded she join his bohemian lifestyle, including acting in his "art" films, which she refused. Humbert begs Lolita to leave Schiller and come away with him. She refuses, reminding him that she has a baby due in three months, but apologizes for cheating. Humbert gives Lolita $13,000, explaining it is her money from the sale of her mother's house. He leaves to confront Quilty in his mansion. Intertitles explain that Humbert died of coronary thrombosis awaiting trial for Quilty's murder. Cast See also: List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films James Mason as Humbert "Hum" Humbert Shelley Winters as Charlotte Haze-Humbert Sue Lyon as Dolores "Lolita" Haze Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty / Dr. Zempf Gary Cockrell as Richard "Dick" Schiller Jerry Stovin as John Farlow, a Ramsdale lawyer Diana Decker as Jean Farlow Lois Maxwell as Nurse Mary Lore Cec Linder as Dr. Keegee Susanne Gibbs as Mona Bill Greene as George Swine, the hotel night manager in Bryceton Shirley Douglas as Mrs. Starch, the piano teacher in Ramsdale Marianne Stone as Vivian Darkbloom, Quilty's companion Marion Mathie as Miss Lebone James Dyrenforth as Frederick Beale, Sr. Maxine Holden as Miss Fromkiss, the hospital receptionist John Harrison as Tom Colin Maitland as Charlie Sedgewick C. Denier Warren as Potts Ed Bishop as an Ambulance Attendant Production Theatrical advertisement from 1962 Stanley Kubrick and James Harris acquired the right to Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, a novel considered unfilmable, several years after it was first published in September 1955 in Paris by Maurice Girodias' Olympia Press, which specialized in pornographic literature. Initially considered a "dirty book" in an era when literary censorship meant jail time and fines for publishers, Lolita was not published in the United States until August 1958 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, after it had gradually established its literary reputation. Nabokov had submitted the novel to Girodias after it was rejected by mainstream publishers. The book received no reviews until Graham Greene ranked it at one of the three best books of 1955 in the London Sunday Times. London Sunday Express editor John Gordon, in response to Greene, called it "the filthiest book I have ever read" and "sheer unrestrained pornography". The book was deemed pornography by the Home Office and British Customs officers were instructed to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. France banned the novel for two years (1956-58). Lolita was not published in the UK until 1959.[10] When Marlon Brando fired Kubrick from One-Eyed Jacks project in November 1958, the director issued a press release saying that he was resigning from Brando's picture "with deep regret" so that he could "commence work on Lolita".[11] Kubrick was hired by Kirk Douglas to replace director Anthony Mann on the epic Spartacus; he and Harris didn't put Lolita into production until 1961. Kubrick directed Laurence Olivier and Peter Ustinov in Spartacus, both of whom he considered for roles in his Lolita adaptation. It was filmed, in part, in Great Britain, and in Albany, New York.[5] Direction With Nabokov's consent, Kubrick changed the order in which events unfolded by moving what was the novel's ending to the start of the film. Kubrick determined that while this sacrificed a great ending, it helped maintain interest, as he believed that interest in the novel sagged after Humbert “seduced” Lolita halfway through.[12] The second half contains an odyssey across the United States and though the novel was set in the 1940s, Kubrick gave it a contemporary setting, shooting many of the exterior scenes in England with some back-projected scenery shot in the United States, including upstate eastern New York, along NY 9N in the eastern Adirondacks, and a hilltop view of Albany from Rensselaer, on the east bank of the Hudson.[citation needed] Some of the minor parts were played by Canadian and American actors, such as Cec Linder, Lois Maxwell, Jerry Stovin and Diana Decker, who were based in England at the time. Kubrick had to film in England, as much of the money to finance the movie was raised there, with the condition that it also be spent there.[12] In addition, Kubrick had been living in England since 1961 and suffered from a deathly fear of flying.[13] Hilfield Castle is featured in the film as Quilty's "Pavor Manor". Casting James Mason was the first choice of Kubrick and producer Harris for the role of Humbert Humbert, but he initially declined due to a Broadway engagement while recommending his daughter, Portland, for the role of Lolita.[14] Laurence Olivier, who co-starred in Kubrick's Spartacus, was offered the part but turned it down, apparently on the advice of his agents who also represented Kubrick.[citation needed] Kubrick then considered Peter Ustinov, who won an Oscar for Spartacus, but decided against him. Harris suggested David Niven, who accepted the part but withdrew for fear that the sponsors of his TV show, Four Star Playhouse (1952), would object to the subject matter. Noël Coward and Rex Harrison were also considered.[15] Mason got the part of Humbert Humbert when he withdrew from the play.[citation needed] The role of Clare Quilty was greatly expanded from that in the novel and Kubrick allowed Sellers to adopt a variety of disguises throughout the film. Early on in the film, Quilty appears as himself: a conceited, avant-garde playwright with a superior manner. Later he is an inquisitive policeman on the porch of the hotel, where Humbert and Lolita are staying. Next he is the intrusive Beardsley High School psychologist, Doctor Zempf. He persuades Humbert to give Lolita more freedom in her after-school activities.[16] He is seen as a photographer backstage at Lolita's play. Later in the film, he is an anonymous phone caller conducting a survey. Jill Haworth was asked to take the role of Lolita but she was under contract to Otto Preminger and he said "no".[17] Hayley Mills was offered the role but her parents refused permission for her to do it.[18] Joey Heatherton, Sandra Dee, and Tuesday Weld also were potential candidates for the role.[citation needed] Although Vladimir Nabokov originally thought that Sue Lyon was the right selection to play Lolita, years later Nabokov said that the ideal Lolita would have been Catherine Demongeot, a young French actress who had played the child Zazie in Louis Malle's Zazie in the Metro (1960). Demongeot was four years younger than Lyon.[19] Lyon's Age Producer James Harris explained that 14 year-old Sue Lyon, who looked older than her age, was cast as, "We knew we must make [Lolita] a sex object [...] where everyone in the audience could understand why everyone would want to jump on her."[20] He also said, in a 2015 Film Comment interview, "We made sure when we cast her that she was a definite sex object, not something that could be interpreted as being perverted."[21] Harris said that he and Kubrick, through casting, changed Nabokov's book as "we wanted it to come off as a love story and to feel very sympathetic with Humbert."[22] Censorship Lolita kisses Humbert goodnight as he plays chess with her mother. His line in the scene is "I take your Queen." Chess, a recurring motif in Nabokov's novels, was also a favorite pastime of director Stanley Kubrick. At the time the film was released, the ratings system was not in effect and the Hays Code, dating back to the 1930s, governed movie production. The censorship of the time inhibited Kubrick's direction; Kubrick later commented that, "because of all the pressure over the Production Code and the Catholic Legion of Decency at the time, I believe I didn't sufficiently dramatize the erotic aspect of Humbert's relationship with Lolita. If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component of their relationship with the same weight Nabokov did."[12] Kubrick hinted at the nature of their relationship indirectly, through double entendre and visual cues such as Humbert painting Lolita's toes. In a 1972 Newsweek interview (after the ratings system had been introduced in late 1968), Kubrick said that he "probably wouldn't have made the film" had he realized in advance how difficult the censorship problems would be.[23] The film is deliberately vague over Lolita's age. Kubrick commented, "I think that some people had the mental picture of a nine-year-old, but Lolita was twelve and a half in the book; Sue Lyon was thirteen." Actually, Lyon was 14 by the time filming started and 15 when it finished.[24] Although passed without cuts, Lolita was rated "X" by the British Board of Film Censors when released in 1962, meaning no one under 16 years of age was permitted to watch.[25] Voice-over narration Humbert uses the term "nymphet" to describe Lolita, which he explains and uses in the novel; it appears twice in the movie and its meaning is left undefined.[26] In a voice-over on the morning after the Ramsdale High School dance, Humbert confides in his diary, "What drives me insane is the twofold nature of this nymphet, of every nymphet perhaps, this mixture in my Lolita of tender, dreamy childishness and a kind of eerie vulgarity. I know it is madness to keep this journal, but it gives me a strange thrill to do so. And only a loving wife could decipher my microscopic script." Screenplay adaptation See also: Lolita The screenplay is credited to Nabokov, although very little of what he provided (later published in a shortened version[1][2]) was used in the film itself.[27] Nabokov, following the success of the novel, moved out to Hollywood and penned a script for a film adaptation between March and September 1960. The first draft was extremely long—over 400 pages. As producer Harris remarked, "You couldn't make it. You couldn't lift it".[28] Nabokov remained polite about the film in public but in a 1962 interview before seeing the film, commented that it may turn out to be "the swerves of a scenic drive as perceived by the horizontal passenger of an ambulance".[29] Music The music for the film was composed by Nelson Riddle and Bob Harris (the main theme was solely by Bob Harris), and performed by Riddle's orchestra. The recurring dance number first heard on the radio when Humbert meets Lolita in the garden later became a hit single under the name "Lolita Ya Ya" with Sue Lyon credited with the singing on the single version.[30] The flip side was a 60s-style light rock song called "Turn off the Moon" penned by Harris and Al Stillman and also sung by Sue Lyon. "Lolita Ya Ya" was later recorded by other bands; it was also a hit single for The Ventures, reaching 61 on the Billboard Hot 100.[31] A review in Billboard stated, "There've been a number of versions of the title tune from the hit film Lolita but this figures the strongest to date. The usual Ventures guitar sound is neatly augmented with voices."[32] Reception Original trailer for Lolita Lolita premiered on June 13, 1962, in New York City (the copyright date onscreen is 1961). It performed fairly well with little advertising, relying mostly on word-of-mouth; many critics seemed uninterested or dismissive of the film while others gave it glowing reviews. However, the film was very controversial, due to the hebephilia-related content.[33][34] Among the positive reviews, Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote that the film was "conspicuously different" from the novel and had "some strange confusions of style and mood", but nevertheless had "a rare power, a garbled but often moving push toward an off-beat communication."[35] Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post called it "a peculiarly brilliant film", with a tone "not of hatred, but of mocking true. Director and author have a viewpoint on modern life that is not flattering but it is not despising, either. It is regret for the human comedy."[36] Philip K. Scheuer of the Los Angeles Times declared that the film "manages to hit peaks of comedy shrilly dissonant but on an adult level, that are rare indeed, and at the same time to underline the tragedy in human communication, human communion, between people who've got their signals hopelessly crossed."[37] The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote that the primary themes of the film were "obsession and incongruity", and since Kubrick was "an intellectual director with little feeling for erotic tension ... one is the more readily disposed to accept Kubrick's alternative approach as legitimate."[38] In a generally positive review for The New Yorker, Brendan Gill wrote that "Kubrick is wonderfully self-confident; his camera having conveyed to us within the first five minutes that it can perform any wonders its master may require of it, he proceeds to offer us a succession of scenes broadly sketched and broadly acted for laughs, and laugh we do, no matter how morbid the circumstances."[39] Arlene Croce in Sight & Sound wrote that "Lolita is—in its way—a good film." She found Nabokov's screenplay "a model of adaptation" and the cast "near-perfect", though she described Kubrick's attempts at eroticism as "perfunctory and misguided" and thought his "gift for visual comedy is as faint as his depiction of sensuality."[40] Variety had a mixed assessment, calling the film "occasionally amusing but shapeless", and likening it to "a bee from which the stinger has been removed. It still buzzes with a sort of promising irreverence, but it lacks the power to shock and eventually makes very little point either as comedy or satire."[41] Harrison's Reports was negative, writing, "You don't have to be an emulating, prissyish uncle from Dubuque to say that the film leaves you with a feeling that is repulsively disgusting in much of its telling," adding that "even if the exhibitor makes a dollar on the booking, he may feel a sense of shame as he plods his weary way down to the bank."[42] Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called Lolita "tantalizingly unsatisfactory".[43] The film has been re-appraised by critics over time, and currently has a score of 91% on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes based on 44 reviews and with an average rating of 7.9/10. The critical consensus reads: "Kubrick's Lolita adapts its seemingly unadaptable source material with a sly comedic touch and a sterling performance by James Mason that transforms the controversial novel into something refreshingly new without sacrificing its essential edge."[44] Metacritic gives the film a score of 79 out of 100, based on reviews by 14 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[45] Filmmaker David Lynch has said that Lolita is his favourite Kubrick film.[46] Sofia Coppola has also cited Lolita as one of her favorite films,[47] as has Paul Thomas Anderson.[48] The film was a commercial success. Produced on a budget of around $2 million, Lolita grossed $9,250,000 domestically.[5][8] During its initial run, the movie earned an estimated $4.5 million in North American rentals.[49] Years after the film's release it has been re-released on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray.

This video recording features religious scholars of various faiths describing ancient and modern temples. It also includes the testimony of several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding temple work.

