← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 12355 | Posts: 233 | Started: 2004-02-16
2004-02-16 07:14 | User Profile
[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/movlst.htm[/url]
Yggdrasil's Movie List At this stage in the movement for Euro-American survival, it is vital that we begin to assemble our own Media libraries filled with content that we can watch repeatedly - content that will gradually isolate us from the surrounding popular culture, and allow us to pay a smaller share of our incomes to the entertainment industry.
It is absolutely vital that we cancel our cable subscriptions, but that is extremely difficult to do unless we have quality media libraries as a substitute. Equally important, we need reliable information as to the movies you can rent or buy without fear of encountering the worst forms of negative conditioning messages and images.
In general, the media attack against us has three principal thrusts:
A. Getting us to accept and feel comfortable with the Hollywood image of ourselves as stupid, incompetent, insensitive, boorish, promiscuous and cowardly - all as a means of getting us to submit to our subordinate role in the multi-cultural scheme.
B. Getting us to accept and feel comfortable with the notion that we are not valid human beings unless we are in the company of negroes and being supervised and managed by the Hollywood image of the all-knowing and wise negro.
C. Getting us to accept non-whites as attractive sexual partners by constantly portraying interracial laisons, and especially, by promoting the Hollywood image of the inner party male as the only sensitive and understanding partner for White females, and by promoting the Hollywood image of the black male as the only verile, agressive and masculine partner for White females.
Hollywood pumps out a vast array of visual images and themes which implement the above three major lines of attack - often with considerable subtlety.
But because of our own inborn aesthetic preferences and the need for Hollywood to make money by appealing to those preferences, the product of the entertainment industry is a mix - some very good for us, and much that is terrible. The problem is information. For example, for the girls in your household, Anne of Green Gables and Anne of Avonlea are outstanding. For the boys we have October Sky, Master and Commander - Far Side of the World, and Zulu.
By far, the movie that is the most subversive of the multi-culti hedonistic culture is Anne of Green Gables, which shows how peasant farmers lived back in Edwardian times (1899-1911) before culture destruction and multi-culturalism grabbed us by the short hairs - a stark contrast to what we have today!
But the DVD gives us control of our culture once we have adequate information, as the disks being sold are essentially immortal given reasonable care, and can be shared with friends and neighbors and watched repeatedly. This sharing and repeat watching will have the effect of isolating us from the popular culture, and at the same time it will diminish the revenues of the entertainment industry which is, for the most part, a conscious attacker, and the single largest threat to our collective survival.
Further, once we have these films on DVD, the culture destruction machine loses the option of sending these favorable images down the memory hole as they have so many of the politically incorrect westerns.
The list that follows is the beginning of my effort to provide this information. The ideal that we seek - the positive criteria for inclusion (in addition to significant entertainment value) are any of the following, either alone or in combination:
Positive portrayal of whites in defense against the depredations of liberalism, crime, and attack by alien races.
Positive portrayal of heterosexual relationships and sex, marriage, procreation and child rearing.
Positive portrayal of impulse control and behavior - consideration of the feelings of others and of community mores. Positive portrayal of initiative, hard work, achievement, sacrifice for the common good, - discrimination, self discipline, and sexual patience in mate selection.
Portrayals of white males as intelligent, sensitive and strong - in positive leadership roles and or romantic leads.
Particularly intense portrayals of white female beauty, in non-degrading roles.
However, given the realities of Hollywood, the primary criteria for appearance on the list are the absence of the following disqualifying features.
Disgusting scatological imagery or excessive vulgarity (Belle de Jour, Mall Rats, Van Wilder, American Pie, Road Trip, etc, ad infinitem).
Sympathetic or attempted erotic portrayal of homosexual and lesbian conduct and themes (The Election, Mulholland Drive).
Vicious and often subtle rewriting of history to prevent us from looking back with regret. (Elizabeth - Cate Blanchett)
Portrayal of White males as stupid losers or sadistic criminals. (Too numerous to mention)
Romantic comedies which portray visibly IP males as sensitive loving types who are worthy of the shiksa's heart, as contrasted with their brutal and insensitive White male competitors. (Where the Heart Is - with Natalie Portman ironically playing the Shiksa).
Interracial sex, romance, and marriage propaganda (The King and I, South Pacific, Love is a Many Splendored Thing, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, View to a Kill, Save the Last Dance, Road Trip, The Fast and The Furious.)
The theme that Whites are not valid humans unless they have the all-knowing and wise Negro managing, leading or helping them. (To Sir with Love, Save the Last Dance, almost all Denzel Washington movies)
Negative portrayals of Christianity or the Catholic Church.
To some degree, the criteria are flexible. For example there is an emerging genre which I call "From under the Rubble" in which the White victims of culture destruction and multi culti manage to extricate themselves and find happiness. The best example is "Notting Hill." These movies often display several of the above disqualifying items, but as something to be confronted, contained, controlled or escaped from.
Context is everything.
In addition, there are three movies listed below with offensive scenes which are gratuitous to the plot and are very brief. For those of you who make personal backup copies - the scenes are easily edited out of the movie. Therefore I have included them because other content and themes outweigh the objectionable scene.
My objective is to list 1000 films - a very substantial library. I only have 150 for you right now. I need your help, email me with suggestions and your reasons for inclusion.
THE LIST
The symbol "**" indicates a "must have" movie. The ratings G,A, and R are my own and not Hollywood's.
"R" is a nasty movie that you don't want your children to see - included on this list for its political content (Clockwork Orange, Training Day).
"G" is a movie broadly acceptable to fundamentalist Christians. However, a G rating will include adult movies that will not be understandable for children (Babbett's Feast) and will include tastefully done nudity within a marital relationship (Braveheart, Romeo and Juliet) including common law relationships (Blue Lagoon). Most of the movies on this list are "G"
"A" is a movie that has more sexual content and bad language than may be healthy for children (Bonfire of the Vanities).
Unrated movies are those that I cannot remember well enough, or have not yet seen.
Explicit Nationalist Content and WN Films
Anne of Green Gables G Anne of Avonlea G My Big Fat Greek WeddingG Lord of the Rings TrilogyG Birth of a Nation G Death Wish - Charles Bronson A Live and Let Die - Roger Moore (60 second ugly scene, otherwise fantastic) ** A Braveheart ** G The Seven Samauri (Japan) G Shall We Dance (Japan) G Children of Heaven (Iran) G Together (China)G Bonfire of the Vanities A Bladerunner A Triumph des Willens - Riefenstahl G Red Dawn A Cromwell G The Patriot (objectionable kiss up to Morgan Freeman, otherwise terrific) G Apt Pupil A Arlington Road G Zulu **G Coogans Bluff - Eastwood A Rob Roy - Liam Neesen A The Searchers - John Wayne ** G The Passion of the Christ - Gibson ** G Fritz the Cat - Bakshi (openly racist, hilarious and degenerate) R
Media and Reality
Broadcast News - William Hurt G Cable Guy - Jim Carey (a seriously underrated film) A The Truman Show - Jim Carey G Wag the Dog - G Simone - Pacino **G A Clockwork Orange ** R They Live ** - Roddy Piper (B grade sci-fi with AAA political bite) G State and Main Network
The Aesthetic Prop
Elvira Madigan G Blue Lagoon - Brooke Shields (age 14)G Rear Window - Grace Kelly G Romeo and Juliet - Olivia Hussey (age 15), Leonard Whiting G Bolshoi at the Bolshoi - Nutcracker - Arkhipova VHSG
Culture/Performing Arts
Amadeus - Tom Hulce A Henry V - Branaugh G Hamlet - Mel Gibson G Much Ado about Nothing - Brannaugh G Pride and Prejudice - Garvie-Rintoul 1985 VHS G Pride and Prejudice - Ehle-Firth - 1995 G Sense and Sensibility - BBC - 1981 VHS G Mansfield Park - leTouzel, Hepton BBC 1983 VHS G Emma - Kate Beckinsale BBC 1997 ** G Persuasion - BBC 1971 VHS G Persuasion - Root, Hinds G Bolshoi at the Bolshoi - Nutcracker - Arkhipova VHS G The Nutcracker - Royal Ballet, Leslie Collier, Anthony Dowell ** G The Sleeping Beauty - Kirov, Asylmuratova, Zaklinsky VHS ** G
Western/Adventure/Action/Sports
Master and Commander - Far Side of the World ** G Top Gun - Cruise A Red River - John Wayne G A Fistful of Dollars - Eastwood G The Good, Bad and Ugly - Eastwood G The Outlaw Josey Wales - Eastwood A Pale Rider - Eastwood A Zulu G Crockodile Dundee A Superman G Spiderman G Sudden Impact - Eastwood A Training Day - Washington, Hawke **R Castaway - Hanks G Robin Hood - Costner G Hunt for Red October ** G Catch me if you Can G Field of Dreams - Costner G For the Love of the Game - Costner R Tin Cup - Costner R Without Limits (Steve Prefontain Story) G The Rookie Endless Summer G The Wicker Man Cool Hand Luke G Robin Hood - Errol Flynn G The Sea Hawk Captain Blood Gunga Din - Grant, Fairbanks 1938 G Lives of a Bengal Lancer G Four Feathers (original) G Beau Geste - Gary Cooper G Rocky A Conan the Barbarian A Stalingrad Das Boot.
