The film was one of the few of the time to depict an interracial marriage in a positive light, as interracial marriage historically had been illegal in many states of the United States. It was still illegal in 17 states, until June 12, 1967, six months before the film was released, and scenes were filmed just before anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.
Because it should be a non-issue and not an impactful or driving feature of the film.
That feature of the film moved the status quo in 1967. It seemed like that was the point.
If a film were released in America today that pushed interracial marriage as an issue, most would find it racist because it is not a large issue in the greater culture (for the most part).
But I thought the movie only has a similar plot to this 1967 movie, which only featured interracial marriage in a positive light. Does it actually focus on interracial marriage? Because so far nobody has mentioned anything objectable.
Makes more sense with this context.
I still don’t get it. Why is a movie’s success with an anti-racist trope an indicator of racism?
Because it should be a non-issue and not an impactful or driving feature of the film.
That feature of the film moved the status quo in 1967. It seemed like that was the point.
If a film were released in America today that pushed interracial marriage as an issue, most would find it racist because it is not a large issue in the greater culture (for the most part).
But I thought the movie only has a similar plot to this 1967 movie, which only featured interracial marriage in a positive light. Does it actually focus on interracial marriage? Because so far nobody has mentioned anything objectable.