Child Bride, also known as Child Brides, Child Bride of the Ozarks and Dust to Dust (US reissue titles),[citation needed] is a 1938[1] American drama film written and directed by Harry Revier, and produced by Raymond L. Friedgen. It was promoted as educational in an attempt to draw attention to the lack of laws banning child marriage in many states. Set in a remote town in the Ozarks, the film was very controversial at the time—both for its theme and because of a topless and nude swimming scene by then-12 year old Shirley Mills. The film bypassed the onscreen nudity ban under the Hays Code by being produced and distributed independently of the studio system, and by claiming to be educational. Although the film was banned in many areas, its controversial nature gave it a certain infamy and it played on the so-called exploitation circuit for many years. Child Bride was one of Revier's last. His previous work included a variety of low-budget, independent features including The Lost City series and Lash of the Penitentes. Plot Miss Carol (Diana Durrell) is an idealistic teacher in a remote one-room schoolhouse. A native of the Ozarks herself, she is determined to stop the practice of child marriage, in which older men marry teen or preteen girls. Her campaign raises the ire of some local men, led by Jake Bolby (Warner Richmond), who one night drags her into the woods and ties her to a tree, with the intention of tarring and feathering her. Before this can be done, however, Angelo the dwarf (Angelo Rossitto) and Mr. Colton (George Humphreys) arrive with a shotgun to save the day. Following this, Jake Bolby comes across young Jennie Colton (Shirley Mills) swimming naked. When her father dies, Bolby decides to take advantage of the opportunity to blackmail her mother into letting him marry the girl, threatening that otherwise he will see her hanged for murder. After he "courts" Jennie by giving her a doll, the two are married. It later turns out that this ceremony was illegal, as child marriage had been banned several days prior, but this point quickly becomes moot. Before Bolby can consummate the union, he is gunned down by Angelo. Jennie leaves his house with Freddie Nulty (Bob Bollinger). Cast Shirley Mills as Jennie Colton (Girl) Bob Bollinger as Freddie Nulty (Boy) Warner Richmond as Jake Bolby Diana Durrell as Miss Carol (Teacher) Dorothy Carrol as Flora "Ma" Colton George Humphreys as Ira "Pa" Colton Frank Martin as Charles, Asst. D.A. George Morell (Rex Baxter) as Mike Nulty Angelo Rossitto (Don Barrett) as Angelo the dwarf Al Bannon as Happy Cast notes: This was Shirley Mills' first role and she would later appear in The Grapes of Wrath in 1940. She would go on to appear in many films over the next decade, mostly in supporting roles. She quit acting in her twenties to become a singer. This was Bob Bollinger's only film role. According to Mills' website, now offline, the two young actors became friends, and Bollinger later asked her to marry him, which she declined. His ultimate fate is unknown. Angelo Rossitto had a long career in movies, stretching from the 1920s to the 1990s, usually in less heroic roles than in this film. He is perhaps best known for his role as Master in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985). The reason he was billed as "Don Barrett" in this film is unknown.[2] Along with Mills and Rossitto, Warner Richmond was one of the few actors involved in this film who had any sort of film career. He appeared in over 140 films between 1912 and 1946, including the Gene Autry serial The Phantom Empire (1935). The nude swim scene The movie is perhaps best known for the topless and lengthy nude swimming scene by 12-year-old Jennie, which begins with Jennie and Freddie, her closest friend, sneaking slyly to a secluded pond in the woods, where they had swum naked many times in the past. Freddie tells Jennie that he will "beat [her] undressed", but Jennie tells him that they can no longer swim naked together. Freddie asks her why, and Jennie replies "because we're not what we used to be" because she is now grown up. She repeats what she has been told by her teacher, Miss Carol.[3] Freddie asks how they are different, pointing out that he had seen her many times in the nude, and Jennie turns to answer him, briefly exposing her breasts and nipples to the camera. The film then cuts to a lengthy long shot showing Jennie and Freddie, both topless and separated by a stand of trees, as they discuss how these changes will affect their relationship. Freddie asks if he can still kiss Jennie; she replies that he can but only when she is wearing her clothes. Jennie then removes her dress entirely, runs naked through the woods and dives into the water. The next two minutes consist of shots of Jennie swimming nude and frolicking with her dog. Jake Bolby appears on a ridge above the pond, and watches the naked girl. An old woman sees what Bolby is doing, and says to him, "Purty, ain't she?" Freddie hears this and alerts Jennie to the fact that someone is watching her, and she swims for cover. She asks Freddie to bring her clothes to her, without looking at her. He uses a long stick to pass her the dress. She pulls the dress on, unseen to the camera, and climbs out of the water. Some prints and screenings of the film have cut out the topless scene, leaving only the long shot nude swim sequence. Production Child Bride was the first film produced by noted exploitation film producer and promoter Kroger Babb, who marketed it as an educational film and who would reissue it under various titles, including Child Brides, Child Bride of the Ozarks and Dust to Dust. The movie is perhaps best known for the lengthy nude child swimming scene, which Allmovie described as "completely gratuitous" and "obviously Child Bride's main selling point and the reason for its longevity on the exploitation circuit."[4] The film had been submitted to the Production Code Administration for a certificate of approval, but was denied because of its subject matter, which was said to be "a sexually abhorrent abnormality which violates all moral principles", and because of the onscreen child nudity. The censors also objected to the murderer never being punished for his deeds.[5] The production of the film in 1938 followed shortly after mass media coverage of the 1937 marriage of 9-year-old Eunice Winstead to Charlie Johns,[6] causing the film to be compared to it.[7] Home media Alpha Video's DVD release presents the film in its uncensored form, while Mill Creek Entertainment included a censored version of the film in its 20 Movie Pack Cult Classics collection. The film is now in the public domain. Legacy According to an interview with Mystery Science Theater 3000 writers Michael J. Nelson and Kevin Murphy, Child Bride was screened for potential use, but was considered too awful and disturbing, with Murphy saying that he needed "a good cry and a shower" afterwards.[8] In a separate interview with staff writer Frank Conniff, who was responsible for selecting films for riffing, Child Bride was cited as the worst film watched as a potential selection—alongside Manos: The Hands of Fate, which was used on the series in January 1993.[9] See also Film portal flag United States portal List of films in the public domain in the United States Nudity in film Marriage of Charlie Johns and Eunice Winstead References "Child Bride (1938) AFI Catalog of Feature Films American Film Institute. The film is widely listed as dating from 1938 (IMDb, AllMovie, YouTube etc.), but the copyright date on the print of the film shown by Turner Classic Movies on January 12, 2014, and also the ones available on YouTube and the Internet Archive is "MCMXLIII" (1943). Despite this, Schaefer, Eric (1999). "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959. Duke University Press. pp. 282–283. ISBN 9780822323747. lists it as 1941. Child Bride at AllMovie Schaefer, Eric (1999). "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959. Duke University Press. p. 283. ISBN 9780822323747. Wollstein, Hans J. (2014). "Child Bride". Movies & TV Dept. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 28, 2014. Retrieved July 13, 2012. "Child Bride (1943)—Notes". Turner Classic Movies. Retrieved December 8, 2015. Tsui, Anjali (September 14, 2017). "Married Young: The Fight Over Child Marriage in America". PBS. In January 1937, 22-year-old Charlie Johns married his 9-year-old neighbor, Eunice Winstead. Johns was a quiet, tobacco farmer in Hancock County, Tennessee. The couple falsified Winstead's age in order to get a marriage license. At the time, however, there was no minimum marriage age in Tennessee and minors did not need parental permission. News of their union prompted outrage around the country. National magazines and newspapers jumped to report the story. In a photo essay entitled, "The Case of the Child Bride" published in LIFE magazine, Winstead smiled tentatively next to her lanky, six-foot tall husband. Syrett, Nicholas (November 25, 2014). "Imagining Rural Sexuality in the Depression Era: Child Brides, Exploitation Film, and the Winstead-Johns Marriage". Archived from the original on December 24, 2019. Retrieved December 24, 2019. If, as the census demonstrated, the largest number of child brides were among the native born (and of native born parents, to boot) then the Winsteads' status as "white trash" explained their consent to Eunice's marriage and exemplified backward backwoods sexuality more generally. I also focus on the film, Child Bride, which itself makes the "old stock" whiteness of the Tennesseans a key issue. I argue that the film, released at the height of the Great Depression, spoke to anxieties about falling marriage and birth rates and single women's supposed promiscuity. By displacing these fears on to the forced child marriage depicted in the film, which itself bore little resemblance to Eunice Winstead's adamant declaration of her own choice to marry Charlie Johns, Americans could ignore what were perceived as real threats to the institution of marriage in favor of an imagined sex exploitation hidden in the hills of Appalachia. Murphy, Kevin (2004). MST3K—An Interview With Kevin and Mike. "The Highest of Low Standards: How 'MST3K' Picked Movies to Mock". Splitsider. Archived from the original on December 7, 2015. Retrieved December 8, 2015. Note: The 1943 date cited refers to the copyright/release/re-release date. It was filmed in 1938/1939 because Shirley Mills was born in 1926, and it is widely known that she was 12 at that time, and not 17.

Claudia is a 1943 American comedy-drama film directed by Edmund Goulding, and written by Morrie Ryskind. The film stars Dorothy McGuire, Robert Young, Ina Claire, Reginald Gardiner, Olga Baclanova, and Jean Howard. The film was released on November 4, 1943, by 20th Century Fox.[3][4][5] The film was based on a Broadway play of the same name from 1941. It is followed by a sequel in 1946 Claudia and David. Robert Young said of his co-star, “She'd done it on Broadway and this was mostly a photographed play. Ina Claire was wonderful as her mother. It did sensational business and Fox requested a sequel. Dorothy was aghast and said she'd never do a sequel, but technically, she was under contract to Selznick and he simply put his foot down and Claudia and David duly appeared in 1946 and was almost as big a hit.”[6] Plot Child bride Claudia Naughton (Dorothy McGuire) has made life difficult for her husband David (Robert Young) because she can't stand living so far away from her mother. She's also afraid her husband doesn't find her desirable enough. To remedy both situations, she plans to sell their farm to an opera singer so they'll have to move back to the city near her mother, and she tries to make her husband jealous by flirting with a neighbor. Eventually, Claudia has to learn to grow when she discovers that she's about to become a mother and that her own mother is gravely ill.[7] Cast Dorothy McGuire as Claudia Naughton Robert Young as David Naughton Ina Claire as Mrs. Brown Reginald Gardiner as Jerry Seymour Olga Baclanova as Madame Daruschka Jean Howard as Julia Frank Tweddell as Fritz Elsa Janssen as Bertha