Romance/Romantic Comedy
Serendipity A What Women Want G Father of the Bride - Martin G L A Story - Martin G Working Girl - Melanie Griffith Notting Hill ** A Mystic Pizza Hope Floats G Gone with the Wind G Guys and Dolls G Sleepless in Seattle G Bed of Roses A Wedding Planner G An Ideal Husband G Kate & Leopold G Babette's Feast Only the Lonely - John Candy, Ally Sheedy G Bringing Up Baby - Grant, Hepburn G Roman Holiday - Peck, Hepburn 1954 G Funny Face - Astaire, Hepburn 1957 G The Philadelphia Story - Grant, Hepburn G Cyrano de Bergerac - Girard Depardieu French Kiss
From under the Rubble
Metropolitan G Barcelona A Scent of a Woman A Notting Hill ** A Family Man - Nicholas Cage A About Schmidt A Girl Interrupted A Riding in Cars with Boys A High Fidelity (objectionable scene)A Untamed Heart - Slater, Tomei A Little Voice G About a Boy G Pushing Tin - Cusak, Thornton A Road Warrior - Mel Gibson Lost in Translation - Murray, Johansson A
Comedy
The Mask - Carey Ace Ventura - Pet Detective Back to the Future Blazing Saddles A Fish called Wanda Monty Python and the Holy Grail Legally Blonde Liar Liar My Cousin Vinnie Pink Panther Planes Trains & Automobiles - John Candy The Sting - Newman Every Which Way but Loose - Eastwood Ghostbusters Waking Ned Devine
Teen Classics
October Sky ** G Anne of Green Gables ** G Anne of Avonlea ** G The Man in the Moon - Reese Witherspoon ** G Sixteen Candles G American Grafitti G Almost Famous A Risky Business A
Childrens'
Bambi Fantasia The Sword in the Stone 101 Dalmatians The Rescuers Lady and the Tramp The Yearling Peter Pan Cinderella Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs National Velvet The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe Mary Poppins Dr. Doolittle Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (universal)
Infants-Toddlers
Baby Mozart Baby Beethoven Baby Bach
Power, corruption, and Intrigue
Will - G. Gordon Liddy East West (France) ** G Absolute Power - Eastwood A Anti-trust City Hall - Pacino Conspiracy Theory - Mel Gibson Wall Street - Douglas Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy G Smiley's People A The Firm - Cruise
Documentary
Waco; the Rules of Engagement ** G Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor - BBC ** G Marilyn: Say Goodbye to the President - BBC ** G Cover UP: Attack on the USS Liberty - A&E ** G Anatomy of a Riot - A&E ** G,
Message Movies/ Defying Categorization
2001 Space Odyssey ** G Dr Strangelove ** G Eyes Wide Shut R A Beautiful Mind Good Will Hunting Jean de Florette ** G Mannon of the Spring ** G The Other Sister ** G One Hour Foto Dangerous Laisons - Malkovich R Disclosure - Michael Douglas Fight Club Steel Magnolias ** G Gosford Park Gorky Park L A Confidential A Lion in Winter Memento In the Bedroom Ghost World Evelyn - Brosnan G
[COLOR=Magenta]Note: I myself employ this method and recommend it - albeit on VHS, and via heisting whatever's worthwhile on TCM, FMC and the Independent Film Channel; and at the dreaded 6-hour speed yet! (I must have a swell VCR or something, because they all look great and play fine and I fully expect most of em to outlive me. Simple proper storage and maintenance can do wonders, y'know.) There's no way I would or could follow this course with DVD pre-records (though I do have a few dvds) - quite a bit of my stock just isn't available on dvd for one thing...and I'm not [I]about [/I] to drop [B]20 grand [/B] or so to upgrade 1200 movies I [I]already [/I] got for free. (Remember that the three cable stations listed above all run pristine uncut prints, show widescreen films in widescreen, and are run sans interruption.) But either way you go, it's still one way to 'train' your televitz to reflect YOUR interests anbd values. There are entire weeks when my telly's [I]on[/I]...but it ain't [I]vitzin'[/I],if you follow my drift.
PS: love that he included LIVE AND LET DIE. Me, I can hardly believe it hasn't been cherrypicked out of the James Bond tv-packages by now. [I]Nothing[/I] but Negroes getting punched, shot, blown up and called 'boy'! Was that [I]really[/I] only 1973? [/COLOR]
2004-02-16 07:46 | User Profile
C+
Frankly, a disappointing list--especially his choice of comedies. The Pink Panther is the earliest picture on that list...none of the silent classics; 30's screwballs or Preston Sturgess pics made ygg's cut.
2004-02-16 08:10 | User Profile
Well, taste is subjective, I just thought his idea of [I]master your tv set[/I] was a good one. I myself would have begun my comedy list with half-a-dozen silent classics before I even [I]got [/I] to Sturges or McCarey. But I hear ya, Howard. There's no excuse for three Jim Carreys and no WC Fields. But then many, many older films are not available on DVD. Not [I]yet[/I], at least.
2004-02-16 09:30 | User Profile
Sir, Ygg, put a good list forth, but I was suprised at what was left off the list, and suprised by one put on the list that, that I will get too. First John Boorman's "Excaliber" was only made because of John Boorman put the money up and his persoanl home and some actor's chipping in. Boorman knew this was important, as he knew what is being to Western man, and since most of our people do not read, he made an IMPORTANT story to speak to us on film.. All W.N.'s should promote and see, never give up HOPE or the Fight. Then Tom Selleck's Monte Walsh, was made out side of Hooey Weird CA. Tikum Oil'em control, and he paid for the movie himself and it has been promoted by word of month as a very good story. I don't think they was a single tribesman in the movie. Tom Selleck paid Warner Brother's to distribute it, but it his movie, from location to crew's, like Boorman.. The "Treasure of Sierra Madre", made in 1948. Could not be made today,if you have see it, you know what I mean, and I am suprised it has not been banned by the hate nut tribe. As "Song of the South" has. The "Wild Bunch" with William Holden 1968 could not be made today, it's a good one too, but you can see they started squirting MULTI-CULTISM is this movie of 1968. Now as for the 1948 "Red River", this was a Red Commie Script, anti-Western B.S. culture attack. Monte's Charactor, Stop's his Mentor and mentor Father, with a gun, from Hanging two deserter's from the Cattle Drive who endangered all their brother's on the drive. This showed dis-loyalty to family. Any W.N. can see this movie for what it is, and what it promoted, one ugly movie is RED RIVER... Wayne made up for it in 1955 with "The Searcher's" with Ford directing.. Ygg, did mention "Birth of A Nation", of course and I do highly agree with him it is a must see. The Termites Hounded D.W. after it, and got him to do "Intolerance" Ha... NYC, was a hot bed of filth and Power for the take over of U.S. They proved it by giving U.S. FDR. As for TV Cable or SAT. I have not watched TV in Five years, and will never miss it. Movies and technique's were white idea's and invention put in place by whites. Check the history yourself.
2004-02-16 12:25 | User Profile
Ygg has an interesting list. A few comments.
He missed "Hud" - which is one a beautiful and powerful film about white values.
Ditto on Screwball cartoons. These are must haves for the kids.
His biggest omission - and this is a serious sin - is leaving out Andrei Rublev, which is not only widely recognized as one of the greatest films ever made (by Russian genius Andrei Tarkovsky) but also contains some of the most startling depictions of WN themes by any film ever. Ever. In this film you have pagans being run to ground by armed Christian monks on horseback; treason by white princes selling out their own people to other races (Tatars); the massive rape of white women and the ensuing dilution of bloodlines; the destruction of white art by barbarian invaders; the crucifixtion of a white peasant explicity blamed on the pharisees; and the list goes on. It's a constant source of frustration for me that our folks don't see this flick.
Walter
2004-02-16 18:18 | User Profile
Current93, your short post was right on the money, and I have seen this time and again, movie's pushed on W.N. web sites, that any thinking W.N. should never promote, and should steer people away from. I mean real rotten stuff, I could start naming, but I won't.. As for paying for Cable/Sat, or even if it was free, I can't see watching TV, and giving the enemy $$$$. Plus it's destructive to children, especially PBS.. CSPAN, in 2000 had a Congoid doing the Programming, so NO W.N. debates, but plenty of Black this, and Yahoodi, that.
2004-02-16 18:42 | User Profile
I remember when Ygg was compiling this list. He started a Stormfront thread asking people's input. Why doesn't OD, which has some serious film buffs, compile a thread and send it to him. Or if that doesn't work invite him here in person and give him OD's recommendations. I'm sure he would be perfectly happy to add them to his list.
2004-02-16 19:08 | User Profile
If I had not read a letter to VNN a couple of years ago , by a woman who explained this powerful, all white movie, "Lord of Dance" a totally filmed in Ireland production made in 1998-97, I may never had seen it. A true W.N. Spiritual production by Michael Flatley titled "Lord of Dance" I found it very moving indeed. Powerful healthy white bodie's and powerful leg's.. Oi Vey!, we can't have that.. This came out in 97 or 98, and I never heard of it on PBS, back then when I still had a brain drain Cable "Hooked" TV. I have not rented a movie in 20 years, as it is all the worst sort of damaging packaged squirting's for braindraining U.S. I mean every movie, I have I own, and you can't rent a single movie as the one's I own, and where I live. Unless, you live in a big city, most American's will have no access to classic, or inspirational W.N. movies.. I mean "Excalibur" will not be for rent in the local store. NPR, classical programming is Constantly shrieking in a white area Multicultism, of a black pianist, and allot of etc. It is not a enough that the monster destroyer's, defiler's have 7 hours out of 20 hours of air time per day of B.S. NPR news output, but there are also breaks and commentary are alway's BLANTLY anti-white too.. On Sunday morning they had some Herbrew Yodeling, or what ever it was, I had to turn it off till regular classic came back on. The media business is about finishing U.S. and our heritage off, and war till your homeless. There are some movies I know of with very strong white men role's and one like "Harry Tracy" based on historical fact of a man who was the last member of the Hole in Wall Gang. That is not released on DVD. It was released in 1982? and on VHS for that era only. On the last scene of this movie, Harry is yelling out to the Sherriff, are they any real American's left anymore? The music for it was done, and sung, by Gordon Light Foot.
2004-02-16 19:29 | User Profile
I sometimes wonder about such lists. It's one thing to include a personal list of favorites for recommendation- ie, [I]I liked these and you may too[/I]- as opposed to a 'definitive' WN list - which to my mind doesn't exist.
I mean, over the course of my life I've read/watched any number of books and films, many the worst sort of Judaic tripe, and the result was I ended up [I]here[/I]. Of course, I yell back at my televitz all the time when it asks me for two tens' change for a five, too, which many people consider crazy.
2004-02-16 20:53 | User Profile
The list is open source. It isn't Yggdrasil's list per se. You guys are good at movie criticism and he would probably appreciate the input, but then that would be working together, and there does remain [I]some doubt [/I] about list like these... ;-)
2004-02-18 06:05 | User Profile
As far as a romantic/comedy, I'd highly recommend A Room With a View. Beautifully filmed. Wonderful music and performances. It captures the lifestyle of the British upper class and of Europe as a place where people would go to finish their education.
Another film I would highly recommend for its political commentary is Renoir's The Rules of the Game. (It's subtitled.) This film is as relevant today as when it was made prior to WW II.
2004-02-18 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Walter, I am personally appealing to you to explain to me how Elizabeth, a film that is far more accurate than most historical pictures, which features one of the most beautiful women that the Aryan race has ever produced (Cate Blanchett), and which champions the ideals of monarchy AND freedom of conscience is listed as
I'll freely admit: the blacklisting of this film by Ol' Ygg gave me pause.
It's a phenomenal film, full of great performances, about a fascinating period.
Ygg just loses me here. I mean, the film opens with Protestants being burned alive. What more can he possibly want from a film?
If he had listed it under #8
I might have understood. Disagreed, mind you, but understood. I don't get the part about 'preventing us from looking back with regret'.
Wintermute[/QUOTE]
I've been on the road, sorry for the delay in my response.
