← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 10572 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-10-17
2003-10-17 21:29 | User Profile
WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior editor of the New Republic magazine is apologizing for saying in his column that the producers of the hit movie "Kill Bill" are "Jewish executives" who "worship money above all else."
In an apology posted late Thursday on the New Republic's Web site the editor, Gregg Easterbrook, said he was guilty of "mangling words" in the article which appeared Monday on the Web.
Easterbrook attacked "Kill Bill" and its writer/director Quentin Tarantino for glorifying violence and criticized Miramax, which released the film, and its parent company, Disney, for "wallowing in gore" for profit.
Michael Eisner, the chief of Disney, is Jewish, as is Harvey Weinstein, who heads Miramax.
Easterbrook said he is prepared to defend the thoughts of his essay, but he regrets the way he expressed himself.
In accusing a Jewish person of worshipping money, Easterbrook said, "you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear."
"What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize," he said.
2003-10-18 00:32 | User Profile
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/national/17REPU.html[/url]
Writer Takes Jews to Task for 'Kill Bill' By BERNARD WEINRAUB
Published: October 17, 2003
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 16 ââ¬â A [soon to be former?] senior editor at The New Republic has published a column on the Internet that deplores the violence in the film "Kill Bill" and criticizes Harvey Weinstein, the co-chairman of Miramax, which released the film, and Michael Eisner, chairman of the Walt Disney Company, as "Jewish executives" [True] who "worship money above all else." [True]
The article by the senior editor, Gregg Easterbrook, appeared Monday on The New Republic's Web site. Within the site, Mr. Easterbrook has his own "Easterblogg" column.
Mr. Easterbrook said on Thursday that he planned to apologize "for a really bad choice of words." [The first of many instalments in a lifetime program of suckpoopery that is doomed to failure.]
In the article, Mr. Easterbrook attacked Quentin Tarantino, the director of "Kill Bill," calling him a "phony" who "does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure." [Tarantino is the diminutive of the Sephardic Taranto, ie Tarantoadlet.]
The movie, which opened last week and was No. 1 at the box office, is a bloody revenge epic and a homage to Asian action movies.
Mr. Easterbrook criticized Miramax, and its parent company, Disney, as seeking profit by "wallowing in gore" with movies like "Scream" and "Kill Bill." [True]
He said, "Disney's C.E.O., Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish." [True]
"Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence," Mr. Easterbrook said. [Name one. The only goy Hollywood studio was Walt Disney, and it, together with Walt's name, was taken over by the Jews after Walt died.] "Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?"
Mr. Easterbrook went on to say, "Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice."
In a joint Disney-Miramax statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a Miramax spokesman, said, "It is sad that these terrible stereotypes persist and that these comments are receiving a wider platform. It does not deserve any further attention." [Nothing written by Easterbrook was denied by Miramax.]
Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic, said: "Gregg made a mistake. He recognizes that. He's a very valuable member of the staff. And I don't think he's the least bit prejudiced." [Nothing written by Easterbrook was denied by TNR.]
The New Republic is a liberal [Jewish] magazine that has traditionally had a deep interest in Israel and Jewish affairs.
Mr. Easterbrook said he planned to apologize in his Web site column on Friday for "stumbling into a use of words that in the past people have taken as code for anti-Semitic feelings." [Slurp]
Mr. Easterbrook said he wrote a column last week about Mel Gibson's coming film "Passion," and added: "I raised the issue that Mel Gibson professes to be an ardent Christian. Maybe he is. But his background previous to this movie is making movies that glorify violence."
"I raised the exact same question about a Christian," Mr. Easterbrook said, and "there was not a single peep." [TNR is not read by many members of the cult of the dead Jew, who in any event would be much more troubled by criticism of Israel.]
2003-10-18 04:11 | User Profile
Is Tarantino Jewish? He wasn't listed at jewhoo.com.
2003-10-18 04:19 | User Profile
Here's a review from VNN of [I]KILL BILL[/I]. Actually, the movie is an extremely violent version of [I]CHARLEY'S ANGELS[/I].