Baby Doll is a 1956 American black comedy film directed by Elia Kazan and starring Carroll Baker, Karl Malden and Eli Wallach. It was produced by Kazan and Tennessee Williams, and adapted by Williams from his own one-act play 27 Wagons Full of Cotton (1955). The plot focuses on a feud between two rival cotton gin owners in rural Mississippi. Filmed in Mississippi in late 1955, Baby Doll was released in December 1956. It provoked significant controversy, mostly because of its implied sexual themes, and the National Legion of Decency condemned the film. Despite the moral objections, Baby Doll enjoyed a mostly favorable response from critics and earned numerous accolades, including the Golden Globe Award for Best Director for Kazan and nominations for four other Golden Globe awards, four Academy Awards and four BAFTA Awards. Wallach won the BAFTA award for Most Promising Newcomer. Baby Doll has been listed by some film scholars as among the most notorious films of the 1950s, and The New York Times included it in its Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made.[1] Plot In the Mississippi Delta, bigoted, middle-aged cotton gin owner Archie Lee Meighan has been married to pretty, naïve 17-year-old "Baby Doll" Meighan for two years. Archie Lee impatiently waits for her 18th birthday, when, by prior agreement with her now-deceased father, the marriage can finally be consummated. In the meantime, she sleeps in a crib, because the only other bedroom furniture in the house is the bed in which Archie sleeps; Archie, an alcoholic, spies on her through a hole in a wall. Baby Doll's senile Aunt Rose Comfort lives in the house, as well, much to Archie's chagrin. After defaulting on payments to a furniture-leasing company due to his failing cotton gin, virtually all the furniture in the house is repossessed, and Baby Doll threatens to leave. Archie's competitor, a Sicilian-American named Silva Vacarro—who is manager of a newer and more modern and profitable cotton gin—has taken away all of Archie's business. Archie retaliates by burning down Vacarro's gin that night. Suspecting Archie as the arsonist, Vacarro visits the farm the following day with truckloads of cotton, offering to pay Archie Lee to gin for him. Archie asks Baby Doll to entertain Vacarro while he supervises the work, and the two spend the day together. Vacarro explicitly inquires about Archie's whereabouts the night before and makes sexual advances toward her. When Vacarro outright accuses Archie of burning down his gin, Baby Doll goes to find Archie, who slaps her in the face and leaves for town to purchase new parts for his gin. Vacarro comforts Baby Doll, and after becoming friendly, Vacarro forces her to sign an affidavit admitting Archie's guilt. He then takes a nap in Baby Doll's crib, and is invited for supper at Baby Doll's request as a storm approaches. Archie, drunk and jealous of Baby Doll's romantic interest in Vacarro, angrily tells Aunt Rose she needs to move out of the house; Vacarro immediately offers to let her live with him as his cook, and Baby Doll and he flirt with each other and taunt Archie. After Vacarro confronts Archie with the affidavit, Archie retrieves his shotgun and chases Vacarro outside while Baby Doll calls the police. The police arrive, and Archie is arrested when Vacarro presents them with the affidavit. Vacarro then leaves the farm, telling Baby Doll he will be back the following day with more cotton. As Archie is taken away by the police, remarking that it is Baby Doll's birthday, Baby Doll and her Aunt Rose return inside the house to await Vacarro's return. Cast Karl Malden as Archie Lee Meighan Carroll Baker as Baby Doll Meighan Eli Wallach as Silva Vacarro Mildred Dunnock as Aunt Rose Comfort Lonny Chapman as Rock Eades Hogue as Town Marshal Noah Williamson as Deputy R. G. Armstrong as Townsman Sid (voice only, uncredited) Madeleine Sherwood as Nurse in Doctor's Office (uncredited) Rip Torn as Dentist (uncredited) Production Development Jack Garfein, Carroll Baker, and Elia Kazan on the set of Baby Doll Although the film's title card reads "Tennessee Williams' Baby Doll" and the film is based on Williams' one-act play 27 Wagons Full of Cotton, Elia Kazan claimed in his autobiography that Williams was only "half-heartedly" involved in the screenplay and that Kazan actually wrote most of it.[2][3] Casting Kazan cast Baby Doll using numerous alumni of the Actors Studio, including each of the principal cast members.[4] Carroll Baker was Kazan's first choice for the title role, although Williams had considered Marilyn Monroe for the part.[2][5] Williams favored Baker after she performed a scene from his script at the Actors Studio. Kazan had been impressed by her performance in All Summer Long on Broadway the year prior.[6] Eli Wallach was cast in his first screen role[7] but was hesitant, as he was unfamiliar with film acting and lacked confidence in his ability.[8] Although racial segregation was still present in Mississippi at the time,[9] several local black actors appear in bit parts.[7] Actors Studio alumnus Rip Torn appears in an uncredited role as a dentist.[8] Filming Principal photography began in October 1955 in Benoit, Mississippi[10] at the J.C. Burrus house, an 1848 antebellum home in Bolivar County.[7] Kazan asked the actors to dress the home's interiors with props that they felt reflected their characters' personalities.[7] Other shooting locations included nearby Greenville, Mississippi and New York City.[2] According to Kazan, Williams did not stay long while the film was shooting in Benoit because of the way in which locals looked at him.[2] Some locals were used for minor roles, and one called "Boll Weevil" acted and also served as the production unit's utility man.[2] The working titles for the film included the name of the play and Mississippi Woman. Baker claims that Kazan changed the title to Baby Doll as a present to her.[7] Release Box office Baby Doll premiered in New York City on December 18, 1956, opening the following week in Los Angeles on December 26 before receiving an expanded release on December 29.[7] During its opening week at New York's Victoria Theater, the film earned promising box-office returns, totaling $51,232.[11] It grossed a total of $2.3 million at the U.S. box office.[12] According to Kazan, the film was ultimately not profitable.[13] Claims of indecency Cardinal Francis Spellman, Archbishop of New York, protested the film. Baby Doll courted controversy before its release with the display of a promotional billboard in New York City that depicted Baker lying in a crib and sucking her thumb.[14] Cardinal Spellman urged both Catholics and non-Catholics to avoid the film, deeming it a moral danger.[15] Although Baby Doll received a seal of approval from the MPAA, Motion Picture Herald criticized the approval, noting: "Both the general principles of the Code and several specific stipulations are tossed aside in granting the film a Code seal. Among these, the law is ridiculed, there are sexual implications, vulgarity, and the words 'wop' and 'nigger.'"[7] Religious groups continued to apply pressure following the film's December 18, 1956 premiere, and the Catholic Legion of Decency rated the film as a "C" ("Condemned") and deemed it "grievously offensive to Christian and traditional standards of morality and decency."[7] The group succeeded in having the film withdrawn from numerous theaters.[2] Variety noted that it was the first time in years that the Legion of Decency had condemned a major American film that had been approved by the MPAA.[2] Drive-in advertisement from 1957 Response to the film from Catholic laity was mixed,[16] and Episcopal bishop James A. Pike argued that The Ten Commandments contained more "sensuality" than did Baby Doll.[2] According to Baker, the cast and crew were unaware that the material would be perceived as controversial.[17] The main reason for the backlash was believed to be the seduction scene between Baker and Wallach.[17] Speculation arose among some audiences that during their scene together on a swinging chair, Wallach's character was fondling Baby Doll underneath her dress because his hands are not visible in the frame.[17] According to both Baker and Wallach, the scene was intentionally filmed as such because Kazan had placed heaters all around them in the cold weather.[17] The film was banned in many countries, including Sweden, because of "exaggerated sexual content." It also was condemned by Time, which called it "just possibly the dirtiest American-made motion picture that has ever been legally exhibited."[18] Such heated objections and the ensuing publicity earned Baby Doll a reputation as one of the most notorious films of the 1950s.[19] Critical response Reviews from critics were mostly positive. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote in a generally favorable review that Tennessee Williams "has written his trashy, vicious people so that they are clinically interesting...But Mr. Kazan's pictorial compositions, got in stark black-and-white and framed for the most part against the background of an old Mississippi mansion, are by far the most artful and respectable feature of 'Baby Doll.'"[20] Variety wrote that Kazan "probably here turns in his greatest directing job to date" and praised the "superb performances," concluding that the film "ranks as a major screen achievement and deserves to be recognized as such."[21] Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post called it "one of the finest films of this or many another year, a chilling expose of what ignorance does to human beings...and an excellent example of why the Motion Picture Association should follow Britain's lead in classifying films into distinct categories for children and adults."[22] John McCarten of The New Yorker praised the cast as "uniformly commendable" and wrote that the plot machinations "add up to some hilarious French-style farce, and it is only at the conclusion of the piece, when Mr. Kazan starts moving his camera around in a preternaturally solemn way, that one's interest in 'Baby Doll' briefly wanes."[23] The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote "Kazan has often fallen afoul of his own cleverness, but in Baby Doll he responds to a brilliant and astute scenario by Tennessee Williams with a great invention and the most subtle insight...There are no bad performances, and those of Carroll Baker as Baby Doll and Eli Wallach as the Sicilian are outstanding."[24] Not all reviews were positive. Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times wrote that the film "offers an experience so basically sordid, and so trying besides, that if one does not manage to laugh at its fantastic ribaldry, he will think that he has spent two hours in bedlam."[25] Harrison's Reports called the film "thoroughly unpleasant and distasteful screen fare, in spite of the fact that it is expertly directed and finely acted."[26] Accolades Institution Category Recipient(s) Result Ref. Academy Awards Best Actress Carroll Baker Nominated [27] Best Supporting Actress Mildred Dunnock Nominated Best Adapted Screenplay Tennessee Williams Nominated Best Black-and-White Cinematography Boris Kaufman Nominated BAFTA Awards Most Promising Newcomer Eli Wallach Won [28] Best Film Baby Doll Nominated Best Foreign Actor Karl Malden Nominated Best Foreign Actress Carroll Baker Nominated Golden Globe Awards Best Director Elia Kazan Won [29] Best Actor – Drama Karl Malden Nominated Best Supporting Actor Eli Wallach Nominated Best Actress – Drama Carroll Baker Nominated New Star of the Year Won Best Supporting Actress Mildred Dunnock Nominated WGA Awards Best Written American Drama – Screen Tennessee Williams Nominated Stage play In the 1970s, Williams wrote the full-length stage play Tiger Tail, based on his screenplay for Baby Doll. The screenplay and stage play have been published in one volume.[30] In 2015, the McCarter Theatre in Princeton, New Jersey premiered a stage version of Baby Doll,[31] adapted by Emily Mann, the theater's artistic director, and Pierre Laville, who had written an earlier version that premiered at the Théâtre de l’Atelier in Paris in 2009.[32] The latest adaptation supplemented parts of the film script with material based on several others of Williams' works, including Tiger Tail.[33] See also Film portal flag United States portal List of American films of 1956 References Nichols, Peter M. (ed.). The New York Times' Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made. pp. 66–7. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) "Notes" on TCM.com Reed, Courtney (March 17, 2011). "In the galleries: The productive, but complicated, relationship between Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan". Cultural Compass. University of Texas. Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Wallach 2014, p. 170. Baker 1983, p. 175. Murphy 1992, p. 131. "Baby Doll". AFI Catalog of Feature Films. Los Angeles, California: American Film Institute. Archived from the original on January 13, 2020. Wallach 2014, p. 169. Wallach 2014, pp. 169–170. Wallach 2014, pp. 170–171. Haberski 2007, p. 79. "Top Grosses of 1957". Variety: 30. January 8, 1958. Steinberg, Jay. "Baby Doll". Turner Classic Movies. Archived from the original on December 28, 2017. Nashawaty, Chris (January 26, 2007). "Baby, oh, baby". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved January 13, 2020. Haberski 2007, p. 63. Haberski 2007, pp. 78–82. See No Evil: Making Baby Doll (2006), as featured on the Baby Doll DVD. Warner Bros. Home Video. "New Picture", Time, December 24, 1956. Accessed 29 June 2008. Palmer & Bray 2009, p. 94. Crowther, Bosley (December 19, 1956). "Screen: Streetcar on Tobacco Road". The New York Times: 39. "Baby Doll". Variety: 6. December 5, 1956. Coe, Richard L. (December 29, 1956). "Villain Here Is Ignorance". The Washington Post. p. 7. McCarten, John (December 29, 1956). "The Current Cinema". The New Yorker. p. 60. "Baby Doll". The Monthly Film Bulletin. 24 (257): 14. February 1957. Schallert, Edwin (December 27, 1956). "'Baby Doll' Real Terrible Infant". Los Angeles Times. Part IV, p. 7. "'Baby Doll' with Karl Malden, Carroll Baker and Eli Wallach". Harrison's Reports: 195. December 8, 1956. "1957 Oscars". Academy Awards. Archived from the original on October 28, 2014. Retrieved January 13, 2020. "Film in 1957". British Academy of Film and Television Arts. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. "Baby Doll". Golden Globe Awards. Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Archived from the original on January 13, 2020. Baby Doll & Tiger Tail – New Directions Publishing Byron, Leigh (2015-09-21). "Review: BABY DOLL at McCarter Theatre Center". Broadway World. Retrieved 2022-12-04. Piepenburg, Erik (July 15, 2015). "Dylan McDermott to Star in 'Baby Doll' at the McCarter Theater". The New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2018. "Theater: 'Baby Doll' at Princeton's McCarter Theatre Center". NJ.com. 2015-09-16. Retrieved October 9, 2018. Sources Baker, Carroll (1983). Baby Doll: An Autobiography. New York City, New York: Arbor House. ISBN 978-0-87795-558-0. Palmer, R. Barton; Bray, William Robert (2009). Hollywood's Tennessee: The Williams Films and Postwar America. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-71921-7. Haberski, Raymond J. (2007). Freedom to Offend: How New York Remade Movie Culture. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-813-13841-1. Murphy, Brenda (1992). Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan: A Collaboration in the Theatre. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-40095-4. Wallach, Eli (2014) [2006]. The Good, the Bad, and Me: In My Anecdotage. Boston: Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-544-53578-7.

Prophet and Leader of the FLDS Warren Jeffs tells us about the Heavenly Mothers Eve and Mary.