I agree with what you're saying. I was somewhat surprised to see Elizabeth on the blacklist.
Ygg is obviously a brilliant guy with a great eye for the veiled attack on us whites by the Kosher Media, but I don't always agree with his aesthetic choices.
I think that our classics list should contain only films that first pass the "great art" test. Films like "Apt Pupil" are interesting and of course politically tendentious and very relevant, but they're not great art.
I think that Elizabeth was a truly fine film. I don't know if it will stand the test of time that is the sine qua non of artistic greatness. It certainly deserves inclusion in the list over "Apt Pupil" which artistically doesn't rise much above the average Hollywood production.
I beseech all of you (especailly Wintermute and Il Ragno) to GO OUT AND RENT Andrei Rublev. This film is clearly one of the greatest films ever made, period. Tarkovsky was a director's director, and this film is as studied as Hitchcock's best films. It's a towering artistic achievement, AND it's chock full of ASTONISHING WN content.
I don't know why this explicitly WN film generates so little interest among WN's, while (truly great) Asian nationalist films like "The Seven Samurai" are viewed with such interest.
Walter
2004-02-18 20:16 | User Profile
Ygg, includes several Stanley Kurbrick movies. I do enjoy Ygg's commentary and reviews on different movies, especially his "A Clockwork Orange" review. To my surprise he includes "Eyes Wide Shut", which I recommend you view again and then again.
This film is open for interpretation and widely misunderstood, maybe unfairly beguiled. Here's one that I wrote on IMDB below here. It's only one possible interpretation out of many and I'm open to any discussions or interpretations of this film.
[QUOTE]David 2001, has brought out some significant and subtle details of EWS that one doesn't always get on a first viewing of the film. No one should criticise anyone for interpreting symbolism, dialogue, scenery, etc in Kubrick's films in all sorts of various ways.
Whether you realize it or not, Kubrick's films are loaded with Kabbala symbolism which he put in his films to sort of claim his connection with that movement/religion/cult/tribe yet so sublime that masses wouldn't recognize them. "Password" required (fidelio). Yet, Kubrick's subtle Kabbala references still earned him the wrath of the Elite Inner Party who saw him as a renegade/intruder who mocked and daringly questioned the whole IP cabal's conspiracy as useless, futile, depraved, subversive Utopianism/Totalitarianism. Kubrick is Ayn Rand reincarnated. (sort of)
Much has been written on this by different thinkers. Kubrick's characters in all of his movies never redeem themselves or change themselves by their own merits. Even if the characters have help in their rehabilitation, they are nonetheless, in the end, back to where they started. "Doctors" (eg. T. Cruise) making house calls in order to diagnosis and to treat the "disease" but find there's no cure for any of these sins. (Cruise says to Kidman at Victor's party, "I still do house calls"...Cruise's character is blatant in always identifying himself as a doctor during his "investigation" as if he were a detective).......
Dr. Harford tips over the first "Domino" (hooker) on his way to Knowledge....Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (FUC*K) and in the end was disillusioned and alienated from all he thought was right. His eyes had been wide shut. Adam and Eve were warned in the Garden of Eden too. Their "domino" tumbled to total disillusionment and alienation which is our current condition.
Kubrick strongly denies Humanism as a belief system as well as a political system which the IP/Cabal firmly adheres to in their belief/worship systems and any deviation from humanism is taboo/prohibited under penalty of death. (questionable assasinations throughout history? WWI, WWII? 9/11?) Stanley was onto them, but he did not tip his domino and was allowed to continue his operations.
Have any of you asked, in the first place, why there was a black "mass" ceremony put into and highlighted in this film, EWS?? Did it seem a little Catholic inspired (incense, chanting, priest robes), perhaps showing nowadays that the new religion of the Cabal is built on the ruins of Catholicism and Christianity in general, which they overcame and subverted with their secret machinations?? Think of how dark, depraved and otherwise surreal this segment appears in this film. Kubrick puts on display the IP, Freemasonry, Kabbala ceremony for the masses to "see" but yet their eyes are wide shut to the reality of their own imprisonment within the humanist/new world order tyranny.
For the masses, which is you and I, we are allowed to "F*ck" (a constant word used by Kidman, who, in fact was part of the Sect? Or was she? Maybe in her dreams, which Freud would have a field day with) whoever or whatever we prefer, but do not ask questions as to the 'why' 'who' 'what' 'how' we are in this position of decadence, but accept your subordination to the Cabal, who controls and implements all things in this world behind their masks. Why is everyone so completely obsessed with sex? Is it because it lulls the masses into subjugation? Woe to him who exposes them! They must subjugated. Hitler? Humanism is rejected by Kubrick, who, although Jewish himself, believes man's only redemption must come from God. I really believe he points in that direction, which to the Cabal, is a big, damn no-no. Don't believe me? Watch all SK's films from Spartacus to Eyes Wide Shut.
Has Kubrick ever been widely praised in Hollywood? Why did he leave the United States in the '60's to England and never, ever, never setting foot back in the US?
What I'm saying is that Kubrick's art is always open to various interpretation. Don't cut him short. He wants you to "see". [/QUOTE]
2004-02-19 02:02 | User Profile
Great submission X. I agree wholeheartedly with your take.
2004-02-19 07:38 | User Profile
Here's something that I wrote a couple years ago after reading Ygg's review of Eyes Wide Shut. I sent it to Ygg and to a couple of friends, but no response. Too much navel-gazing, I guess.
I'm not even sure I agree with it now!
But anyway, for what it's worth:
[QUOTE]I'm coming to the conclusion that the central theme uniting all Kubrick's films is human instinct, and how it unconsciously directs our actions. The sex instinct (Eyes Wide Shut and Lolita), the killer instinct (Full Metal Jacket, The Shining), the related "tribal instinct" (Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, and 2001), and how they play out in our lives and in human history, these are the core motifs of Kubrick's work.
Evolution is the another main theme that crops up in nearly all of them, but except for "2001" (where it is the very heart of the film) evolution is in a sense subsidiary. I feel that Kubrick cares about Evolution because it designed our instincts, but it is the playing out of hidden instincts and desires that interests him most.
In Eyes Wide Shut, we get a careful dissection of the conflicts within and between the male and female sex instincts.
Recall that after Sydney Pollack's "Christmas" party, Nicole and Tom Cruise get high, and the conversation turns to sex. Nicole says something like "if you ****ing men only knew! You think that evolution designed you guys to stick it in anything that moves, but designed us women to care only about warmth and security." Tom replies "something like that, yeah," so Nicole broadsides poor, unsuspecting Tom with a description of her powerful sexual feelings for the Navy officer she'd only seen ONCE during last years vacation on Cape Cod.
This was caused in no small part by her feelings for the handsome Hungarian at Sydney Pollack's "Christmas" party, from which they'd just returned. Nicole was a bit drunk, and she really wanted that guy. Her instincts were aroused. (By the way, I disagree about the identity of that Hungarian character, who was to my mind clearly a giggolo, just as the "models" who came on to Tom were hookers. Sydney Pollack hired him to work the party and make his female guests feel at home. Sydney wanted all his guests, male and female, to have a very Merry Christmas!)
Anyway, the handsome Hungarian giggolo says something to the effect that "women get married so that they can lose their virginity, and then have sex with other men and not worry about who will take care of the kids."
Now, I think that Kubrick is saying here that evolution (note the direct reference to evolution in the dialogue between Tom and Nicole) designed (especially) human female sexuality to meet various challenges, resulting in frequent conflicts. New York, after all, is not the African Savannah or Ice Age Europe. Our instincts are often maladaptive to today's environments.
Of course, the females of most species are designed to select the fittest males, usually based on displays of agression and strength. The evolutionists tell us that when our primate ancestors first stood up on the African savannah, things changed a bit. Selection became based not so much on direct displays of brute strength, but rather on fitness for child rearing, loyalty, dependability, and most importantly the ability to carry food home to camp. Suddenly the survival advantage belonged to females who could attract males who could walk upright and carry food back to camp over long distances, and who felt bound by loyalty to them and to their own children.
This is why the image of a handsome, smiling young man walking tall with grocery bags under each arm is a staple of print advertising. Advertisers know what women want.
Of course, the heart of the deal was sex for food. Men provided food in exchange for sex and female fidelity to him and his offspring. So, Tom is right in a sense. The evolutionary pressures of the African savannah and Ice Age Europe didn't push him to monogamy as strongly as they did Nicole. Nicole wants love and security. We get a hint that she was a starving artist in SoHo until she married the handsome young doctor who procured a nice dwelling for her, and brings home lots of groceries for her and her baby. He's secure, loyal, and a great provider. And quite good looking, if a tad short. Such a deal!
Yet, evolution designed Nicole's sexuality not just to be safe and secure, but also to improve the race. Her instincts, those even more ancient than man walking upright, tell her to conceive of the fittest male, the one who can display the most brute power. The Navy officer was young, tall, athletic, and dressed like a warrior. In short, he made all the displays of a dominant alpha male, and Nicole's most fundamental female instincts responded accordingly.
So the poor girl was conflicted. One very ancient instinct tells her to conceive of the athletic warrior alpha male, the other somewhat less-ancient instinct tells her that she's got a good thing going with Tom in the old sex-for-food-and-babies deal. She tells Tom that she felt at the time that if the Navy officer had only asked, that she would have abandoned her child and the security of her relationship with Tom just to breed with him one night.
Such is the power of our conflicted instincts to wreak havoc in our lives.
The hard truth is that the Hungarian giggolo is right about women and marriage. Female fidelity in exchange for security is often compromised by supervening considerations. I recall reading of a study from the 1950's that found something like 10% of all American babies born to married women were not fathered by the husband, and the report was quashed for fear of tearing thousands of families apart. It happens every day. And, Kubrick is telling us, the instincts designed by evolution drive them to it in ways both subtle and overt.
Later in the film Nicole has a dream she's taking on one guy after the next in an orgy eerily like the real one Tom stumbled on to, and she's taunting Tom for being weak, reveling in her wanton reproductive success. Again, instincts. Evolution designed her to recognize triumph in successful mating with dominant males. She tells Tom that she's appalled at herself for these feelings.
Of course, poor Tom is going through all the feelings a male monkey would have in a similar situation. Here is his female telling him she'd throw him and his offspring away for a dominant alpha male in a heartbeat, and not only that she'd sneeringly laugh in his face for it. Yikes!
Nicole's pot-induced baring of her feelings to Tom was certainly ill-advised. There are some things spouses need not tell each other. Heck, if I told my wife how much I want to bang my drop-dead gorgeous young secretary every time the feelings appear (on a daily basis!) I'd be in constant hot water. So when it gets to be too much, I call my brother, we joke about it, I forget about it and it passes. Such is life.