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1727[/url]
Movie Review: 'Kill Bill, Vol. 1" by Rich Brooks Loaded: 10/15/2003 Movie Review: 'Kill Bill' Vol. 1
I was alerted this week that a movie worthy of my attendance was finally playing at our local cinema. The source for this tip was, of all places, our detestable local newspaper whose name I need not mention. Surprisingly, however, they employ a movie critic who is pretty good; in fact his judgments and insights usually provide a far better clue to a movie's worth than Fatso and the Fag or most other nationally known critics. I won't mention his name or provide any links to him, because I'm sure he would not consider a recommendation from a neonazi internet columnist to be career enhancing, to say the least. However I am grateful to him for pointing out that a new Quentin Tarantino film was being shown in our town, something I would not have surmised merely from the uninviting title "Kill Bill: Vol.1." Even after reading the favorable review, however, I was still not really looking forward to seeing this movie. Quentin Tarantino is one of those "important" directors any serious movie fan is almost obligated to see. Even though he has made only three previous full-length feature films, he has become an icon for those in New York and Los Angeles who view film as "art" rather than what it really is most of the time, a commercial mass-entertainment product. And frankly, I absolutely hated "Pulp Fiction," the only previous Tarantino film I have seen. The nonstop nigger profanity alone was enough to almost cause me to walk out of the theater during the first 15 minutes. What's more, my linearly-oriented brain was often confused by the twists and turns of the plot. I know it was meant to be literally "pulp fiction," a badly written novel with cartoon-like characters, but there were simply too many "mother****ers" in the dialogue for me to see any artistic merit.
I'm also no afficionado of Kung Fu or martial arts films, so KB-v1 already had two strikes against it in my book before I even sat down in the theater. I am happy to say, however, that I actually enjoyed the film and am looking forward to the soon-to-be-released sequel named (would you believe?) "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." The heroine, who is only referred to as "The Bride," is a gutsy White woman if there ever was one. Played with great relish by Uma Thurman, this gal singlehandedly impales, decapitates or otherwise slices off body parts of a negress and a small army of Japs. "The Bride" was almost killed along on her wedding day by members of the Deadly Viper Association, a martial-arts international assassination organization of which she was formerly a member. After being in a coma for four years, she seeks revenge for the nine members of her wedding party who were murdered in that dusty Texas church. Uma Thurman defines the phrase "one tough broad." She isn't too bad to look at either, when her face isn't too bloodied up. "Bill," whose face we never see onscreen but whose voice is that of David Carradine, is the leader of this viper organization and is Thurman's final target. However there are several others she must dispatch before attempting to take him down, so we will have to wait for KB-v2 to really encounter Bill and no doubt see his demise as well. There's lots of violence and gore, but it is really almost cartoon violence, as we see fountains of blood spurting like fireworks and various extremities chopped off and littering the ground. In fact, one of the flashback sequences is actually done in animation, another sequence is done in black-and-white, and it all seems to seamlessly work together. But of course these are not real people and these are not real-life situations and we know that Tarantino has his tongue firmly in his cheek as he is filming all of this action.
I probably missed many of the allusions to other films and other directors, but I do know one of the attractions Tarantino has for film buffs is his liberal use of insider jokes. Not being an insider, I still enjoyed the film's face value. There's not much to say from a racial perspective, except to gleefully note that we actually have a White going up against non-white enemies and winning. Oh, there is one scene where the Japanese-American-Chinese leader of this Japanese organization gets upset when one of her subordinates questions her (Japanese) racial purity. She responds by slicing off his head. I'm not going to count the number of jews involved in this production, except to note that it was released by Miramax, which means the noxious Weinstein brothers, and can be assumed to be heavily infested. All in all, however, it's lots of fun, and one of the better films I've seen this year. Since this is an "important" film (compared to most of the kike krapola I write about), I imagine there will be other VNN reviewers offering their own two cents. So go see it and let me know what you think. RICH BROOKS jrich.wn@verizon.net
2003-10-18 04:37 | User Profile
Nah, I don't think I'm going to go see it. I agree with Franco that this movie is really nothing more than feminist propaganda(which is no better than multi-culturalist propaganda). And quite frankly, I hate martial arts movies. Most of the sh*t they do would get you killed in real life! And I've seen enough of these bad ass, tough, macho girls on screen. I'll keep my $7
2003-10-18 05:07 | User Profile
I've seen three, actually two and a half, of Tarantino's movies, and the only one I found even mildly entertaining was "Dusk to Dawn." Like the reviewer of "Kill Bill," I hated "Pulp Fiction." "Reservoir Dogs" was so repugnant that at the cop scene, I removed the DVD from the player and took it back to the store. If you don't know what I mean by the cop scene, good, keep it that way. I wont be seeing "Kill Bill."