Child Bride of Short Creek is a 1981 American made-for-television drama film written by Joyce Eliason, starring Christopher Atkins, Diane Lane, Conrad Bain, Helen Hunt and Dee Wallace. The film is a dramatization loosely based upon the 1953 Short Creek raid that had occurred in Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, United States, collectively known as "Short Creek," a community of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a group that practices child marriage and polygamy. Plot In 1953 Arizona, teenagers Jessica Rae "Jessie" Jacobs (Diane Lane) and her friend Naomi (Helen Hunt) have grown up in Short Creek as members of an isolated patriarchal polygamist religious community, led by President Frank King (Conrad Bain). The members of the small group dress in old-fashioned clothing and spend many hours a day doing domestic and agricultural chores with traditional equipment and few modern conveniences. The women are trained to serve and be subservient to their husbands. They rarely travel away from the community and are usually kept away from outside influences such as magazines and radio. Jessie's father Jay Jacobs has three wives, including Jessie's mother Mary, who only sees her husband on certain days when he is not with his other wives, and has mixed feelings about the arrangement. State authorities are also investigating the group due to its unlawful customs of polygamy and child marriage of young girls to older men. President King's 19-year-old son Isaac (Christopher Atkins) returns home safely from serving in the Korean War, having gained knowledge of the outside world through his travels. At his homecoming party, he and Jessie become attracted to each other, and over time they fall in love. To his father's chagrin, Isaac begins to reject the group's lifestyle, including the polygamy which allows the older men of the group to regularly take new young women as wives. Isaac further questions the group's beliefs when his younger sisters accidentally drown because they were not allowed to learn how to swim. Meanwhile, President King has confided to the men of the group that God has told him to take Jessie as his wife, in addition to the three wives he already has. Despite Jessie's youth, her father Jay accepts this as God's will. Jessie's friend Naomi attempts to run away from Short Creek, planning to go to Las Vegas and become an actress. She naively accepts a ride from two young men who get her to drink alcohol for the first time and then try to rape her. She is rescued just in time by President King and driven back to Short Creek, where she is immediately married off to an old man to settle her down. Isaac learns that his father is planning to marry Jessie and is furious, not only because of his own feelings for Jessie but because an additional wife will cause his mother to be further neglected by his father. President King also tells Jessie of his plan to marry her. A reluctant Jessie goes along with his plan because she wants to please her parents and do the will of God, but she is very unhappy. Jessie and Isaac secretly confess their love for each other and plan to run away together. However, after going a short distance they see many armed police preparing to launch a raid on the group. Fearing for the lives of her mother and family, Jessie decides she must go back to warn them, and says an emotional goodbye to Isaac, who boards a bus alone as Jessie rushes back to warn the community just ahead of the police. The police arrive and separate the families, sending the women and children to barracks where they will be re-educated in a modern lifestyle, while the men are sent to jail. Two years later, Jessie and her mother Mary, along with the other community women, are being transferred once again from one barracks to another and are in line to board the bus when Jessie sees Isaac, who has just arrived in a car. Mary, seeing that Isaac and Jessie still love each other, tells her daughter to "run, while you still have a chance". Jessie hugs Mary goodbye, and goes to join Isaac; they drive away together. Cast Christopher Atkins: Isaac King Diane Lane: Jessica Jacobs Conrad Bain : Frank King Helen Hunt: Naomi Kiel Martin : Bob Kalish Dee Wallace: Mary Jacobs Julianne Slocum: Jacobs Daughter Jake Johnston: Garth Jacobs Karyn Christensen: Ada King Sharyn Christensen: Alma King

George Nez is the father of a Navajo family. He starts to occasionally drink with friends, coming home to a tongue-lashing from his wife Nellie. A gifted silversmith, he gradually begins to neglect his work, which provides much of the family income. Then he begins to sell off horses, goats, and pawn his silver jewelry to pay for his habit. His Uncle Bitaani chides him, and George strikes the old man causing him to become ill, stop eating, and finally die "of a broken heart." Nellie begs George to stop drinking, but this drives him even more to drink. Seeing no alternative but to lose him, she starts to drink with him. With only daughter Billie, an older son, and old Aunt Dezba to look after the needs of the younger children, they face going hungry in the harsh winter cold.

Effervescent Los Angeles bishop Jack West narrates a slide show of his many travels throughout Central and South America for a fireside of Latter-day Saints. This slideshow led to a popular book on the subject and was a popular filmstrip displayed by many missionaries and members in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many of Jack's claims of how ancient ruins and modern Native Americans relate to the narrative of the Book of Mormon are no longer held as valid by LDS scholars, but his assertions are still very much alive among popular LDS conceptions of Mesoamerican and Inca history and iconography. This fireside was never officially published by BYU or ever officially backed by LDS leadership, but its influence among American Latter-day Saints' cultural understandings of the native peoples of Central and South America is undeniable.

Takes the viewer into Central and South America and shows many of the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Links the legends of a "great white god" with the Book of Mormon account of the Savior's visit to ancient America.

The Unofficial Theme Song of the Ku Klux Klan. Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! We are a sacred brotherhood, who love our country too. We always can be counted on, when there's a job to do. We serve our homeland day and night, to keep it always free. Proudly wear our robes of White, protecting liberty. Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Survival cause for vigilance, the symbols of our land. The sword and water, robe and hood, betrayed our noble plan. In search for peace and liberty, we pledge our hearts in hands. We must defeat the communists to save our Christian land. Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan! Stand up and be counted, show the world that youre a man! Stand up and be counted and join the Ku Klux Klan!

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) has been at the center of numerous controversies and scandals, many of which stem from its practice of polygamy. This religious denomination, known for its strict adherence to fundamentalist beliefs, has faced intense scrutiny over the years. Apostate Annie Elise from the YouTube channel "10 to LIFE" delves into the FLDS with biased eyes.