Anyway, had Nicole lived in a tribal village as evolution had intended, she would have confided all this to her sisters, worked it out and spared Tom all the harrowing events that followed. This really goes to your comment about their isolation in a deracinated New York. Neither Nicole nor Tom had any family or friends there to talk about these things in a safer and more appropriate setting, or so it would appear. Thus the deracinated nuclear family becomes the American suburban pressure cooker.
Nicole's baring of her soul was interrupted by a call from the English girl, the daughter of his patient who had just died. Tom races over there, and on the way he's tormented by scenes of Nicole mating with the Navy officer, alpha male studmuffin that he is.
Upon his arrival Kubrick treats us to a similar scene, only this time with Tom reversing roles, playing the part of the (comparatively) dominant male. It happens this way: the English girl suddenly throws herself at Tom in the presence of her recently-dead father, as if to say that now she's free from his authority and so she can mate as she sees fit. An unspoken burden had been lifted from the English girl, and she didn't know what to make of it. Long-repressed feelings welled up in her. Of course, Tom wimps out and doesn't do the alpha male hoodoo jungle thang with her, further reducing his own feelings of sexual self-regard.
Then her math-geek fiance shows up, and we see why in the sexual pecking order Tom is to the English girl what the Navy officer is to Nicole. The math-geek has just landed a nice secure job teaching math at University of Michigan, and the English girl's future life is set: a couple kids, cocktail parties, a nice apartment in Ann Arbor. In short, the math-geek is heavy to security, but doesn't offer much in way of raw male charisma. Tom's an alpha male, all right - at least compared to the math-geek!
Talk about maladaptive instincts.
Tom leaves the scene, and is soon accosted by a roving gang of rogue males, who push him down and deride his masculinity by calling him a homosexual. Tom is feeling pretty low by this time. He's been symbolically mounted by those damned rogue primate males. Ouch! He resorts to the prostitute to assuage his wounded instincts, but is "saved by the bell" when Nicole, sensing that she really should have kept her mouth shut about her feelings for the Navy officer and dutifully sitting by the family campfire watching over Tom's child, calls him on the cellphone to say how much she cares.
Poor Tom. He's a bundle of conflicted feelings by now. It's time to go see that old medical school buddy of his. That's the ticket! A little male bonding! Leave those accursed females barefoot at home!
And the rest is, as they say, history. Tom continues unconsciously down the path his wounded sexual pride leads him, and it nearly kills him and destroys his family in the process. Kubrick is offering a lesson, as he does in all his other films, on the dangers to us and society that our crazed, irrational instincts present.
It's classic Greek tragedy, really. The slow and agonizing working out of the inevitable. Troy destoyed. Agamemnon dead. Helen was such a shrew, when you get right down to it. And all a guy can do is cross his fingers and hope it's all worth it.
There are other statements on human sexuality, of course. The Serbian store keeper who prostitutes his daughter to cross-dressing Japanese businessmen in a sense prepares the way for Tom's desent into the utter and amorphous sexual depravity of the orgy.
Tom's post-orgy learning of the prostitute's positive AIDS test is juxtaposed beautifully with Sydney Pollack's private detective (whom Tom suspects is a hit man) stalking him at night. It's as if to say "there are dangerous animals in the sexual woods, Tom old buddy. And the big tiger now is AIDS. It will hunt you down and kill you, man. Stay home. Don't venture too far from the family campfire at night!"
Sounder advice was never offerred by mortal man.
For me the most hauntingly beautiful moment of the film was where Tom comes home only to find Nicole asleep in bed, laying next to his missing mask. It's as if Kubrick is saying, "look, my fellow male. Admit it. You aren't really sleeping with your wife, because you only present to her a mask. She might as well be sharing her bed with a crash dummy. You have not acheived anything like true intimacy with this woman."
Now, I think any guy who's been married to the same woman for a long time, I mean a guy who's really tried to work out a life long realtionship with one woman, can totally relate to that image. It's so hard to break through all of our male stuff, and to really just SEE the other human being you're sharing your life with. When Tom is symbolically confronted by this terrible image of himself, he breaks down and cries in Nicole's arms, sobbing "I'll tell you everything. Everything! Everything!" This really hit me where I live. Just thinking of it is like a knife to my heart.
Of course, like any great work of art, Eyes Wide Shut can be viewed on a number of levels, and I'm sure that as I re-view it in the years to come I'll see other aspects of it. I re-read some of my favourite classics from time to time, and am always astonished that experience has revealed that which was concealed to the younger man.
I mean to say that your sociological view of the film is absolutely right on the money, and I'll end this with a few comments on the sociological aspects you rightly discern.
I grew up on a small dairy farm in Wisconsin, and we were far from rich. I left the farm, served in the military, got an education, got a scholarship, etc. Anyway, I lived for a while in New York with a couple of friends I knew from the University. This was about 15 years ago. I recall one of my friends reading aloud to us a letter he'd received from one of his friends from high school who'd never gone to school like us and had taken a job in a factory in Green Bay. He wrote that he was doing real well, making $10 per hour. Of course, by that time we were all aspiring young professionals (sorted and stamped out by Murray & Hernstein's education machine) with our eyes hungily on stock options and dealing with New York City prices. We almost died laughing. Only a true Wisconsin Cheesehead could be making $10/hour and feel like he's sitting on the top of the world!
I think that Kubrick understood that. From the point of view of my fellow Cheesehead working in a paper mill and looking up the mountain of the American social order, Tom Cruise occupies a spot as far up as he can see. I mean, Tom's making a lot more than $10 per hour (I once heard a caller to Rush Limbaugh say that doctors are rich making $40,000 per year), has a nice cushy inside job, lives in exciting New York City, has rich friends and clients and get invited to cool parties, drives a nice SUV, and most importantly is married to the ever-lucious Nicole Kidman. Tom's got it all. As the beer ad puts it, "fellas, it just don't get no better'n this."
I think Kubrick is trying to tell his fellow Americans that they don't see the top, that the summit remains obscured by clouds. He's saying to us Cheeseheads in effect: "you think Tom's all the way up to the top of the mountain, but you're wrong. He's really not much more than a well-paid technician at your factory. Tom's just an employee like you, and he's working for the same people. He gets invited to parties in case the boss's shiktsa hooker overdoses, that's all. He has skills the boss needs. But he's not the boss. Oh, no. At the summit of the mountain is an elite of the super-rich. They're not many of them, and so they quite often actually know each other. They're really a separate tribe. They're very disproportiantely Jewish, and as a group they carry Jewish tribal feelings of enmity toward you. The rules just don't apply to them. Look, they can kidnap and beat up (kill?) the piano man, and nothing will come of it. Could you do that? They don't go to church. In fact, they are utterly depraved. I know, because I, Stanley Kubrick, was at that Party. So was Barbara. So was Bill. And the dyke dancing with the hooker was Hillary."
When this film came out a bunch of my fellow lawyers talked about how much money you'd have to have in order to get invited to that orgy. The consensus was AT LEAST $200 million. Bare minimum. Of course, there are cash substitutes: one could buy one's way in by making it to the top in politics like Bill and Hillary, or academe like Peter Singer. There would be a few of those. maybe even Kubrick himself was such a case. But most would be guys like the Sydney Pollack character, who lived in palatial West Side apartments or mansions in the Hamptons.
By the way, I'd like to know your answer to that question. How rich does one have to be to get invited to that orgy?
I think that Kubrick knew he was going to die, and he made this film as a testament to the rest of us. [/QUOTE]
2004-02-19 22:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Walter, I am personally appealing to you to explain to me how Elizabeth, a film that is far more accurate than most historical pictures, which features one of the most beautiful women that the Aryan race has ever produced (Cate Blanchett), and which champions the ideals of monarchy AND freedom of conscience is listed as
I'll freely admit: the blacklisting of this film by Ol' Ygg gave me pause.
It's a phenomenal film, full of great performances, about a fascinating period.
Ygg just loses me here. I mean, the film opens with Protestants being burned alive. What more can he possibly want from a film?[/QUOTE]
When I first watched "Elizabeth" I enjoyed the movie but had this mild sense of unease about it. I felt that something was amiss.
On second viewing, the problem became crystal clear.
Here we have a cast of characters on both sides of the Catholic - Protestant divide openly fornicating with abandon in public without the slightest concern whatever for appearances or their own relgious beliefs. We had people willing to die for those beliefs, but unwilling to restrain themselves from public sex.
Astounding.
And very subtle propaganda - designed to make you feel that the Christianity of these people was an absurd superstition having nothing to do (on average) with their behavior. Christian belief was as detached from their behavior as belief in aliens landing in space ships is today.
Adultery was a felony back then. Christianity was a real religion back then and it was enforced, as all real religions inevitably are.
And the idea that a foreign guest would host an open homosexual party in a castle of another sovereign is so absurdly a-historical as to be blatantly obvious. Homosexuals were burned at the stake back then.
The incentives to be circumspect about ones adulterous laisons were overwhelming back then. Jail or execution certainly loomed large as well as pregnancy and gossip by the servants - which would inevitably drift back to the father and brothers of your wife - forces to be reckoned with even if you had a ready supply of waifs willing to discreetly slip under the bed covers unobserved. (Stone castles without central heat in England are recipes for goose bumps and shrink-a-dink throughout most of the year).
Historically, religious fanatics back then behaved very differently than they were shown to behave in the movie.
Naturally, there is a marketing reason for the dramatically a-historical behavior in the film.
But that a-historical behavior conditions us not to believe what we see in movies like "Pride and Prejudice" and "Anne of Green Gables," when those of us who were young in the 1950s know full well that the portrayals in the latter two movies are the honest portrayals.
"Elizabeth" is a revisionist denial of cultural decline pure and simple!
It is a common and persistent Hollywood theme.
And that is reason enough to exclude it from the list - along with two or three other equally obvious reasons.
2004-02-19 23:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I sometimes wonder about such lists. It's one thing to include a personal list of favorites for recommendation- ie, [I]I liked these and you may too[/I]- as opposed to a 'definitive' WN list - which to my mind doesn't exist.
I mean, over the course of my life I've read/watched any number of books and films, many the worst sort of Judaic tripe, and the result was I ended up [I]here[/I]. Of course, I yell back at my televitz all the time when it asks me for two tens' change for a five, too, which many people consider crazy.[/QUOTE]
It must seem to be a bit presumptuous of me to have set up this list, but it is subject to a set of rules and it is a collective effort. I have only seen half the movies on the list.
The problem is information. There are tens of thousands of people out there who will use this list to invest scarce resources in permanent media. We need lists that conform to certain standards and those standards need to be clearly spelled out so that readers can use their economic power to reward and punish in the market place and minimize the power of Hollywood and its culture destruction machine.