Tarantino has a fetish for a level of cruelty in his movies that sickens me. It's weird that so many people like his movies. It's a pity that I saw "Dusk to Dawn" first, and sort of liked it. The momentum got me to rent the other two movies. Mea Culpa. Won't happen again.
Enkidu
2003-10-18 05:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Fernando Wood]Is Tarantino Jewish? He wasn't listed at jewhoo.com.[/QUOTE]
I believe he's part American Indian.
2003-10-18 06:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Nah, I don't think I'm going to go see it. I agree with Franco that this movie is really nothing more than feminist propaganda(which is no better than multi-culturalist propaganda). And quite frankly, I hate martial arts movies. Most of the sh*t they do would get you killed in real life! And I've seen enough of these bad ass, tough, macho girls on screen. I'll keep my $7[/QUOTE]
Did I miss something from Franco? I don't see the reference. Anyway I agree with you that this film is certainly feminist propoganda, although it is certainly more (or should I say less) than that. I also agree with Enkidu
Tarantino has a fetish for a level of cruelty in his movies that sickens me. It's weird that so many people like his movies. In fact, I've never understood the attraction of horror movies in general. It strikes me as a sign of a sick, degraded society.
2003-10-18 07:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Did I miss something from Franco? I don't see the reference.[/QUOTE]
** [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10403[/url]
10-10-03
Sheroes
There is a new movie out called "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" starring actress Uma Thurman as......a sword-wielding female assassin.
Ever since about the time the TV-show "Xena" showed up in the 1990s, there has been a curious -- and dangerous --trend on Hollywood film: tough female ass-kickers. Yep. These new characters use karate-style skills to beat the tar out of men -- or worse. Heck, sometimes these women lay waste to 5 men at once -- without breaking a sweat!
These new movie and TV-show sheroes send young boys the sick message that "women are the same as men" in every way but the genitals.
The truth of this matter is that this new trend of female-brutes-on-film is simply more feminism. Yup. It's the same old feminism that emerged in the 1970s, only these new gals don't burn their bras or shout "women's lib!" It's repackaged feminism.
Now comes the kicker: who runs Hollywood? Jews mostly. And who invented feminism? Jewish women [Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, Andrea Dworkin, et al; more here: [url]http://cptwc.matriots.com/fem2.html[/url] .
Isn't it time for America to say "no more" to the Jews? **
2003-10-18 07:38 | User Profile
Of course, the Jews themselves can brag about things like this all they want in their own newspapers. To quote them however is "anti-Semitism."
2003-10-18 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] In fact, I've never understood the attraction of horror movies in general. It strikes me as a sign of a sick, degraded society.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you there, Okie. Just what the appeal is of watching someone being mutilated in the most nauseating way possible has always baffled me. And yeah, I'm well aware that it's all special effects, but no matter what the apologists for slasher films may say, a culture that's titillated by gore -- even SFX gore -- has got problems.
As for Tarentino: The only one of his films I've seen was [I]Pulp Fiction.[/I] I understand -- or [I]think[/I] I understand -- what he was trying to say. That is, if you discover honor and decency, you can escape from even the most loathsome and degraded state of mind. But it seemed to me that at the same time, he was doing his best to dish up as much loathsome degradation for the audience to wallow in as he possibly could. Hypocrisy, at best. Certainly I've never had the faintest desire to watch that cesspool of a film again.
2003-10-18 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201] [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10403[/url]
10-10-03
Sheroes
There is a new movie out called "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" starring actress Uma Thurman as......a sword-wielding female assassin.