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well', and -γενής (genḗs) 'come into being, growing')[1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.[5] In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not.[6] The principles of eugenics have been in practice since ancient Greece. Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BCE. Nobility is also historically based on pedigree. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism. Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterize it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership. The contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[7] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,[8] and most European countries (e.g. , Sweden and Germany). In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed "unfit to reproduce" often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and "sexual and social deviants", and members of disfavored minority groups. The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the US eugenics programs.[9] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.[citation needed] A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[10] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968's Proclamation of Tehran,[11] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[12] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of human evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines "clean" of "disorders" can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[13] History Main article: History of eugenics Origin and development Francis Galton coined the term eugenics and was an early proponent.[14][15] Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting eugenics as a tree which unites a variety of different fields[16] G. K. Chesterton, an opponent of eugenics, photographed by Ernest Herbert Mills in 1909 Types of eugenic practices have existed for millennia. Some indigenous peoples of Brazil are known to have practiced infanticide against children born with physical abnormalities since precolonial times.[17] In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato suggested selective mating to produce a "guardian" class.[18] In Sparta, every Spartan child was inspected by the council of elders, the Gerousia, who determined whether or not the child was fit to live.[19] The geographer Strabo (c. 64 BCE - c. 24 CE) states that the Samnites would take ten virgin women and ten young men who were considered to be the best representation of their sex and mate them.[20] Following this, the best woman would be given to the best male, then the second-best woman to the second-best male. It is possible[original research?] that the "best" men and women were chosen based on athletic capabilities. This would continue until all 20 people had been assigned to one another. Any selected male dishonoring himself,[clarification needed] would be separated from his partner. In the early years of the Roman Republic, a Roman father was obliged by law to immediately kill any "dreadfully deformed" child.[21] According to Tacitus (c. 56 - c. 120), a Roman of the Imperial Period, the Germanic tribes of his day killed any member of their community they deemed cowardly, unwarlike or "stained with abominable vices", usually by drowning them in swamps.[22][23] Modern historians, however, see Tacitus' ethnographic writing as unreliable in such details.[24][25] The idea of a modern project for improving the human population through selective breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton (1822–1911), and was initially inspired by Darwinism and its theory of natural selection.[26][need quotation to verify] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[27] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics.[28] With the introduction of genetics, eugenics became associated with genetic determinism, the belief that human character is entirely or in the majority caused by genes, unaffected by education or living conditions. Many of the early geneticists were not Darwinians, and evolution theory was not needed for eugenics policies based on genetic determinism.[26] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained controversial.[29] Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from many sources.[30] Organizations were formed to win public support for and to sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.[31] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.[31] The book The Passing of the Great Race (Or, The Racial Basis of European History) by American eugenicist, lawyer, and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant was published in 1916. Although subsequently influential, the book was largely ignored when it first appeared, and it went through several revisions and editions. Nevertheless, the book was used by people who advocated restricted immigration as justification for what became known as "scientific racism".[32] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.[33] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[34] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[35] Brazil,[36] Canada,[37] Japan and Sweden. Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[38] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics"). In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations.[39] Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics,[40] the Cold Spring Harbor Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution,[41] and the Eugenics Record Office.[42] Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws.[43] In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness.[44] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.[45][46] Many leading British politicians subscribed to the theories of eugenics. Winston Churchill supported the British Eugenics Society and was an honorary vice president for the organization. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve "race deterioration" and reduce crime and poverty.[47][48][49] Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[50] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas, who argued that advocates of eugenics greatly over-estimate the influence of biology,[51] and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland. Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils, and Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly) were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement. Sutherland identified eugenicists as a major obstacle to the eradication and cure of tuberculosis in his 1917 address "Consumption: Its Cause and Cure",[52] and criticism of eugenicists and Neo-Malthusians in his 1921 book Birth Control led to a writ for libel from the eugenicist Marie Stopes. Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[53] Other biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[54] Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations, but accepted isolating people with hereditary diseases so as not to let them reproduce.[55] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[56] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.[31] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[57] As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century, when it was practiced around the world and promoted by governments, institutions, and influential individuals (such as the playwright G. B. Shaw). Many countries enacted[58] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. By 2014, gene selection (rather than "people selection") was made possible through advances in genome editing,[59] leading to what is sometimes called new eugenics, also known as "neo-eugenics", "consumer eugenics", or "liberal eugenics"; which focuses on individual freedom and allegedly pull away from racism, sexism, heterosexism or a focus on intelligence.[60] Eugenics in the United States Main article: Eugenics in the United States Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States made it a crime for individuals to wed someone categorized as belonging to a different race.[61] These laws were part of a broader policy of racial segregation in the United States to minimize contact between people of different ethnicities. Race laws and practices in the United States were explicitly used as models by the Nazi regime when it developed the Nuremberg Laws, stripping Jewish citizens of their citizenship.[62] Nazism and the decline of eugenics Main article: Nazi eugenics Schloss Hartheim, a former center for Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 campaign A Lebensborn birth house in Nazi Germany. Created with the intention of raising the birth rate of "Aryan" children from the extramarital relations of "racially pure and healthy" parents. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler had praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf in 1925 and emulated eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States once he took power.[63] Some common early 20th century eugenics methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", and therefore led to segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, and even mass murder.[10] The Nazi policy of identifying German citizens deemed mentally or physically unfit and then systematically killing them with poison gas, referred to as the Aktion T4 campaign, is understood by historians to have paved the way for the Holocaust.[64][65][66] By the end of World War II, many eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.[10] H. G. Wells, who had called for "the sterilization of failures" in 1904,[67] stated in his 1940 book The Rights of Man: Or What Are We Fighting For? that among the human rights, which he believed should be available to all people, was "a prohibition on mutilation, sterilization, torture, and any bodily punishment".[68] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[69] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".[70] In spite of the decline in discriminatory eugenics laws, some government mandated sterilizations continued into the 21st century. During the ten years President Alberto Fujimori led Peru from 1990 to 2000, 2,000 persons were allegedly involuntarily sterilized.[71] China maintained its one-child policy until 2015 as well as a suite of other eugenics-based legislation to reduce population size and manage fertility rates of different populations.[72][73][74] Compulsory sterilization Main article: Compulsory sterilization While there is ostensibly less support for eugenics today, forced sterilization remains a problem around the world.[75][76] It has been used against Indigenous women in Canada as recently as 2019.[77] Until 2014, the Netherlands required sterilization of transgender people as a prerequisite for legal recognition of their genders.[78] A similar law persists in Japan and was upheld in 2019 as constitutional.[79] In the United States, most people affected by forced sterilization are under guardianship,[80] though procedures were also performed on inmates in the California prison system.[81] According to a report from The National Women's Law Center, 31 states and D.C. have laws allowing forced sterilization, and in most other states it is not clear whether it is legal or not.[82] Seventeen states allow the sterilization of children under the age of 18, and some do not even require a legal guardian to make that decision.[83] Modern eugenics Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the beginning of the 21st century have raised numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, have argued that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics.[84] This view was shared by then-White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".[85] In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction.[86] Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, promoted eugenics as late as 1983.[87] A proponent of nature over nurture, he stated that "intelligence is 80% nature and 20% nurture", and attributed the successes of his children to genetics.[88] In his speeches, Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased.[88] In 1984, Singapore began providing financial incentives to highly educated women to encourage them to have more children. In 1985, incentives were significantly reduced after public uproar.[89][90] In October 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. However, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want, or cannot afford, the technology.[91] The American National Human Genome Research Institute says that eugenics is "inaccurate", "scientifically erroneous and immoral".[92] Transhumanism is often associated with eugenics, although most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.[93] Prenatal screening has been called by some a contemporary form of eugenics because it may lead to abortions of fetuses with undesirable traits.[94] A system was proposed by California State Senator Nancy Skinner to compensate victims of the well-documented examples of prison sterilizations resulting from California's eugenics programs, but this did not pass by the bill's 2018 deadline in the Legislature.[95] Meanings and types Karl Pearson in 1912 The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883,[96] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[97][98] Galton published his observations and conclusions in his book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance and the theories of August Weismann.[99] The word eugenics is derived from the Greek word eu ("good" or "well") and the suffix -genēs ("born"); Galton intended it to replace the word "stirpiculture", which he had used previously but which had come to be mocked due to its perceived sexual overtones.[100] Galton defined eugenics as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[101] The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. Historically, this aspect of eugenics was tainted with scientific racism and pseudoscience.[2][102][103] Historically, the idea of eugenics has been used to argue for a broad array of practices ranging from prenatal care for mothers deemed genetically desirable to the forced sterilization and murder of those deemed unfit.[5] To population geneticists, the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."[104] Debate as to what exactly counts as eugenics continues today.[105] Edwin Black, journalist, historian, and author of War Against the Weak, argues that eugenics is often deemed a pseudoscience because what is defined as a genetic improvement of a desired trait is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined through objective scientific inquiry.[2] Black states the following about the pseudoscientific past of eugenics: "As American eugenic pseudoscience thoroughly infused the scientific journals of the first three decades of the twentieth century, Nazi-era eugenics placed its unmistakable stamp on the medical literature of the twenties, thirties and forties." [106] Black says that eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race, used by Adolf Hitler to "try to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics."[107] Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with factors of perceived intelligence that often correlated strongly with social class. These included Karl Pearson and Walter Weldon, who worked on this at the University College London.[27] In his lecture "Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics", Pearson claimed that everything concerning eugenics fell into the field of medicine.[108] Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories.[5] Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[109] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[109] Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women deemed by the state to be fit.[110] Controversy over scientific and moral legitimacy Arguments for scientific validity The heterozygote test is used for the early detection of recessive hereditary diseases, allowing for couples to determine if they are at risk of passing genetic defects to a future child.[111] The goal of the test is to estimate the likelihood of passing the hereditary disease to future descendants.[111] There are examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not influencing the prevalence of heterozygote carriers of those diseases. The elevated prevalence of certain genetically transmitted diseases among the Ashkenazi Jewish population (Tay–Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease, and Gaucher's disease), has been decreased in current populations by the application of genetic screening.[112] Objections to scientific validity The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based on genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. He demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) with white eyes from a family with red eyes,[113] demonstrating that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance.[113] Additionally, Morgan criticized the view that certain traits, such as intelligence and criminality, were hereditary because these traits were subjective.[114] Despite Morgan's public rejection of eugenics, much of his genetic research was adopted by proponents of eugenics.[115][116] Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect.[117] Andrzej Pękalski, from the University of Wroclaw, argues that eugenics can cause harmful loss of genetic diversity if a eugenics program selects a pleiotropic gene that could possibly be associated with a positive trait. Pękalski uses the example of a coercive government eugenics program that prohibits people with myopia from breeding but has the unintended consequence of also selecting against high intelligence since the two go together.[118] Further, a culturally-accepted "improvement" of the gene pool may result in extinction, due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and other factors that may not be anticipated in advance. This has been evidenced in numerous instances, in inbred isolated island populations. A long-term, species-wide eugenics plan might lead to such a scenario because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition.[12] While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology, at this point there is no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Some conditions such as sickle-cell disease and cystic fibrosis respectively confer immunity to malaria and resistance to cholera when a single copy of the recessive allele is contained within the genotype of the individual, so eliminating these genes is undesirable in places where such diseases are common.[13] Ethical controversies Societal and political consequences of eugenics call for a place in the discussion on the ethics behind the eugenics movement.[119] Many of the ethical concerns regarding eugenics arise from its controversial past, prompting a discussion on what place, if any, it should have in the future. Advances in science have changed eugenics. In the past, eugenics had more to do with sterilization and enforced reproduction laws.[120] Now, in the age of a progressively mapped genome, embryos can be tested for susceptibility to disease, sex, and genetic defects, and alternative methods of reproduction such as in vitro fertilization are becoming more common.[121] Therefore, eugenics is no longer ex post facto regulation of the living but instead preemptive action on the unborn.[122] With this change, however, there are ethical concerns which some groups feel warrant more attention before this practice is commonly rolled out. Sterilized individuals, for example, could volunteer for the procedure, albeit under incentive or duress, or at least voice their opinion. The unborn fetus on which these new eugenic procedures are performed cannot speak out, as the fetus lacks the voice to consent or to express their opinion.[123] Philosophers disagree about the proper framework for reasoning about such actions, which change the very identity and existence of future persons.[124] Opposition In the decades after World War II, the term "eugenics" had taken on a negative connotation and as a result, the use of it became increasingly unpopular within the scientific community. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy which spawned it, as when Eugenics Quarterly was renamed Social Biology in 1969 Edwin Black has described potential "eugenics wars" as the worst-case outcome of eugenics. In his view, this scenario would mean the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as the compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, the segregation and genocide of races which are considered inferior.[10] Law professors George Annas and Lori Andrews have argued that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-posthuman caste warfare.[125][126] Environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued against germinal choice technology and other advanced biotechnological strategies for human enhancement. He writes that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome with technology. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, he argues, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish as examples.[127] Amanda Caleb, Professor of Medical Humanities at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, says "Eugenic laws and policies are now understood as part of a specious devotion to a pseudoscience that actively dehumanizes to support political agendas and not true science or medicine."[128] Endorsement Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making process from the state to patients and their families.[129] Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise."[130] Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral.[131] In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.[132] In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), American philosopher John Rawls argued that "[o]ver time a society is to take steps to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects".[133] The original position, a hypothetical situation developed by Rawls, has been used as an argument for negative eugenics.[134][135] In science fiction The novel Brave New World (1931) is a dystopian social science fiction novel by the English author Aldous Huxley, set in a futuristic World State, whose citizens are environmentally engineered into an intelligence-based social hierarchy. The Star Trek franchise features a race of genetically engineered humans known as "Augments", the most notable being Khan Noonien Singh. These "supermen" were the cause of the Eugenics Wars, a dark period in Earth's fictional history, before being deposed and exiled. They appear in many of the franchise's story arcs, most often as villains.[136] The film Gattaca (1997) provides a fictional example of a dystopian society that uses eugenics to decide what people are capable of and their place in the world. Though Gattaca was not a box office success, it was critically acclaimed and is said to have crystallized the debate over the controversial topic of human genetic engineering.[137][138] The film's dystopian depiction of "genoism" has been cited by many bioethicists and laypeople in support of their hesitancy about, or opposition to, eugenics and the societal acceptance of the genetic-determinist ideology that may frame it.[139] In a 1997 review of the film for the journal Nature Genetics, molecular biologist Lee M. Silver stated that "Gattaca is a film that all geneticists should see if for no other reason than to understand the perception of our trade held by so many of the public-at-large".[140] In his 2018 book Blueprint, behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin writes that while Gattaca warned of the dangers of genetic information being used by a totalitarian state, genetic testing could also favour better meritocracy in democratic societies which already administer psychological tests to select people for education and employment. Plomin suggests that polygenic scores might supplement testing in a manner that is free of biases.[141] Various works by author Robert A. Heinlein mention the Howard Foundation, a group aimed at improving human longevity through selective breeding. Eugenics is commonly seen in popular media, as highlighted by series like Resident Evil.[142] See also Ableism – Discrimination against disabled people Biological determinism – Theory in behavioural genetics Culling – Process of segregating organisms in biology Directed evolution (transhumanism) – Term in transhumanism Dor Yeshorim – Jewish genetic screening organization Dysgenics – Decrease in genetic traits deemed desirable Eugenic feminism – Areas of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics Eugenics in Mexico – Review of the topic Euthenics – Study of improving living conditions to increase well-being Genetic discrimination – Discrimination based on specific gene mutations Genetic enhancement – Technologies to genetically improve human bodies Human enhancement – Natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body In vitro embryo selection – Assisted reproductive technology procedure (Preimplantation genetic diagnosis – Genetic profiling of embryos prior to implantation) New eugenics – Advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies to enhance human characteristics Life unworthy of life – Phrase in Nazi Germany Mendelian traits in humans Procreative beneficence – Australian philosopher and bioethicist Julian Savulescu coined this concept Prevention of rare diseases – Disease affecting a small percentage of the population Sterilization – Government policies which force people to undergo sterilization Social Darwinism – Group of theories and societal practices Citations "εὐγενής". Greek Word Study Tool. Medford, Massachusetts: Tufts University. 2009. Archived from the original on 5 March 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2017. Database includes entries from A Greek–English Lexicon and other English dictionaries of Ancient Greek. Black 2003, p. 370. "Eugenics – African American Studies". Oxford Bibliographies. Archived from the original on 24 June 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2019. Racially targeted sterilization practices between the 1960s and the present have been perhaps the most common topic among scholars arguing for, and challenging, the ongoing power of eugenics in the United States. Indeed, unlike in the modern period, contemporary expressions of eugenics have met with widespread, thoroughgoing resistance Galton, Francis (1904). "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims". The American Journal of Sociology. X (1): 82. Bibcode:1904Natur..70...82.. doi:10.1038/070082a0. Archived from the original on 1 March 2006. Retrieved 1 January 2020. Spektorowski, Alberto; Ireni-Saban, Liza (2013). Politics of Eugenics: Productionism, Population, and National Welfare. London: Routledge. p. 24. ISBN 9780203740231. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2017. As an applied science, thus, the practice of eugenics referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. Galton divided the practice of eugenics into two types—positive and negative—both aimed at improving the human race through selective breeding. Veit, Walter; Anomaly, Jonathan; Agar, Nicholas; Singer, Peter; Fleischman, Diana; Minerva, Francesca (2021). "Can 'eugenics' be defended?". Monash Bioethics Review. 39 (1): 60–67. doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00129-1. PMC 8321981. PMID 34033008. Hansen, Randall; King, Desmond (1 January 2001). "Eugenic Ideas, Political Interests and Policy Variance Immigration and Sterilization Policy in Britain and U.S". World Politics. 53 (2): 237–263. doi:10.1353/wp.2001.0003. JSTOR 25054146. PMID 18193564. S2CID 19634871. McGregor, Russell (2002). "'Breed out the colour' or the importance of being white". Australian Historical Studies. 33 (120): 286–302. doi:10.1080/10314610208596220. S2CID 143863018. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 18 February 2021. Bashford, Alison; Levine, Philippa (3 August 2010). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press. p. 327. ISBN 9780199706532. Archived from the original on 15 May 2022. Retrieved 26 February 2020. Eugenics was prominent at the Nuremberg trials ... much was made of the similarity between US and German eugenics by the defense, who argued that German eugenics differed little from that practiced in the United States ... . Black 2003. Proclamation of Tehran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran, 22 April to 13 May 1968, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/41 at 3 (1968) Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, United Nations, May 1968 – "16. The protection of the family and of the child remains the concern of the international community. Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children ...." Galton, David (2002). Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century. London: Abacus. p. 48. ISBN 0349113777. Withrock, Isabelle (2015). "Genetic diseases conferring resistance to infectious diseases". Genes & Diseases. 2 (3): 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.gendis.2015.02.008. PMC 6150079. PMID 30258868. Galton, Francis (2002) [1883]. Tredoux, Gavan (ed.). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (PDF). pp. 17, 30. Retrieved 21 July 2023 – via Online Galton Archives. what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use.... The investigation of human eugenics — that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced — is at present extremely hampered by the want of full family histories, both medical and general, extending over three or four generations. Galton, Francis (1874). "On men of science, their nature and their nurture". Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 7: 227–236. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2020. Currell, Susan; Cogdell, Christina (2006). Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and American Mass Culture in The 1930s. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. p. 203. ISBN 9780821416914. Feitosa, Saulo Ferreira; Garrafa, Volnei; Cornelli, Gabriele; Tardivo, Carla; Carvalho, Samuel José de (May 2010). "Bioethics, culture and infanticide in Brazilian indigenous communities: the Zuruahá case". Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 26 (5): 853–865. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2010000500002. PMID 20563380. "Eugenics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. 2 July 2014. Archived from the original on 3 June 2021. Retrieved 2 January 2015. Hughes, Bill (26 September 2019). A Historical Sociology of Disability: Human Validity and Invalidity from Antiquity to Early Modernity. Routledge Advances in Disability Studies. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9780429615207. Retrieved 21 July 2023. The Spartan Council of Elders or Gerousia decided whether a new-born child brought before them would live or die. Impairment, deformity, even puny appearance was enough to condemn a child to death. Geographica, Strabo, Book 5, page 467. "And they say that among the Samnitae there is a law which is indeed honourable and conducive to noble qualities; for they are not permitted to give their daughters in marriage to whom they wish, but every year ten virgins and ten young men, the noblest of each sex, are selected, and, of these, the first choice of the virgins is given to the first choice of the young men, and the second to the second, and so on to the end; but if the young man who wins the meed of honour changes and turns out bad, they disgrace him and take away from him the woman given him." The Laws of the Twelve Tables, c. 450 BC "A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed" Archived 22 August 2018 at the Wayback Machine Tacitus. Germania.XII "Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; the coward, the unwarlike, the man stained with abominable vices, is plunged into the mire of the morass, with a hurdle put over him." Sanders, Karin (2009). Bodies in the Bog and the Archaeological Imagination. University of Chicago Press. p. 62. ISBN 9780226734040. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 23 August 2018. Tacitus's Germania, read through this kind of filter, became a manual for racial and sexual eugenics Krebs, Christopher (2011). A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus's Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 48–49. ISBN 9780393062656. Simon, Emily T. (21 February 2008). "Ancient text has long and dangerous reach". The Harvard Gazette. Archived from the original on 26 June 2020. Retrieved 24 June 2020. Bowler, Peter J (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.), University of California Press, pp. 308–310 Hansen, Randall (2005). "Eugenics". In Gibney, Matthew J.; Hansen, Randall (eds.). Eugenics: Immigration and Asylum from 1990 to Present. ABC-CLIO. Retrieved 23 September 2013. James D., Watson; Berry, Andrew (2009). DNA: The Secret of Life. Knopf. Archived from the original on 15 March 2021. Retrieved 31 August 2017. Blom 2008, p. 336. Allen, Garland E. (2004). "Was Nazi eugenics created in the US?". EMBO Reports. 5 (5): 451–452. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400158. PMC 1299061. Baker, G. J. (2014). "Christianity and Eugenics: The Place of Religion in the British Eugenics Education Society and the American Eugenics Society, c. 1907–1940". Social History of Medicine. 27 (2): 281–302. doi:10.1093/shm/hku008. PMC 4001825. PMID 24778464. Lindsay, J. A. (1917). "The passing of the great race, or the racial basis of European history". The Eugenics Review. 9 (2): 139–141. PMC 2942213. Barrett, Deborah; Kurzman, Charles (October 2004). "Globalizing Social Movement Theory: The Case of Eugenics" (PDF). Theory and Society. 33 (5): 487–527. doi:10.1023/b:ryso.0000045719.45687.aa. JSTOR 4144884. S2CID 143618054. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Policy adoption: In the pre–World War I period, eugenic policies were enacted only in the United States, which was both the hotbed of international eugenics activism and unusually decentralized politically, so that sub-national state units could adopt such policies in the absence of central state approval. Hawkins, Mike (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American Thought. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62, 292. ISBN 9780521574341. "The National Office of Eugenics in Belgium". Science. 57 (1463): 46. 12 January 1923. Bibcode:1923Sci....57R..46.. doi:10.1126/science.57.1463.46. dos Santos, Sales Augusto; Hallewell, Laurence (January 2002). "Historical Roots of the 'Whitening' of Brazil". Latin American Perspectives. 29 (1): 61–82. doi:10.1177/0094582X0202900104. JSTOR 3185072. S2CID 220914100. McLaren, Angus (1990). Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885–1945. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780771055447.[page needed] Osborn, Frederick (June 1937). "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy". American Sociological Review. 2 (3): 389–397. doi:10.2307/2084871. JSTOR 2084871. Black 2003, p. 240. Black 2003, p. 286. Black 2003, p. 40. Black 2003, p. 45. Black 2003, Chapter 6: The United States of Sterilization. Black 2003, p. 237. Black 2003, Chapter 5: Legitimizing Raceology. Black 2003, Chapter 9: Mongrelization. Blom, P. (2009). The Vertigo Years: Change and Culture in the West, 1900–1914 (Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart). Jones, S. (1995). The Language of Genes: Solving the Mysteries of Our Genetic Past, Present and Future (New York: Anchor). King, D. (1999). In the name of liberalism: illiberal social policy in Britain and the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ferrante, Joan (2010). Sociology: A Global Perspective. Cengage Learning. pp. 259 ff. ISBN 9780840032041. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 7 June 2020. Turda, Marius (2010). "Race, Science and Eugenics in the Twentieth Century". In Bashford, Alison; Levine, Philippa (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 9780199888290. "Consumption: Its Cause and Cure" – an address by Dr Halliday Sutherland on 4 September 1917, published by the Red Triangle Press. "Lancelot Hogben, who developed his critique of eugenics and distaste for racism in the period...he spent as Professor of Zoology at the University of Cape Town". Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2010 ISBN 0199706530 (p. 200) "Whatever their disagreement on the numbers, Haldane, Fisher, and most geneticists could support Jennings's warning: To encourage the expectation that the sterilization of defectives will solve the problem of hereditary defects, close up the asylums for feebleminded and insane, do away with prisons, is only to subject society to deception". Daniel J. Kevles (1985). In the Name of Eugenics. University of California Press. ISBN 0520057635 (p. 166). Congar, Yves M.-J. (1953). The Catholic Church and the Race Question (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 July 2015. Retrieved 3 July 2015. 4. The State is not entitled to deprive an individual of his procreative power simply for material (eugenic) purposes. But it is entitled to isolate individuals who are sick and whose progeny would inevitably be seriously tainted. Bashford, Alison; Levine, Philippa (2010). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195373141. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 31 December 2018 – via Google Books. Pope Pius XI. "Casti connubii". Archived from the original on 10 April 2009. Retrieved 15 March 2020. Ridley, Matt (1999). Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. New York: HarperCollins. pp. 290–291. ISBN 9780060894085. Reis, Alex; Hornblower, Breton; Robb, Brett; Tzertzinis, George (2014). "CRISPR/Cas9 and Targeted Genome Editing: A New Era in Molecular Biology". NEB Expressions (I). Archived from the original on 23 June 2015. Retrieved 8 July 2015. Goering, Sara (2014), "Eugenics", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, archived from the original on 7 November 2020, retrieved 4 May 2022 "EugenicsArchive". www.eugenicsarchive.org. Whitman, James Q. (2003). Hitler's American model | The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Laws. Princeton University Press. p. 2 and following. ISBN 9780691172422. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Black 2003, pp. 274–295. Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford University Press. pp. 179–191. ISBN 9780192804365. Burleigh, Michael (2000). "Psychiatry, German Society, and the Nazi "Euthanasia" Programme". In Bartov, Omer (ed.). Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath. London: Routledge. pp. 43–57. ISBN 0415150361. Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. pp. 256–258. ISBN 9781441761460. Turner, Jacky (2010). Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society. Routledge. p. 296. ISBN 9781844075898. Clapham, Andrew (2007). Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 29–31. ISBN 9780199205523. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such as: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. See the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union". Article 3, Section 2. Archived from the original on 26 October 2013. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Meilhan, Pierre & Brumfield, Ben (25 January 2014). "Peru will not prosecute former President over sterilization campaign". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 19 October 2017. Dikötter, F. (1998). Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China. Columbia University Press. Miller, Geoffrey (2013). "2013: What Should We Be Worried About? Chinese Eugenics". Edge. Edge Foundation. Archived from the original on 1 September 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014. Dikötter, F. (1999). "'The legislation imposes decisions': Laws about eugenics in China". UNESCO Courier. 1. IJRC (21 March 2019). "Forced Sterilization as a Human Rights Violation: Recent Developments". International Justice Resource Center. Retrieved 14 August 2023. "The Global Problem of Forced Sterilization". www.opensocietyfoundations.org. Retrieved 14 August 2023. Stevenson, Verity (25 November 2022). "At least 22 Indigenous women underwent forced sterilization in Quebec from 1980-2019: report". CBC News. Retrieved 13 August 2023. "Netherlands Apologizes for Transgender Sterilizations". Human Rights Watch. 1 December 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2023. "Japan: Compelled Sterilization of Transgender People". Human Rights Watch. 19 March 2019. Retrieved 14 August 2023. Luterman, Sara (4 February 2022). "31 states have laws that allow forced sterilizations, new report shows". The 19th. Retrieved 14 August 2023. Naftulin, Julia. "Inside the hidden campaign to forcibly sterilize thousands of inmates in California women's prisons". Insider. Retrieved 14 August 2023. "Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States" (PDF). National Women's Law Center. 24 January 2022. pp. 8–10. Retrieved 13 August 2023. "Forced Sterilization of Disabled People in the United States" (PDF). National Women's Law Center. 24 January 2022. p. 18. Retrieved 13 August 2023. Epstein, Charles J. (1 November 2003). "Is modern genetics the new eugenics?". Genetics in Medicine. 5 (6): 469–475. doi:10.1097/01.GIM.0000093978.77435.17. PMID 14614400. Simoncelli, Tania (2003). "Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis and Selection: From disease prevention to customized conception" (PDF). Different Takes. 24. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 October 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Dawkins, Richard (2006). "From the Afterward". The Herald. Glasgow. Archived from the original on 10 May 2014. Retrieved 17 October 2013. Chan, Ying-kit (4 October 2016). "Eugenics in Postcolonial Singapore". Blynkt.com. Berlin. Archived from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 19 October 2017. Gould, Stephen Jay (16 August 1984). "Between You and Your Genes". The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 19 August 2018. "Singapore: Population Control Policies". Library of Congress Country Studies (1989). Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 11 April 2011. Retrieved 11 August 2011. Jacobson, Mark (January 2010). "The Singapore Solution". National Geographic Magazine. Archived from the original on 19 December 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2009. "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights" (PDF). International Bioethics Committee. 2 October 2015. p. 27. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 October 2015. Retrieved 22 October 2015. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case. "Eugenics and Scientific Racism". Genome.gov. National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved 15 October 2022. Silver, Lee M. (1998). Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. Harper Perennial. ISBN 9780380792436. OCLC 40094564. Thomas, Gareth M.; Rothman, Barbara Katz (April 2016). "Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability and the Future of Prenatal Screening". AMA Journal of Ethics. 18 (4): 406–415. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604. PMID 27099190. We argue that prenatal screening (and specifically NIPT) for Down syndrome can be considered a form of contemporary eugenics, in that it effaces, devalues, and possibly prevents the births of people with the condition. Skinner, Nancy (18 February 2019). SB-1190 – Eugenics Sterilization Compensation Program. State of California. Archived from the original on 19 February 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2019. Galton, Francis (1883). Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London: Macmillan Publishers. p. 199. "Correspondence between Francis Galton and Charles Darwin". Galton.org. Archived from the original on 11 January 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2011. "The Correspondence of Charles Darwin". Darwin Correspondence Project. University of Cambridge. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2011. Blom 2008, pp. 335–336. Ward, Lester Frank; Palmer Cape, Emily; Simons, Sarah Emma (1918). "Eugenics, Euthenics and Eudemics". Glimpses of the Cosmos. G.P. Putnam. pp. 382 ff. Archived from the original on 28 May 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2012. Cited in Black 2003, p. 18 Worrall, Simon (24 July 2016). "The Gene: Science's Most Dangerous Idea". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 12 September 2017. White, Susan (28 June 2017). "LibGuides: The Sociology of Science and Technology: Pseudoscience". Library of University of Princeton. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 12 September 2017. Haldane, J. (1940). "Lysenko and Genetics". Science and Society. 4 (4). Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2011. A discussion of the shifting meanings of the term can be found in Paul, Diane (1995). Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. Humanities Press. ISBN 9781573923439. Black 2003, p. 380. Black, Edwin (9 November 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection". SFGate. Retrieved 18 February 2023. Salgirli, S. G. (July 2011). "Eugenics for the doctors: Medicine and social control in 1930s Turkey". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. 66 (3): 281–312. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrq040. PMID 20562206. S2CID 205167694. Glad, John (2008). Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Hermitage Publishers. ISBN 9781557791542. Pine, Lisa (1997). Nazi Family Policy, 1933–1945. Berg. pp. 19 ff. ISBN 9781859739075. Retrieved 11 April 2012. "Heterozygote test / Screening programmes — DRZE". Drze.de. Archived from the original on 7 January 2017. Retrieved 19 October 2017. "Fatal Gift: Jewish Intelligence and Western Civilization". Archived from the original on 13 August 2009. Blom 2008, pp. 336–337. "Social Origins of Eugenics". Eugenicsarchive.org. Retrieved 19 October 2017. Carlson, Elof Axel (2002). "Scientific Origins of Eugenics". Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement. Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Retrieved 3 October 2013. Leonard, Thomas C. (Tim) (Fall 2005). "Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era" (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19 (4): 207–224. doi:10.1257/089533005775196642. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 August 2017. Retrieved 3 October 2013. Stearns, F. W. (2010). "One Hundred Years of Pleiotropy: A Retrospective". Genetics. 186 (3): 767–773. doi:10.1534/genetics.110.122549. PMC 2975297. PMID 21062962. Jones, A. (2000). "Effect of eugenics on the evolution of populations". European Physical Journal B. 17 (2): 329–332. Bibcode:2000EPJB...17..329P. doi:10.1007/s100510070148. S2CID 122344067. Bentwich, M. (2013). "On the inseparability of gender eugenics, ethics, and public policy: An Israeli perspective". American Journal of Bioethics. 13 (10): 43–45. doi:10.1080/15265161.2013.828128. PMID 24024807. S2CID 46334102. Fischer, B. A. (2012). "Maltreatment of people with serious mental illness in the early 20th century: A focus on Nazi Germany and eugenics in America". Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 200 (12): 1096–1100. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e318275d391. PMID 23197125. S2CID 205883145. Hoge, S. K.; Appelbaum, P. S. (2012). "Ethics and neuropsychiatric genetics: A review of major issues". International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. 15 (10): 1547–1557. doi:10.1017/S1461145711001982. PMC 3359421. PMID 22272758. Witzany, G. (2016). "No time to waste on the road to a liberal eugenics?". EMBO Reports. 17 (3): 281. doi:10.15252/embr.201541855. PMC 4772985. PMID 26882552. Baird, S. L. (2007). "Designer babies: Eugenics repackaged or consumer options?". Technology Teacher. 66 (7): 12–16. Roberts, M. A. "The Nonidentity Problem". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 19 October 2016. Retrieved 18 October 2016. Darnovsky, Marcy (2001). "Health and human rights leaders call for an international ban on species-altering procedures". Archived from the original on 22 November 2010. Retrieved 21 February 2006. Annas, George; Andrews, Lori; Isasi, Rosario (2002). "Protecting the endangered human: Toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations". American Journal of Law & Medicine. 28 (2–3): 151–78. doi:10.1017/S009885880001162X. PMID 12197461. S2CID 233430956. Archived from the original on 16 March 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2021. McKibben, Bill (2003). Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. Times Books. ISBN 9780805070965. OCLC 237794777. Caleb, Amanda (27 January 2023). "Eugenics and (Pseudo-) Science". The Holocaust: Remembrance, Respect, and Resilience. Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved 18 February 2023. Comfort, Nathaniel (12 November 2012). "The Eugenics Impulse". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Comfort, Nathaniel (25 September 2012). The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300169911. Wilkinson, Stephen; Garrard, Eve (2013). Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction (PDF). Keele University. ISBN 9780957616004. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 November 2015. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Buchanan, Allen; Brock, Dan W.; Daniels, Norman; Wikler, Daniel (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521669771. OCLC 41211380. Rawls, John (1999) [1971]. A theory of justice (revised ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 92. ISBN 0674000781. In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice. We