There will be disagreements about movies at the edges of inclusion, but that is healthy.
In fact, the list was first published on Stromfront and has provoked a very long list of suggestions and criticisms.
2004-02-20 01:25 | User Profile
Let me be the first to welcome you to OD. Keep up the good work!!!
2004-02-21 08:41 | User Profile
Ygg's choice of listing "Red River" made in 1948, is a great example to show you how blantant Commie anti Western/U.S. these nutz in Hollywood were/are. This movie promoted crap ideals that were/are alien indeed and aimed at wrecking our codes of conduct, even for women's behavior, and being dis-respectful to your elder's and sassing your keeper/father.... Yes, this was a RED movie Script for sure....
2004-02-21 08:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Yggdrasil]It must seem to be a bit presumptuous of me to have set up this list, but it is subject to a set of rules and it is a collective effort. I have only seen half the movies on the list.[/QUOTE]
It's not presumptuous at all. Every movement has to have a canon, and you've made a great start on defining it.
I see that you've included [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6305257450/qid%3D1077356510/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-8321846-8042305]Andrei Rublev [/URL] into the classics list. I would dearly love to hear your impressions of it.
Here are a few more suggestions (offered strictly IMHO):
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000AUHQU/qid%3D1077352838/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-8321846-8042305]Hud. [/URL] (Paul Newman). This is a starkly beautiful film - one of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen. The camera work is just amazing - this film takes the landscapes of West Texas and turns them into poetry. Amazing. The content of the film is deeply nationalistic - it's all about the conflict of the fight for the American nation's soul, whether we'll keep our traditional white and rural values (represented by the old rancher) or whether we'll opt for the self-absorbed egotism of sociopaths like Bill Clinton (representing by Paul Newman's Hud). The old rancher drops priceless and timeless pearls of wisdom on his way to do his chores. This film is a must.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630513104X/qid=1077352878/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]Alexander Nevsky.[/URL] . This is a film by the Soviet Jewish director (genius) Sergei Eizenshtein. It was made by direct commission of Joseph Stalin on the eve of WWII, and is one of the most explicitly (Russian) nationalist films ever made. It is about the Russian nationalist hero Alexadner Nevsky (Prince of Pskov and Lord Novgorod the Great) in his battle against the Tuetonic Knights. While it was obviously designed to whip up anti-German feeling (the German Archbishop has swastikas on his mitre), it implicitly makes the point that we whites are forced to fight each other even as we're paying tribute to foreigners (here, the Mongol Khan). This is a fine work of art - one of those films that are studied in film schools, like Hitchcock and Riefenstahl. The soundtrack is by Russian genius Sergei Prokofiev. A similar Stalinist-Russian Nationalist film (Lenin famously wrote that if you scratch the Georgian Joseph Stalin (Yosef Dzhugashvili) you'll find a Russian nationalist) is Eizenstein's "Ivan the Terrible." Also a great cinematic achievement with another terrific soundtrack by Prokofiev, and well worth a look.
Taras Bulba. This is based on Nikolai Gogol's deeply nationalistic and anti-Semitic novel of the same name. The eponymous Bulba (Yul Brynner) is the leader of a the nation of Free Cossacks (historically, Cossacks were groups of free men living beyond the pale of Tsarist serfdom who provided a convenient buffer between the Tsar of Moscow and his (usually Turkic and Iranian speaking) enemies, although in this film Bulba is fighting the Poles). The novel is better, since this is Hollywood, but definitely worth a close look. Starring Tony Curtis. It doesn't seem to be available on DVD at [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6301976029/qid=1077351182//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl27/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]Amazon.com.[/URL] , but it is available on VHS.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0783226039/qid=1077353874/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]Spartacus[/URL] . It's seems like a shoo-in to me, but I might be missing something (I should add that your comments on Elizabeth are well taken indeed). This is a great film, with a few peecee moments (strong homoerotic undertones, heroic negro with pitchfork), but then again Howard Fast was a Jewish Commie without peer in Hollywood. It does portray in the most positive light imaginable a popular uprising against the Empire.
Ryan's Daughter. A tragic love story of the corrosive effects of the British Empire on the Irish nation and English soldiers. Astonishing cinematography. Starring the drop-dead gorgeous Sara Miles. This is apparently not availale on DVD, but is available on VHS on [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304366043/qid=1077352003//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i9_xgl27/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]Amazon.com.[/URL]
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005221M/qid=1077352969/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]The Last of the Mohicans.[/URL] . I think it's a fine film with explicit nationalist content. One character in the film (played by Matthew Modine, I think) is a frontiersman, a father. He's a member of the frontier militia, and says to Daniel Day Lewis something like "if the British government won't be bound by it's own laws, then it can have no legitimate authority over us." That's really the essence of the Natural Law argument for our American Revolution, and I think that the film makes this important connection between our Revolution and the British aristocracy's sneering contempt for us as shown in the French & Indian War. This is the same question posed by the recent film Cromwell; that is, is there any moral obligation to obey laws corruptly passed or arbitrarily enforced? One can only ask the same question of our obligation to honor an amnesty of Mexican illegals who arrived due to a corrupt administration's arbitrary refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Also, the Indian Magwa has to be one of the greatest villains ever - "Magwa's soul is twisted" says the Mohican chief. What a classic psychopath! Sort of an Indian version of Hud.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006JMRD/qid=1077352003//ref=pd_ka_2/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846]The Quiet Man.[/URL] . This is a beautiful film, although it does take a rather "Lucky Charms" view of Ireland. John Wayne at his best, and of course the Aryan goddess Maureen O'Hara. Jeepers, that girl was pretty.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792841409/ref=pd_sim_dv_4/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]Paths of Glory.[/URL] . Powerful early film by Stanley Kubrick about the insanity of the fratricidal WWI. Starring Kirk Douglas.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00007G1ZS/ref=pd_sbs_d_2/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]Veggie Tales. [/URL] . These are for the kiddies. My chillens just dig these clay animation cartoons. They're based on Bible stories (explicitly Christian), but all the major characters are vegetables. The guiding spirit is a cucumber. These things are just plain silly, but they're great fun for the kiddles and they're unabashedly Christian. Oh, and they always throw in some humor for the adults - some of it's pretty good. One "silly song" has the cucumber waiting for Santa and he invites in wayward Viking pirates, robbers, and so forth to drink hot cocoa with him while he's waiting for Santa. Then an IRS auditor arrives, and the slam the door in his face. My kids didn't get it, but Mrs. Yannis and I nearly died laughing. There are many good moments like that in this series. These are a family "must."
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000062XG0/qid=1077440801/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1909482-9228820?v=glance&s=dvd]The Man From Snowy River[/URL] . This is a delightful coming of age film set in frontier Australia. Well worth a look.
2004-02-21 08:59 | User Profile
Black Robe! Surely my favorite movie should be in there somewhere. A little interracial romance, but the negative consequences of same are a minor theme of the film. Those French Jesuits were some brave, bad hombres.
2004-02-21 09:07 | User Profile
Walter, The Quiet Man, with Duke, and Maureen, Directed by Ford, is another Example of a Made In Ireland movie, that the Actor's and Ford, had wanted to do for I think 12 years. They may have also seen to the funding of it themselves, if I remember right, same as with Boorman's "Excalibur" I do know for a fact or at least read, that HOOEY WEIRD was very hostile to the making of it and it's racial theme...
2004-02-21 09:11 | User Profile
Documentry that emotinally moved me and had me thinking about it for days too was, "Little Dieter Wants to Fly" absoultely a riveting must watch experience on film! I did not see "NAKED PREY" listed, it's Really a goodie too....
2004-02-21 09:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Black Robe! Surely my favorite movie should be in there somewhere. A little interracial romance, but the negative consequences of same are a minor theme of the film. Those French Jesuits were some brave, bad hombres.[/QUOTE]
Right you are, Tex.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005BKZS/qid=1077355094/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]Black Robe [/URL] is a beautiful film about two utterly different tribes (the French and the Hurons) meeting and trying to make sense of each other. Based on the of [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452278651/qid=1077355252//ref=pd_ka_2/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]novel[/URL] the same name by Irish writer Brian Moore. While this film reflects Moore's deep ambivalence toward the Catholicism of his native land, it's clear that neither Moore nor the viewer can help but admire the achievements of the French Jesuits.
While I'm at it, I must include [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1572521775/qid=1077355489//ref=pd_ka_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846]Breaker Morant [/URL] in the list. This film is about the utter insanity of the Boer War, although it fails to make the Tribal conection in any meaningful way. It's a great anti-imperial peice though, like [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000J11Z/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846&st=*]Gallipoli[/URL] , starring a much younger Mel Gibson.
Also up for honorable mention in the foreign nationalist (comedy) category:
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6305154880/qid%3D1077358021/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-8321846-8042305]Tampopo[/URL] . This is a delightful film of the Japanese poking serious fun at themselves and some of their odder character traits. It does for the cutthroat egg noodle restaurant business what "Shall We Dance" does for the competitive sport of ballroom dancing. Note: there are a couple of disgusting moments in it (hey, I laughed, what can I say?).
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009Y3N0/qid=1077358129/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8321846-8042305?v=glance&s=dvd]The Brother From Another Planet. [/URL] . This is a truly hilarious (IMHO) look at the black-white divide very much from the black-nationalist perspective, but consciously presented as a Sci-Fi "B" film. Note: I don't think this qualifies for the classics list because of it's core message of white guilt for black misbehaviour, but it nevertheless has some great stuff in it. The aliens are two really tough white guys who in one memorable scene clean house on a bunch of brothers with baseball bats in a Negro drinking establishment - just side-splitting satire on us (and on blacks, I should add). I mean, these are some very badassed (and tight-assed) white guys. Hey, if it's funny, the joke can be on me, because it is my firm conviction that cheap laughs are as good as any! The film also is obviously a heartfelt plea for blacks to quit acting like animals and to stop treating each other like dirt, but to repeat it places the plight of blacks squarely on slavery and white oppression, so it probably shouldn't be on our list. The black alien's toenails are a hoot. Director John Sayles has a real eye (and a removable one at that!) for a racial satire. Definitely worth a look.