Ever since about the time the TV-show "Xena" showed up in the 1990s, there has been a curious -- and dangerous --trend on Hollywood film: tough female ass-kickers. Yep. These new characters use karate-style skills to beat the tar out of men -- or worse. Heck, sometimes these women lay waste to 5 men at once -- without breaking a sweat!
These new movie and TV-show sheroes send young boys the sick message that "women are the same as men" in every way but the genitals....
Thanks for ponting this out to me. Yeah, that aspect of the film jumps right out at you from the film, and a lot of other things too I bet, except that the sheer volume of gore and muck makes them slightly less obvious. But the theme of the film, as it rises above sheer muck, certainly is full of not only feminist/multicultural absurbities like the female/chinese Yakuza boss, but a systematic level of man-hatred that is maybe more frightening than the violence itself.
I could spend more shoveling through this, but I get the feeling that these films by the Weinberg's et al are so full of pathalogical depravity that I really need a front-end loader.
2003-10-18 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]As for Tarentino: The only one of his films I've seen was [I]Pulp Fiction.[/I] I understand -- or [I]think[/I] I understand -- what he was trying to say. That is, if you discover honor and decency, you can escape from even the most loathsome and degraded state of mind. ...[/QUOTE]
I didn't get this at all. I think that Tarentino was mocking the black killer's foray into decency. Samuel Jackson's character appeared to me to be on maybe a forty-five minute aberrant trip into decency, and if the movie had extended another hour, he would have relaxed and returned to a normal cool-as-hell life as a homicidal murderer. I perceived his speeches to John Travolta's character as see-through jokes put in to illustrate how ridiculous moral decency is.
Sorry, I just can't attribute any good motives to Q. Tarentino.
Enkidu
2003-10-18 17:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Enkidu]Sorry, I just can't attribute any good motives to Q. Tarentino. [/QUOTE]
Me either, Enkidu. Tarentino may not be of the tribe, but he offers up nothing but pure jewish hollywood trash.
"Burn, hollywood, burn"
- Chuck D of Public Enemy
2003-10-18 17:55 | User Profile
I would no sooner view a Tarentino flick than a Steven Spielberg flick. Why let the Jews vomit into your psyche? (I know Tarentino isn't a Jew by blood, only by poisonous slime trail).
2003-10-18 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]I'm with you there, Okie. Just what the appeal is of watching someone being mutilated in the most nauseating way possible has always baffled me. And yeah, I'm well aware that it's all special effects, but no matter what the apologists for slasher films may say, a culture that's titillated by gore -- even SFX gore -- has got problems. [/QUOTE]
Same here. I don't like horror films at all. My personal taste is usually for dramas, and within that context most dramas I see are usually set during some great historical event.
2003-10-18 18:20 | User Profile
[I]This blog-entry by Gregg Easterbrook has already become a publishing cause-celebre...not because it's so stridently anti-Lampjaw Quentin, but - predictably -because it notes, in passing, that Hollywood is a Jewish kingdom.
Don't worry....Easterbrook has been pressured into a sobbing apology [B]already[/B]. But then, these days, you could ass-rape Mother Teresa on top of the corpses of the Wichita Four in Macy's window on Christmas morning and the only apology you'd be required to render is to the Jewish community - for not letting them broker the ancillary rights.[/I]
[url]http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?week=2003-10-07[/url]
TAKE OUT THE GORE AND KILL BILL IS AN EPISODE OF "MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS": Is Quentin Tarantino the single greatest phony in the history of Hollywood? I realize that's saying a lot--about Hollywood, not him. But it's the sole explanation I can think of to explain his bizarre prominence.
All of Tarantino's work is pure junk. How can you be a renowned director without ever having made a film that's even good, to say nothing of great? No film student in 50 years will spend a single second with a Tarantino movie, except to shake his or her head.
Tarantino does nothing but churn out shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure--and that, for decades, has been what the least imaginative and least talented of Hollywood churn out. Supposedly it's "revolutionary," or something, that Tarantino films revel in violence to a preposterous degree, but that's like saying it is revolutionary for a presidential candidate to revel in complaints against Washington bureaucrats. Nothing about Hollywood is more hackneyed or trite than preposterous violence--and that's all Tarantino has ever put onto film.