Swiss Family Robinson is a 1940 American film released by RKO Radio Pictures and directed by Edward Ludwig. It is based on the 1812 novel The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss and is the first feature-length film version of the story. Plot In London in 1813, a Swiss father, William Robinson, wishes to escape the influence of the superficial profligacy of London on his family. His eldest son, Fritz, is obsessed with Napoleon, whom he considers his hero. His middle son, Jack, is a foolish dandy who cares only about fashion and money. And his dreamy son Ernest is preoccupied with reading and writing to the exclusion of all else. William Robinson sells his business and house, in order to move with his wife and four sons to Australia. They set out on a brig bound for the faraway country. Following a long voyage, the family is shipwrecked on a remote deserted island after the captain and crew are washed overboard during a storm. The family members collaborate to create a home for themselves in the alien jungle environment. They gradually learn to use the unfamiliar plants and animals to create what they need to live and thrive. They have many adventures and challenges and make many discoveries. The mother, however, misses her elegant home and community in England, and wishes to somehow be rescued and return. The father slowly convinces her that living in the natural environment is better for the family and that they are meant to be there. In the end, Fritz and Jack board a ship home while the rest of the family stay on the island. Cast Thomas Mitchell as William Robinson Edna Best as Elizabeth Robinson Freddie Bartholomew as Jack Robinson Terry Kilburn as Ernest Robinson Tim Holt as Fritz Robinson Bobbie Quillan as Francis Robinson (credited as Baby Bobby Quillan) Christian Rub as Thoren John Wray as Ramsey Herbert Rawlinson as Captain Orson Welles as Narrator (uncredited) Production notes The producers specialised in making films based on public domain texts.[2] Tim Holt was the first star assigned.[3] Freddie Bartholomew and Terry Kilburn were borrowed from MGM.[4] This was the first feature-length film with a performance by Orson Welles, who went uncredited as the story's narrator. A version running 108 minutes (15 minutes longer than the generally available print) is also screened occasionally. Critical reception Upon release The film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Special Effects (Vernon L. Walker, John O. Aalberg).[5][6] Frank Nugent of The New York Times wrote: When it stays with the book, which was adventure plus instruction, the film is considerably better. The storm sequences—there are three of them—are properly noisy, drenching and spectacular. The salvage trips to the reef-bound brig, the lessons in candlemaking and ostrich-taking, the recipe for Mrs. Robinson's fish stew, some of the family's minor naturalistic adventures are amusingly, and often excitingly, depicted. They and the uniformly competent performance of the cast make it a moderately entertaining, if rather somnolently paced, story-book film.[7] Variety called it "a good adventure yarn" but suggested that the tropical storm sequences went on too long, and that Edna Best's hairdo seemed "always too perfect" for a believable castaway.[8] Film Daily called it "an appealing picture for the family trade" and "a genuine accomplishment."[9] Harrison's Reports wrote, "Pretty good entertainment ... adapted with imagination and produced with skill."[10] John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a mixed review, criticizing the change of the character of the mother from resourceful in the book to "fretful" and "discontented" in the film, a mood that "pervades the story and saps the vigor of the adventure element." However, Mosher thought that "Some pleasant domestic animals and a pet or two add variety", and he found the tropical storm "satisfactory."[11] The movie recorded a loss of $180,000.[1] Contemporary critics Leonard Maltin calls the 93-minute version an "Excellent adaptation of [the] Johann Wyss book", and writes that it "boasts impressive special effects, strong performances, and much darker elements than the Disney film Swiss Family Robinson".[12] The film is one of Oscar-winning film director James Ivory's favorite movies. Ivory is quoted as saying that he liked the idea of the Robinsons transforming their deserted island with their London furnishings salvaged from their shipwreck, saying, "Swiss Family Robinson … appealed to my boyhood taste for disasters." Swiss Family Robinson (1960) https://rumble.com/v4zojek-swiss-family-robinson-1960.html