Walter
2004-02-21 23:57 | User Profile
One more thing about story's told on film, like the proceeding "Birth Of A Nation" "Excalibur" "Naked Prey" "Little Dieter Wants To Fly" , and "The Treasure Of Sierra Madra", story's such as these inspire, and I say all the movie story's that W.N.'s recommend need to/must inspire us, and lift up our spirit's, and be pure in example's of proper conduct and character. Story's justifying ruthless conduct for the greater good of our people's survial and not for self glory, are fine with me. Ygg, and other's can take their mental forks and pick through innendo of certain story's, but most of our white brother's need the story told clearly.. The filth that Hooey Weird has used against U.S. has been clear in it's bold face lie's and omission's in promoting own our destruction and self hate/doubt, and perversion. Movie's like Tora, Tora, to 90% of what's on TV and for rent in the Rental store's are clearly destructive, full of lie's and omission. Every story must inspire and move the emotions of our people's hearts and to have love of self, so as to see themselves as a unique people with a right and duty to exist. AS most of us have been dumbed down and do not read any detail's of history as talk radio and alien media has filled our peoples heads with self destructive non-sense, as they are in a Jim Jones/NPR/PBS/ CULT!. You get it?.. That is why mostly elite upper class race denying type whites have mostly watched "Lord of Dance" by M. Flatley, yet, they they can't admit to themselve's why they like it, and that is my expencience when I talk to people about it. Recommended movies need all the virture's that are important for us, and vital to awakening and inspiring our young men and women....Tom Selleck's self made movie "Monte Walsh" is a story that was inspiring for young to do right and be loyal, yet it seems like a Western intertainment only film, this is what happen's when thinking whites make good entertaining healthy white story's that are told on film.
2004-02-22 07:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Current93]Lots of jews in your selections Walter.
If jew movies are ok then lots of WNs think 'American History X' was good.
Frankly the concept was to make WN look like a lost cause and the usual propaganda but maybe something else slipped through the goy's script.[/QUOTE]
Which film(s) on my list of suggestions do you mean in particular?
Eizenshtein is an interesting instance of a Jew being forced to make explicitly nationalist films for the host country. Alexander Nevsky was made shortly after the 1937 show trials where nearly all the "Old" (i.e. Jewish) Bolsheviks were killed or imprisoned.
Spartacus was clearly a Commie film, but as I said it still had some themes that we can use. I guess it's not really for the "classics" list.
And of course, we've apparently adopted Kubrick as our own.
You know, I watched again last night "Miller's Crossing." This film by the Coen brothers has a credits list that reads like an invitation list to a bar mitzvah, but I think it was a powerful portrayl of ethnic politics. The Irish mob boss Leo (Alberty Finney) is nearly taken down and toppled by the Sicilian mob boss through his affair with Jewess Verna Birnbaum, the sister of the Schmada Birnbaum (John Turrturro) who was a lowlife grifter. In a twisted plot Verna, Esther-like, tries to save the life of her worthless brother from the Sicilian mob boss (Gasparo) by her influence on Leo, with whom she's having an affair. But even then she's portrayed as a sexual deviate (her brother the Schmada says she tried to "teach me a few things, too").
Leo's Irish consigliere (Gabriel Byrne), with whom Verna is also carrying on an affair, saves Leo in a perfectly executed intrigue designed to get the Sicilian mob to wipe itself out. In the end, Leo is engaged to marry Verna, and he's at the Schmada's funeral wearing a yarmulka, with only Verna and a rabbi in attendance. Leo and Michal Byrne forgive each other, but they're through. Leo walks off to join Verna who's just stolen his car.
There were, of course, a number of inversions of the usual ethnic cliches. The Irish consigliere (Gabriel Byrne) is, Jewish like, a master of daring intrigue - the very definition of chutzpah. The Sicilian mob boss Gasparo is the champion of honor among thieves, and is always talking about how important trust is among business men. Indeed, it's clear from the film that had Leo not intervened to save the Schmada at the behest of his sister Verna, Gasparo would have been content to slowly build his network under Leo's umbrella. The WASP mayor and police commissioner (?) are portrayed as shameless political prostitutes to whichever crime lord holds the upper hand at any given time. And the Jews are pathetic losers and liars who "cry like a twist" for their lives and count on the their women for protection.
Interesting. I would be interested in hearing other's opinoins on "Miller's Crossing."
Note: Although it's a very good flick and in my opinion the best the Coen brothers ever made, I'm not recommending it for the classics list. There's something profoundly disordered about it that I can't seem to put my finger on.
Walter
2004-02-23 16:54 | User Profile
Here's a link to the [URL=http://cinepad.com/vatican.htm]Pope's Movie List.[/URL]
JPII has some interesting choices, including Andrei Rublev and the Wizard of Oz.
And of course (ugh!) Schindler's List.
Everybody's got an opinion, I guess.
Walter
2004-02-24 03:59 | User Profile
Gentlemen,
I hope I can trust your judgment. [I]They Live[/I], [I]Andrei Rublev[/I], [I]Black Robe[/I], and [I]Gallipoli[/I] are on the way.
2004-02-24 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Note: Although it's a very good flick and in my opinion the best the Coen brothers ever made, I'm not recommending it for the classics list. There's something profoundly disordered about it that I can't seem to put my finger on. [/QUOTE]
Maybe it's the fact that Gabriel Byrne is repeatedly beaten,stomped and thrown down flights of stairs all through the picture with no more damage than a cut lip or bruised eyebrow to show for it.
I don't much like the Coens but I give 'em credit for at least presenting us with not merely a Jewish villain but a racially-true-to-life Jewish villain in Bernie Birnbaum ("shmata" is Yiddish for "rag", or "ragman" - gulp!). He's not only a smiling, scheming cheat and murderer, he has no compunction about grovelling and whining a universalist type of sentimental dreck ("look in your heart! We're not like them, Tommy; we're not [I]animals[/I]!") to avoid getting his just desserts; later, he betrays the goy who spared his life and mockingly refers to Byrne's gullibility as he twists the knife in. (Also note the climax: Bernie's eyes light up with delight when he sees Byrne pull a wad of bills out of the pocket of the man he's just murdered. "Split 50-50 on the cash, right, Tommy?")
Along with BARTON FINK, MILLER'S is about the best they've done. (And FINK is another of those rare movies that shows Jews [I]as Jews[/I].) Jon Polito is f'in great as Johnny Casper ("ettics...it's a, whaddayacall, mental state"); as a nice bonus, much of the flick was shot in my old neighborhood in Metairie and around New Orleans in general.
2004-02-24 08:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Maybe it's the fact that Gabriel Byrne is repeatedly beaten,stomped and thrown down flights of stairs all through the picture with no more damage than a cut lip or bruised eyebrow to show for it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's probably part of it. There definitely was a comicbook aspect to it. The Sicilian "always put one in their brain" Gasparo was just surreal.
But that's not quite the entire thing. This movie CREEPS ME OUT. I think that it's more the lighting, some of the weird sequences with hats blowing in the wind portending death. There's just something sinister underlying it.
But hey, it's a Shmeul production, you know?
I said above that they stood ethnic cliches on their head, but really that's because those cliches are false. Joel & Ethan Coen showed Jews as Jews, as you said. Irishman Michael Collins was perhaps the greatest conspiratorial genius of history, and the Sicilians (at least in the old days) really did have a code of honor. And the role of the Jewess in advancing the interests of the Tribe ring true with me. So, maybe the Coen brothers had it right - they shocked by telling the truth.
Maybe Miller's Crossing is a candidate for the list?
What say you, Ragman?
I agree that Barton Fink was quite good, as well.
Walter
2004-02-24 08:28 | User Profile
Another fine film that's about white people [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6302457017/qid%3D1077610927/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-5970615-1252713]Hear My Song.[/URL]
This is a delightful film starring Ned "Panties too, Boy" Beatty and the lovely Tara Fitzgerald about an Irish tenor who made his fortune in England hiding out on his farm in Ireland from the British tax police.
Well worth a look. Not yet released on DVD.
Walter
2004-02-24 15:46 | User Profile
I met the Ole Ygg at the AR conference this past weekend and now I know why he's styled Yggdrasil...it's cause he's too damn tall. :lol: :lol: :lol:
The following are a few suggestions I've culled from my own collection. These are not a difinitive WN list, but a list of my favs that I think other WNs might like. Yes, some I've listed because I've children and they make safe viewing.
The Absent-Minded Professor (the original, of course) Mrs. Brown March of the Wooden Soldiers The Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle The Ghost and Mr. Chicken Tombstone The Looney Tunes Golden Collection The Reluctant Astronaut Harvey And Now for Something Completely Different Arsenic and Old Lace Monty Pythonââ¬â¢s Life of Brian Black Adder series The Ghost Breakers The Navigator: A Time Travel Adventure Kiss Me Kate White Christmas Fatherââ¬â¢s Little Dividend The Courtship of Eddieââ¬â¢s Father The Glenn Miller Story On the Waterfront It Happened One Night A Dog of Flanders Lawrence of Arabia Father of the Bride (the original) The Horatio Hornblower series Elizabeth David Copperfield most any Alfred Hitchcock Immortal Beloved Fahrenheit 451 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) White Fang The Yearling The Englishman Who Went Up a Hillââ¬Â¦ Topper Africa Screams The Alamo Amelie Animal Farm Bell Book and Candle The Birth of a Nation Benedict Arnold (A&E) Black Beauty Black Hawk Down The Blue Max Braveheart Brazil Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Call of the Wild Camelot A Christmas Story Clash of the Titans A Clockwork Orange Cool Hand Luke The Dark Crystal Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Doctor Zhivago Dirty Harry Dragonslayer Dune (2000 version) Children of Dune (2002) Emma Erik the Viking Escape from New York Excalibur Fairy Tale: A True Story Fantastic Voyage Fight Club A Fistful of Dollars Fly Away Home Forbidden Planet Giant Gods and Generals GoodFellas Gone with the Wind Gormenghast The Great Race Groundhog Day Helen of Troy High Noon Henry V Highlander The Hobbit I, Claudius Ivanhoe (A&E version) Jeremiah Johnson Jason and the Argonauts Ladyhawke Labyrinth Life with Father The Lion in Winter The Long Riders The Lord of the Rings Mad Max A Man for All Seasons The Man who would be King Magnum Force Merlin Monty Pythonââ¬â¢s Flying Circus Monty Python and the Holy Grail Michael Collins The Mummy (yes, even the recent one) National Velvet The NeverEnding Story Nicholas and Alexandra Nicholas Nickleby (2002) October Sky Planet of the Apes (the original) The Perfect Storm The Quiet Man Quest for Fire Reservoir Dogs (not for the kiddies) Rear Window The Road Warrior Mark Twainââ¬â¢s Roughing It (2002) The Searchers (1956) Rob Roy The Secret of Roan Inish Sense and Sensibility Shakespeare in Love Singinââ¬â¢ in the Rain Sleepy Hollow South Pacific Spartacus Starship Troopers Sweet Home Alabama Taming of the Shrew (1967) The Terminator The 13th Warrior This Island Earth The Time Machine (1960) Triumph of the Will Time Bandits True Romance 12 Monkeys Unforgiven Waco: The Rules of Engagement most any of the BBC Dinosaurs/Walking with... specials The War of the Worlds Warlord Waking Ned Devine Willow Winged Migration Zulu Naked Prey On Borrowed Time (1939) The General (1927) Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) Boys Town (1938) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead Anne of Green Gables (1986) The Patriot (2000) The Shaggy Dog (1959) The Winslow Boy (1999) So Dear to My Heart (1949) Ulysses (1954) Darby Oââ¬â¢Gill & the Little People (1959) Legend of Lobo (1962) Treasure Island (1950) Greyfriars Bobby (1961) The Love Bug (1969) Johnny Tremain (1957) I Remember Mama (1948) Andy Hardy (various) Iron Will (1994)
2004-02-24 16:02 | User Profile
Spactacular list!