Set aside what it says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression. Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm? Set that concern aside. Tarantino's films are simply trite as regards adoration of violence. In Hollywood, nothing could be less original.
And his supposed innovative screenplays? Spare me. The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device. To laud Tarantino as innovative because events happen out-of-sequence is like lauding The Bridges of Madison County as innovative because it opens with a discovered letter from someone who has died. All novice novelists know that device. Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.
And supposedly Tarantino is some kind of counter-genius for getting box-office stars like Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman to debase themselves in his drivel. But commercial Hollywood types debase themselves for a living; most never do anything else. To persuade someone to do that which he or she was eager to do anyway isn't much in the way of accomplishment.
Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. The idea that you can get celebrity, money, and women through the movies without having any merits whatsoever is at the core of the Hollywood's conception of itself. Tarantino is its ultimate expression of this phoniness. Please don't tell me that makes him ironically postmodern.
Corporate sidelight: Kill Bill is distributed by Miramax, a Disney studio. Disney seeks profit by wallowing in gore--Kill Bill opens with an entire family being graphically slaughtered for the personal amusement of the killers--and by depicting violence and murder as pleasurable sport. Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
2003-10-18 19:22 | User Profile
According to blogger [url=http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000445.htm][COLOR=NAVY]Roger Simon[/COLOR][/url], Easterbrook was fired from ESPN. ESPN is owned by Disney, whose CEO is Michael Eisner!
Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column is no longer appearing at ESPN, although ESPN has yet to make any annoucement regarding Easterbrook.
[url=http://espn.go.com/page2/s/tmq/][COLOR=NAVY]Tuesday Morning Quarterback[/color][/url]
Ah...remember that old anti-Semitic canard about Jews controlling the media?
:rockon:
2003-10-18 20:43 | User Profile
When will they learn?
There is no more deserving prey than the "cutting edge" intellectual who thinks so little of his own beliefs that he will grovel in abject apology at the first sign of a critical flare in the distance. Easterbrook, Moran, Lott, Limbaugh, they're like drunks with bottle-courage...now and then, when their antennae aren't twitching and they feel safe, they will expiate a lifetime of learned self-loathing by saying out loud what their eyes have been plainly telling them all their life, like a Tourette's patient in between Haldol prescriptions.
And then they come in their pants from the excitement of the 'transgression', descend into postcoital depression and begin the self-flagellation for their disinterested Jewish audience. (Even for [B]Jews[/B], this must get old - the parade of sobbing, hysterical gentiles swearing on their mother's graves that they've otherwise spent their lives dedicated to holding open doors for Jews, blacks, lesbians, dwarves and entire extended wetback families.)
I'm beginning to think the mea culpas negate the moment's weakness of blurted truth. Earth to Gregg Easterbrook: it wouldn't matter if you developed the cure for cancer tomorrow; it will now be the second item noted in your obituary. The only way to possibly avoid this fate is to stubbornly refuse to apologize, and redouble your original argument.
2003-10-19 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Il Ragno: Don't worry....Easterbrook has been pressured into a sobbing apology already. But then, these days, you could ass-rape Mother Teresa on top of the corpses of the Wichita Four in Macy's window on Christmas morning and the only apology you'd be required to render is to the Jewish community - for not letting them broker the ancillary rights.[/QUOTE]
Stop it, man!
You're killing me!!!
:punk:
Walter
2003-10-19 19:50 | User Profile
Played with great relish by Uma Thurman, this gal singlehandedly impales, decapitates or otherwise slices off body parts of a negress and a small army of Japs.
I think I'll check this flick out after all, though I'd much rather see the lovely Miss Thurman slice 'n' dice Negroids than Japs (In fact, I'm filming the scenes in my head right now...). Sure, the Japanese are non-Whites, but Negroids are really non-Whites. And I actually have some respect for the Japanese and their culture, whereas I have nothing but contempt for Negroes and their non-culture. size=1[/size]