Swiss Family Robinson is a 1960 American adventure film starring John Mills, Dorothy McGuire, James MacArthur, Janet Munro, Tommy Kirk, and Kevin Corcoran in a tale of a shipwrecked family building an island home. It was the second feature film based on the 1812 novel The Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss, a previous adaptation having been released by RKO Pictures in 1940. Directed by Ken Annakin and shot in Tobago and Pinewood Studios outside London, it was the first widescreen Walt Disney Pictures film shot with Panavision lenses; when shooting in widescreen, Disney had almost always used a matted wide screen or filmed in CinemaScope.[2] Upon its release, Swiss Family Robinson was a major success with both critics and audiences and remains one of Disney's most beloved live-action feature films. Plot A ship carrying a Swiss family from Bern—Father, Mother, and their three sons, who are relocating to a colony in New Guinea to escape the Napoleonic Wars—is attacked by pirates. Abandoned by the crew, the ship eventually grounds on rocks off an uninhabited island. The family makes their way ashore along with the captain's two Great Danes. Father, eldest son Fritz, and middle son Ernst salvage supplies and livestock from the shipwreck. The pirates locate the ship, but Father scares them off by putting up a quarantine flag, signaling Bubonic plague aboard. The family soon discovers that the island contains a diversity of wildlife, including a dangerous tiger. To provide safety and comfort, Father, Fritz, and Ernst construct an elaborate tree house complete with a water wheel. Youngest son Francis collects various animals including a young Asian elephant, a monkey, and an ostrich. Ernst theorizes that the island may once have been part of a land bridge between Africa and Asia. As the family settles in, Father opines that, by going back to nature, they have found everything they need in life. Mother, however, worries that her sons will never marry or have families if they are not rescued, and consents to allow Fritz and Ernst to circumnavigate the island in a homemade outrigger boat and search for other settlements. During their expedition, the brothers come across the pirates, who have captured another ship and taken its captain and cabin boy captive. They rescue the cabin boy, but the pirates spot them before they can free the captain, who insists they leave him since the pirates intend to ransom him. The brothers and the boy flee the pirates through the jungle, the brothers later learning that the "boy" is really a girl named Roberta. The captain (her grandfather) cut her hair and dressed her as a boy to disguise her gender from the pirates. They survive an attack by a green anaconda, but become lost and fight over what to do. Fritz's strong personality wins in the end, and they decide to press on. They rescue a zebra from hyenas and a quicksand trap; using it as a mount, they arrive back at the tree house just in time for Christmas. Anticipating that the pirates will come looking for Roberta, the family scuttles their wrecked ship to hide their location. They fortify a rocky clifftop, building defenses and booby traps. Fritz and Ernst become rivals for Roberta's affections. Believing that her grandfather will return for her once ransomed, she intends to return to London; Ernst is interested in going to school there, while Fritz would rather go on to New Guinea to build a home of his own. Despite this, a romance develops between Fritz and Roberta, and the brothers come to blows over her. To relieve tension, Father declares a holiday to be held. That night, Francis manages to catch the tiger in one of the pits that they have dug. The holiday begins with a race, the boys and Roberta riding on various animals. The pirates, sailing nearby, hear the sound of the starting pistol and come ashore. The family retreats to their fort, and the attackers fall victim to their traps and defenses. Kuala, the pirate captain, demands that they hand over Roberta, while his men sneak up the cliff side and attack from the rear. As the family is about to be overwhelmed, a ship captained by Roberta's grandfather appears, destroying the pirates and their ship with cannon fire. The captain offers to help Ernst get into a London university, and to take the rest of the family back to Europe or on to New Guinea. Father and Mother, however, decide that they would rather stay on the island and keep Francis with them for a few more years. The captain speculates that the island will become a new colony, and that Father will be nominated to be its governor. Fritz and Roberta also decide to stay on the island, and the family waves goodbye to Ernst as he, the captain, and the ship's crew set out for England. The film ends when the elephant runs to the sea, catching Ernst, as Francis tries to bring him back. Cast John Mills as Father Robinson Dorothy McGuire as Mother Robinson James MacArthur as Fritz Robinson Janet Munro as Roberta Sessue Hayakawa as Kuala, the pirate captain Tommy Kirk as Ernst Robinson Kevin Corcoran as Francis Robinson Cecil Parker as Captain Moreland Andy Ho as Auban, a pirate Milton Reid as Big Pirate Larry Taylor as Battoo, a pirate Production Development The film is based upon Der Schweizerische Robinson (translated as The Swiss Family Robinson), a book written by Johann David Wyss.[3] RKO Pictures had previously made an adaptation in 1940, directed by Edward Ludwig.[4] After watching that movie, Walt Disney and Bill Anderson decided to produce their own version of the story.[3] Anderson talked with director Ken Annakin during filming of another live-action Disney picture, Third Man on the Mountain, near Zermatt (Switzerland).[5] Ken Annakin had also worked with Disney in the 1953 adventure film The Sword and the Rose.[6] Annakin worked on the script with Bill Anderson and Lowell Hawley. The idea to have the brothers discover a girl dressed as a boy came from Janet Munro, who had been in Third Man in the Mountain and was then making Darby O'Gill and the Little People. She was telling stories about playing a boy when working on stage with her father and Disney had this incorporated into the film.[7] The movie was filmed almost entirely on the island of Tobago There were several meetings to decide filming locations. There was talk of making the film in a studio in Burbank, California or filming on location in a natural environment. Annakin wanted to film in Ceylon, and the associate producer Basil Keys, in East Africa. Bill Anderson stressed that they should examine the Caribbean.[8] They visited Jamaica and Trinidad, but it was not what they wanted. Somebody in Trinidad told them of a nearby island, Tobago. When they saw the island for the first time, they "fell instantly in love",[6] and they sent a telegram to Anderson, who traveled to Tobago and found it fitted to their needs.[8] However, one of the drawbacks of this choice was that the island had no local wildlife.[9] Once Walt Disney accepted, cast and crew got their shots and passports for a six-month stay in Tobago.[6] Filming began in August 1959 and was a wrap just before Christmas 1959. The closeups of the stars on the animals—to complete the animal race scene around the treehouse—was done in January 1960.[10] Filming If a scorpion doesn't bite me during the night I get into the car, and if it doesn't skid off the edge of a cliff, I reach the mangrove swamp. I walk through; and if I'm not sucked in by a quick-sand, eaten alive by land crabs, or bitten by a snake, I reach the beach. I change on the beach, trying to avoid being devoured by insects, and walk into the sea. If there are no sharks or barracudas about, we get the shot and then do the whole thing in reverse, providing, of course, we haven't died of sunstroke in the meantime. — Actor John Mills, about the filming difficulties.[6] Richmond Bay was featured prominently as the Robinsons' beach, while Mount Irvine Bay was used for the scene where the boys rescue Bertie from the pirates. The vine-swinging/waterfall scenes were filmed at the Craig Hall Waterfall in Moriah. The choppy waters at Quashie (Carapuse) Bay in Belle Garden was used for anchoring the shipwreck against the rocks, giving the illusion that it was out at sea. The cliffs at Bay Hill Rock, situated at the edge of John Dial Beach, Hillsborough Bay, was used for filming the canoe outrigger crashing on the rocks. Here, the boys came ashore to free Roberta (Janet Munro).[11] The treehouse was constructed in a 200-foot tall saman in the Goldsborough Bay area.[12] Referring to the treehouse, Annakin said that "it was really solid—capable of holding twenty crew and cast and constructed in sections so that it could be taken apart and rebuilt on film by the family."[6] The tree was not an easy place to shoot, with only 3 hours of sunlight per day due to surrounding foliage.[9] Walt Disney Productions constructed a massive studio in Goodwood which housed replica indoor sets of both the shipwreck and the main room of the treehouse. All of the scenes with the family aboard the ship, and the indoor treehouse scenes were filmed at the Disney studio in Goodwood.[13] The script required animals, which arrived from all around the world.[6] Fourteen trainers looked after the animals. Gene Holter was one of the providers of animals from California and his trainers Ray Chandler and Fez Reynolds.[14] The trainers met with the director every day around 4 PM and went over attitudes or gestures that the animals should play the next day. They spent the night learning them.[9] The animals that were brought included eight dogs, two giant tortoises, forty monkeys, two elephants, six ostriches, four zebras, one hundred flamingos, six hyenas, two anacondas, and a tiger.[6] Disney also brought some King Vultures (corbeaux) from Trinidad. After filming was completed in January 1960, the vultures were released and they all flew back to Trinidad.[15] Annakin wrote "Moochie" Corcoran "was wonderfully coordinated and had hung around so many animal trainers and stuntmen, that he knew exactly what was called for and how much of the action he could handle. I never had to use a double with ‘Moochie'."[16] Soon after filming began in Tobago, the British film crew became unhappy with the wages that they were being paid by Disney. They threatened to abandon filming and return home. Their National Association of Theatrical and Kine Employees (NATKE) union representative, Cyril (Cid) Thawley, negotiated a new wage agreement which included overtime pay. Cid Thawley, along with some of the Disney crew were accommodated at Dellamira Hotel in Bacolet. The rest of the crew stayed at Robinson Crusoe Hotel in Scarborough and Blue Haven Hotel in Bacolet.[17] Most evenings, the prop men relaxed at the Club La Tropical, located next to the Dellamira hotel.[18] After filming, the local Tobagonians convinced Disney, who had intended to remove all evidence of filmmaking, to let the treehouse remain, sans interior furnishing. In 1960, the treehouse was listed for sale for $9,000, a fraction of its original cost, and later became a popular attraction among locals and tourists, before the structure was finally destroyed by Hurricane Flora in September 1963.[19] The tree still remains, and is located on the property of Roberts Auto Service and Tyre Shop, at Cow Farm Road, Goldsborough, just off the Windward Road. Tobagonian Lennox Straker says, "The tree has fallen into obscurity; only a few of the older people knew of its significance." Three Tobagonians acted as stand-ins and doubles for the stars - James MacArthur, Tommy Kirk, Janet Munro and Dorothy McGuire. Two of them still reside in Tobago and one lives in the USA. A few locals who were employed by Disney as drivers, hoteliers and office staff still live in Tobago. They are happy to share their memories of working with 'the film company' back in 1959.[20] Music The film features one original song, "My Heart Was an Island," written by Terry Gilkyson. Mother Robinson sings the song as she hangs new curtains in the family's treehouse. The song, however, is not heard in its entirety, as it trails off when the scene shifts to Ernst on the ground. Reception The film premiered in New York City on December 10, 1960 and was released for the general U.S. audience on December 21, 1960. It earned $8.1 million in domestic rentals,[21] making it the fourth highest-grossing film of 1960. Initial worldwide rentals were $12 million.[22] It received generally positive reviews by critics and remains one of the most iconic live-action Disney films.[citation needed] When re-released in 1969, the film earned an additional $6.4 million in rentals in North America.[23][24] The film's lifetime domestic box office gross stands at $40 million.[25] Upon the film's initial release, New York Times film critic Howard Thompson lauded it by writing, "it's hard to imagine how the picture could be better as a rousing, humorous and gentle-hearted tale of family love amid primitive isolation and dangers."[26] In his Family Guide to Movies on Video, Henry Herx wrote: "Nicely directed by Ken Annakin, much of the fun for children will come from the delightful and inventive conveniences the family builds and their relationships with the island's wildlife."[27] Tommy Kirk, who played Ernst, said it was the film he was most proud of.[28] The film holds an 84% approval rating at the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes,[29] and, as of late November 2023, a 7.1 rating at IMDB, the online database of information related to films and TV programs.[30] Issues In 2019, Disney added a disclaimer to this and other films in their classic movie catalog, which led to some commentary asking whether the disclaimers were enough.[31] The original disclaimers were updated in 2020 to acknowledge issues regarding racial stereotypes which “were wrong then and are wrong now.”[32] Specifically, critics have objected to the film's depiction of the villainous pirates, who are either portrayed by actors of color or by actors wearing makeup to appear Asian; one called it "grossly stereotypical, insulting, and unnecessary."[33] Critics have also argued that the film endorses colonization, as the Robinsons do not appear to consider whether there are native inhabitants on the island (although none are shown in the film).[34] Remake On December 12, 2004, Variety announced that a remake of Swiss Family Robinson was in development at Walt Disney Pictures, with Mandeville Films co-producing the film.[35] In June 2005 it was reported that Jonathan Mostow would direct the remake, and David Hoberman and Todd Lieberman would produce.[36] The following month, it was reported that studio veteran Lindsay Lohan was being considered for a role: "Lindsay's just talk at the moment...but that's someone they want. It might depend on whether she's happy to be part of an ensemble, and not the headliner."[37] Production on the remake never began, and the film was believed to be shelved until early 2009, when it was announced by /Film that it was still in the works, had been renamed The Robinsons, and was to star Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, and their children Trey, Jaden and Willow.[38] A movie was ultimately made based on elements of Swiss Family Robinson, titled After Earth, starring Will and Jaden Smith and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, and released in 2013.[39] In 2011, actor Bill Paxton expressed serious interest in producing and starring in a remake of the original film: "I talked to a very prominent producer/filmmaker about the idea of teaming up to do this. I just think it would be great to make a little bit more of a butch, PG-13 version of that story – and I know it's something that would appeal to an international audience."[40] In 2014 it was announced that Steve Carell would possibly star in a modern update of the film, titled Brooklyn Family Robinson.[41] Swiss Family Robinson (1940) https://rumble.com/v4zomy9-swiss-family-robinson-1940.html