Wow, that's a lot.
I haven't seen several of them.
"Twelve Monkeys" leaps out at me. A truly fine film with an important and very timely message.
Ma & Pa Kettle?
"The Secret of Roan Innish" was great. You might also consider "Into the West" - my daughters just cried and cried at that one. It's a beautiful film.
You've given me much food for thought.
Walter
2004-02-24 16:46 | User Profile
2004-02-24 23:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Spactacular list!
You might also consider "Into the West" - my daughters just cried and cried at that one. It's a beautiful film.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Into the West is on my Netflix waiting list. Thanks for your input, I'll push it a little higher up the list. Feric
2004-02-25 13:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Into the West is on my Netflix waiting list. Thanks for your input, I'll push it a little higher up the list. Feric[/QUOTE]
What do you think about Abbot & Costello? "Buck Privates" has some great music (Andrews Sisters), plus some very un-PeeCee stuff to boot.
I loved their films as a kid.
I also liked Willow, as did my kids.
Walter
2004-02-26 12:08 | User Profile
Oh boy: I momentarily dawdled with the idea of compiling a similar list but I'm not particularly good at list-making. (You should see my cd collection: completely unalphabetized and piled chaotically in boxes.) Besides, Feric and Ygg have listed a lot of good ones already. But I notice a disheartening preponderance of post-60 titles on both. Dunno if this simply reflects the majority of films-on-DVD being of recent vintage or not, but I'll just toss in a few older and/or otherwise-overlooked titles that haven't yet been recommended. Obviously, there will be some category overlapping; apologies if I’m duplicating any already-listed movies.
[COLOR=Blue][B]WESTERNS/AMERICANA[/B][/COLOR] [I]Cukor[/I]: LITTLE WOMEN, THE ACTRESS [I]Ford: [/I] STEAMBOAT ROUND THE BEND, DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, RIO GRANDE, WAGONMASTER [I]Walsh: [/I] THE BOWERY, THE STRAWBERRY BLONDE, GENTLEMAN JIM [I]Capra: [/I] LADY FOR A DAY, MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE [I]Vidor[/I]: SHOW PEOPLE, OUR DAILY BREAD, STELLA DALLAS, NORTHWEST PASSAGE, H.M. PULHAM ESQ [I]Mann: [/I] THE FURIES, NAKED SPUR, MAN FROM LARAMIE, MAN OF THE WEST [I]Boetticher: [/I] MAN FROM THE ALAMO, SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, RIDE LONESOME, THE TALL T, COMANCHE STATION [I]Peckinpah: [/I] RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, THE WILD BUNCH, THE GETAWAY [I]Leone: [/I] the DOLLARS trilogy, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and DUCK YOU SUCKER [I]Corbucci: [/I] DJANGO, THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE SHE DONE HIM WRONG A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN THE SOUTHERNER YELLOW SKY SHANE BONNIE & CLYDE THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY? HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER ULZANA’S RAID HARD TIMES THE MISSOURI BREAKS THE APOSTLE
[COLOR=Blue][B]MUSICALS[/B][/COLOR] [I]Busby Berkeley: [/I] 42nd STREET, FOOTLIGHT PARADE, GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 [I]Astaire: [/I] TOP HAT, SHALL WE DANCE, YOU WERE NEVER LOVELIER, YOLANDA AND THE THIEF, THE BAND WAGON [I]Fox 40s[/I]: MOON OVER MIAMI, THE GANG’S ALL HERE SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN GUYS AND DOLLS
[COLOR=Blue][B]COMEDIES[/B][/COLOR] SLAPSTICK ENCYCLOPEDIA [I][[U]dvd set [/U] of restored silent comedy ca. 1909-1928; many rare/obscure landmarks[/I]] ART OF BUSTER KEATON [[I][U]dvd set[/U]- every short and feature he did up to 1928, when lost his independence - essential[/I]] CHAPLIN: THE FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION [I][[U]dvd set[/U]; gorgeous restorations of Chaplin's best and least-seen work[/I]] [I]Harold Lloyd[/I]: SAFETY LAST, THE KID BROTHER, THE FRESHMAN [I]Laurel & Hardy: [/I] BIG BUSINESS, HELPMATES, THE MUSIC BOX, FRA DIAVOLO, SONS OF THE DESERT [I]Marx Bros: [/I] ANIMAL CRACKERS, HORSE FEATHERS, DUCK SOUP, A NIGHT AT THE OPERA [I]Hawks[/I]: TWENTIETH CENTURY, HIS GIRL FRIDAY [I]Fields: [/I] IT’S A GIFT, MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, THE BANK DICK, YOU CAN’T CHEAT AN HONEST MAN [I]Cagney: [/I] BLONDE CRAZY, HARD TO HANDLE, JIMMY THE GENT, BOY MEETS GIRL, TORRID ZONE [I]Lubitsch: [/I] TROUBLE IN PARADISE, DESIGN FOR LIVING, IF I HAD A MILLION, NINOTCHKA, THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER [I]Robinson: [/I] LITTLE GIANT, THE WHOLE TOWN’S TALKING, A SLIGHT CASE OF MURDER, LARCENY INC [I]Sturges: [/I] THE GREAT McGINTY, SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, THE LADY EVE, THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK, UNFAITHFULLY YOURS [I]Hope: [/I] ROAD TO MOROCCO, ROAD TO UTOPIA, MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE, PRINCESS AND THE PIRATE [I]Tati[/I]: JOUR DE FETE, MON ONCLE, M HULOT'S HOLIDAY, PLAYTIME [I]Ealing/Sellers: [/I] THE LADYKILLERS, KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS, THE LAVENDER HILL MOB,TIGHT LITTLE ISLAND, TWOWAY STRETCH, I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, AFTER THE FOX BLESSED EVENT BOMBSHELL TOPPER NOTHING SACRED TOO HOT TO HANDLE ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN CHAMPAGNE FOR CAESAR LORD LOVE A DUCK WHERE’S POPPA? THE IN-LAWS THE END TRUE ROMANCE
[COLOR=Blue][B]HORROR/FANTASY[/B][/COLOR] [I]Lang:[/I] METROPOLIS (restored version), M [I]Whale[/I]: FRANKENSTEIN, THE INVISIBLE MAN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN [I]Tourneur[/I]: THE CAT PEOPLE, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, CURSE OF THE DEMON [I]Dieterle[/I]: HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (Laughton), ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY [I]Polanski[/I]: REPULSION, ROSEMARY’S BABY, MACBETH [I]Cronenberg[/I]: SHIVERS, SCANNERS, VIDEODROME, THE FLY, NAKED LUNCH KONGO FREAKS KING KONG MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM THE MUMMY THE BLACK CAT A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM THE WIZARD OF OZ THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD [24 or 40 version} COBRA WOMAN A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH THE THING [either version] INVADERS FROM MARS I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS HORROR HOTEL THE FABULOUS BARON MUNCHAUSEN [1960 version] THE INNOCENTS BLACK SUNDAY WITCHFINDER GENERAL LET’S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH SUSPIRIA ALICE [Svankmajer] THE SIXTH SENSE
[COLOR=Blue][B]CRIME/SUSPENSE[/B][/COLOR] [I]Hitchcock: [/I] 39 STEPS, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, PSYCHO [I]Walsh: [/I] THE ROARING TWENTIES, HIGH SIERRA, WHITE HEAT [I]Huston: [/I] THE MALTESE FALCON, TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, ASPHALT JUNGLE [I]Wilder: [/I] DOUBLE INDEMNITY, SUNSET BOULEVARD, PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES [I]Dick Powell: [/I] MURDER MY SWEET, JOHNNY O’CLOCK, THE PITFALL, STATION WEST, CRY DANGER [I]Siodmak: [/I] PHANTOM LADY, SPIRAL STAIRCASE, UNCLE HARRY, THE KILLERS, CRISS CROSS [I]John Farrow[/I]: THE BIG CLOCK, NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, ALIAS NICK BEAL [I]Mitchum: [/I] OUT OF THE PAST, THE BIG STEAL, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, THUNDER ROAD, CAPE FEAR [I]Scorsese[/I]: MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, CASINO PUBLIC ENEMY THE LETTER THE GLASS KEY MILDRED PIERCE THE DARK CORNER RAW DEAL THE KILLING JOHNNY COOL THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE CHINATOWN CHARLEY VARRICK
[COLOR=Blue][B]FOREIGN/ART FILMS[/B][/COLOR] [I]Von Stroheim[/I]: GREED, THE WEDDING MARCH [I]Dreyer: [/I] THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, DAY OF WRATH [I]Clair[/I]: A NOUS LA LIBERTE, THE ITALIAN STRAW HAT, LE MILLION [I]Mamoulian: [/I] LOVE ME TONIGHT, QUEEN CHRISTINA [I]Von Sternberg: [/I] THE SCARLET EMPRESS, THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN [I]Renoir: [/I] GRAND ILLUSION, RULES OF THE GAME [I]Clouzot: [/I] LE CORBEAU, THE WAGES OF FEAR [I]Welles: [/I] CITIZEN KANE, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, THE TRIAL [I]De Sica: [/I] SHOESHINE, UMBERTO D, THE BICYCLE THIEF [I]Cocteau: [/I] BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ORPHEE [I]Fellini: [/I] I VITELLONI, LA DOLCE VITA, 8 ý, SATYRICON [I]Kurosawa: [/I] STRAY DOG, YOJIMBO, THE HIDDEN FORTRESS, HIGH AND LOW [I]Bergman: [/I] SAWDUST & TINSEL, THE SEVENTH SEAL, WILD STRAWBERRIES, THE VIRGIN SPRING [I]Bunuel: [/I] UN CHIEN ANDALOU, ROBINSON CRUSOE, THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOUSIE [I]Jeunot & Caro[/I]: DELICATESSEN, CITY OF LOST CHILDREN SUNRISE HE WHO GETS SLAPPED POTEMKIN THE CROWD MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA CHILDREN OF PARADISE THE RED BALLOON UGETSU LA RONDE The ZATOICHI series KWAIDAN SPIRITS OF THE DEAD ONIBABA
[COLOR=Blue][B]HONEST-TO-GOD, PRE-‘PASSION’, EXPLICITLY JEWISH VILLAINS[/B][/COLOR] GODFATHER 2 CARLITO’S WAY MILLER’S CROSSING OLIVER TWIST BARTON FINK [?]