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is a 1938 American drama film produced by David O. Selznick and directed by Norman Taurog who had previously directed Huckleberry Finn (1931) with Jackie Coogan and Junior Durkin. The film starred Tommy Kelly in the title role, with Jackie Moran and Ann Gillis. The screenplay by John V. A. Weaver was based on the classic 1876 novel of the same name by Mark Twain. The movie was the first film version of the novel to be made in color. Plot The United Artists release includes most of the sequences familiar to readers of the book, including the fence-whitewashing episode; a wild raft ride down the Mississippi River; Tom and Huckleberry Finn's attendance at their own funeral, after the boys, who were enjoying an adventure on a remote island, are presumed dead; the murder trial of local drunkard Muff Potter; and Tom and Becky Thatcher's flight through a cave as they try to escape Injun Joe, who is revealed to be the real killer. Cast Tommy Kelly as Tom Sawyer Jackie Moran as Huckleberry Finn Ann Gillis as Becky Thatcher May Robson as Aunt Polly Walter Brennan as Muff Potter Victor Jory as Injun Joe David Holt as Sid Sawyer Victor Kilian as Sheriff Nana Bryant as Mrs. Thatcher Olin Howland as Mr. Dobbins, school teacher Donald Meek as Sunday School Superintendent Charles Richman as Judge Thatcher Margaret Hamilton as Mrs. Harper Marcia Mae Jones as Mary Sawyer Mickey Rentschler as Joe Harper Cora Sue Collins as Amy Lawrence Philip Hurlic as Little Jim Frank McGlynn Sr. as Minister (uncredited) Roland Drew as Dr. Robinson (uncredited) Spring Byington as Widow Douglas (uncredited) Production notes The Adventures of Tom Sawyer was the fourth film adaptation of the Twain novel, following versions released in 1907, 1917, and 1930, and this is the first filmed in Technicolor. H. C. Potter originally was signed to direct but was fired and replaced by Taurog after George Cukor declined the assignment.[4] Cukor directed some scenes, but received no on-screen credit for his contributions. Tommy Kelly, a Bronx fireman's son, was selected for the title role through a national campaign waged by producer David O. Selznick, who later would conduct a similar search for an actress to portray Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. According to a 1937 memo he sent to story editor Katharine Brown, he originally hoped to cast an orphan as Tom, feeling such a stunt would receive "tremendous attention and arouse such a warm public feeling that it would add enormously to the gross of the picture."[5] Kelly failed to achieve the star status of fellow child actor Freddie Bartholomew, and after an inconsequential career he retired and later became a school teacher.[6] After reading the comment cards completed by an audience at a sneak preview of the film, Selznick sent director Taurog a memo expressing concern about the climactic scene in the cave, which many viewers had described as "too horrible for children." He advised Taurog "this worried me, because we certainly want the picture to be for a family audience," and as a result he was cutting a close-up of Becky, in which her hysteria was "perhaps a shade too much that of a very ill woman, rather than that of a little girl," "with regrets."[7] On the strength of the designs for the cave sequence executed by William Cameron Menzies, Selznick hired him for Gone with the Wind.[8] Some exterior scenes were filmed at Big Bear Lake, Lake Malibu, Paramount Ranch in Agoura, California, and RKO's Encino movie ranch. Other scenes were filmed on recycled sets left over from A Star is Born (1937), such as the Blodgett family home interior (kitchen, living room, and bedroom), and a silhouette of a wolf howling at the Moon. Mississippi River long shots from Tom Sawyer would later be reused in MGM's 1951 musical Show Boat. Reception The movie premiered at the Radio City Music Hall, and B. R. Crisler of The New York Times wrote that Tommy Kelly was "a miracle of casting" and called the film "one of the better pictures of the year" on the strength of the source material alone, but also criticized the film for including scenes of "cheap and obvious" slapstick involving such things as tomatoes and cake icing. Crisler told producer David O. Selznick to "get busy on 'Gone with the Wind', will you, before WE begin throwing tomatoes."[9] Variety wrote that Selznick had "pulled no financial punches" in mounting the production and that while the film was generally faithful to the book, an "excellent job" had been done on the new dialogue written for the screen.[10] Film Daily called it "a triumph for all concerned."[11] John Mosher of The New Yorker praised Kelly and Gillis as "altogether very much the Twain children" and called Weaver's screenplay "excellent".[12] Time Out London called the film "extraordinarily handsome to look at, with exquisite Technicolor camerawork by Wong Howe and some imaginative designs . . . [it] has its longueurs, but it does capture the sense of a lazy Mississippi summer and much of the spirit of the book, with Jory making a superbly villainous Injun Joe."[13] TV Guide described it as "a lively production featuring a quick pace, a chilling climax, and a surprising amount of wit."[14]

S01E04