Yeah, I’m still keeping count, and still mired at five. If anybody can boost this last list to just 10 titles, I’ll be grateful. (PS: JUD SUSS doesn’t count.)
2004-02-26 12:25 | User Profile
Oh boy: I momentarily dawdled with the idea of compiling a similar list but I'm not particularly good at list-making. (You should see my cd collection: completely unalphabetized and piled chaotically in boxes.) Besides, Feric and Ygg have listed a lot of good ones already. But I notice a disheartening preponderance of post-60 titles on both. Dunno if this simply reflects the majority of films-on-DVD being of recent vintage or not, but I'll just toss in a few older and/or otherwise-overlooked titles that haven't yet been recommended. Obviously, there will be some category overlapping; apologies if I’m duplicating any already-listed movies.
[COLOR=Blue][B]WESTERNS/AMERICANA[/B][/COLOR]
SHE DONE HIM WRONG Ford: STEAMBOAT ROUND THE BEND, DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, RIO GRANDE, WAGONMASTER Walsh: THE BOWERY, THE STAWBERRY BLONDE, GENTLEMAN JIM Capra: LADY FOR A DAY, MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN THE SOUTHERNER SHANE Mann: THE FURIES, NAKED SPUR, MAN FROM LARAMIE, MAN OF THE WEST YELLOW SKY Boetticher: MAN FROM THE ALAMO, SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, RIDE LONESOME, THE TALL T, COMANCHE STATION Peckinpah: RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, THE WILD BUNCH, THE GETAWAY ULZANA’S RAID Leone: the DOLLARS trilogy, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and DUCK YOU SUCKER BONNIE & CLYDE THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY? Corbucci: DJANGO, THE MERCENARY, THE GREAT SILENCE HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER HARD TIMES THE MISSOURI BREAKS THE APOSTLE
[COLOR=Blue][B]MUSICALS[/B][/COLOR]
Busby Berkeley: 42nd STREET, FOOTLIGHT PARADE, GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 Astaire: TOP HAT, SHALL WE DANCE, YOU WERE NEVER LOVELIER, YOLANDA AND THE THIEF, THE BAND WAGON Fox 40s: MOON OVER MIAMI, THE GANG’S ALL HERE SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN GUYS AND DOLLS
[COLOR=Blue][B]COMEDIES[/B][/COLOR]
SLAPSTICK ENCYCLOPEDIA [dvd set of restored silent comedy ca.1909-1928] ART OF BUSTER KEATON [dvd set- every short andfeature up to 1928- essential] CHAPLIN: THE FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION [dvd set of Chaplin's best and least-seen work] SAFETY LAST THE FRESHMAN Laurel & Hardy: BIG BUSINESS, HELPMATES, THE MUSIC BOX, FRA DIAVOLO, SONS OF THE DESERT Marx Bros: ANIMAL CRACKERS, HORSE FEATHERS, DUCK SOUP, A NIGHT AT THE OPERA Fields: IT’S A GIFT, MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE, THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, THE BANK DICK, YOU CAN’T CHEAT AN HONEST MAN Cagney: BLONDE CRAZY, HARD TO HANDLE, JIMMY THE GENT, BOY MEETS GIRL, TORRID ZONE Lubitsch: TROUBLE IN PARADISE, DESIGN FOR LIVING, IF I HAD A MILLION, NINOTCHKA, THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER Robinson: LITTLE GIANT, THE WHOLE TOWN’S TALKING, A SLIGHT CASE OF MURDER, LARCENY INC Sturges: THE GREAT McGINTY, SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS, THE LADY EVE, THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK, UNFAITHFULLY YOURS Hope: ROAD TO MOROCCO, ROAD TO UTOPIA, MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE, PRINCESS AND THE PIRATE Ealing: THE LADYKILLERS, KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS, THE LAVENDER HILL MOB BLESSED EVENT TWENTIETH CENTURY BOMBSHELL TOPPER NOTHING SACRED TOO HOT TO HANDLE HIS GIRL FRIDAY ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN CHAMPAGNE FOR CAESAR AFTER THE FOX LORD LOVE A DUCK WHERE’S POPPA? THE IN-LAWS THE END TRUE ROMANCE
[COLOR=Blue][B]HORROR/FANTASY[/B][/COLOR]
Lang: METROPOLIS (restored version), M Whale: FRANKENSTEIN, THE INVISIBLE MAN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN KONGO FREAKS KING KONG MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM THE MUMMY THE BLACK CAT THE WIZARD OF OZ THE THIEF OF BAGHDAD [24 or 40 version} Tourneur: THE CAT PEOPLE, CURSE OF THE DEMON ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY COBRA WOMAN A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH ALIAS NICK BEAL THE THING [either version] INVADERS FROM MARS I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE THE FLESH AND THE FIENDS HORROR HOTEL THE FABULOUS BARON MUNCHAUSEN [1960 version] THE INNOCENTS BLACK SUNDAY WITCHFINDERGENERAL ROSEMARY’S BABY LET’S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH MACBETH [1971 version] SUSPIRIA ALICE [Svankmajer] THE SIXTH SENSE
[COLOR=Blue][B]CRIME/SUSPENSE[/B][/COLOR]
PUBLIC ENEMY Hitchcock: 39 STEPS, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, PSYCHO THE LETTER Huston: THE MALTESE FALCON, TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, ASPHALT JUNGLE Wilder: DOUBLE INDEMNITY, SUNSET BOULEVARD, PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES Dick Powell: MURDER MY SWEET, JOHNNY O’CLOCK, THE PITFALL, STATION WEST, CRY DANGER Siodmak: PHANTOM LADY, SPIRAL STAIRCASE, UNCLE HARRY, THE KILLERS, CRISS CROSS Mitchum: OUT OF THE PAST, THE BIG STEAL, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, THUNDER ROAD, CAPE FEAR Walsh: THE ROARING TWENTIES, HIGH SIERRA, WHITE HEAT MILDRED PIERCE RAW DEAL THE KILLING JOHNNY COOL THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE CHINATOWN CHARLEY VARRICK Scorsese: MEAN STREETS, TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, CASINO
FOREIGN/ART FILMS HE WHO GETS SLAPPED POTEMKIN SUNRISE THE CROWD Dreyer: THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, DAY OF WRATH MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA Clair: A NOUS LA LIBERTE, THE ITALIAN STRAW HAT, LE MILLION Mamoulian: LOVE ME TONIGHT, QUEEN CHRISTINA Von Sternberg: THE SCARLET EMPRESS, THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN Renoir: GRAND ILLUSION, RULES OF THE GAME CHILDREN OF PARADISE Clouzot: LE CORBEAU, THE WAGES OF FEAR Welles: CITIZEN KANE, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, THE TRIAL De Sica: SHOESHINE, UMBERTO D, THE BICYCLE THIEF Cocteau: BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ORPHEE UGETSU Fellini: I VITELLONI, LA DOLCE VITA, 8 ý, SATYRICON Kurosawa: STRAY DOG, YOJIMBO, THE HIDDEN FORTRESS, HIGH AND LOW THE RED BALLOON Bergman: SAWDUST & TINSEL, THE SEVENTH SEAL, WILDSTRAWBERRIES, THEVIRGIN SPRING The ZATOICHI series KWAIDAN Bunuel: UNCHIEN ANDALOU, ROBINSONCRUSOE, THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOUSIE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD ONIBABA Jeunot & Caro: DELICATESSEN, CITY OF LOST CHILDREN
[COLOR=Blue][B]HONEST-TO-GOD, PRE-‘PASSION’, EXPLICITLY JEWISH VILLAINS[/B][/COLOR]
GODFATHER 2 CARLITO’S WAY MILLER’S CROSSING OLIVER TWIST BARTON FINK [?]
Yeah, I’m still keeping count, and mired at five. If anybody can boost this last list to just 10 titles, I’ll be grateful. (PS: JUD SUSS doesn’t count.)
2004-02-26 13:43 | User Profile
Wow, Ragman. That's an astonishing list.
You really know your stuff.
Ford was the best. You're absolutely right to include Red Badge of Courage, and others.
Why did you limit the Abbot & Costello flicks so drastically? I think a lot of those are shoo-ins for the kiddies, no? Maybe I'm missing something.
What's your take on Our Gang?
What did you think of Once Upon a Time in America (the only film that I can recall that openly discusses the reality of the Jewish mob, although GF series had Mo Green).
Walter
2004-02-28 07:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Why did you limit the Abbot & Costello flicks so drastically? I think a lot of those are shoo-ins for the kiddies, no? Maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE]
Possibly, but I find too many of the A&C theatrical features larded down with tiresome romantic a/o gangster subplots and far too many musical interludes. (All kids instinctively hate watching slapstick being interrupted by [I]love songs[/I].) Besides, the best thing A&C ever did was that TV series in '52 & '53, set in Mr Fields' apartment building: pure nonsensical, nearly-surreal vaudeville unencumbered by any extraneous padding whatsoever. (That show being [I]tv[/I], I didn't list it, but I'd take it over 3/4 of their full-length movies.)
[QUOTE]What's your take on Our Gang? [/QUOTE]
Haven't seen one in many years; I liked 'em as a kid, but it's been so long I wouldn't know which ones to recommend....
[QUOTE]What did you think of Once Upon a Time in America (the only film that I can recall that openly discusses the reality of the Jewish mob, although GF series had Mo Green).[/QUOTE]
Hell with Mo Green; the GF series had [B]Hyman Roth[/B]! I didn't care for either cut of AMERICA. The 2+ hour one was an abortion that was impossible to follow; while the 4-hour one was better,it wasn't better [I]enough [/I] to make AMERICA anything but a curious misfire.
The spaghetti Westerns were never realistic - between the ultra-close-ups, the dubbing, the oddly-desolate Spanish locations, the Morricone music and the polemical, pop-art leftist prism they viewed the Old West through, those Leone & Corbucci oaters came off as more phantasmagorical than anything else, which is why they worked. Their gritty, stubble-faced anonymity played fresher than the last-gasp Westerns [I]we[/I] were making at the time (by the 60s, the American Western was becoming the province of aging, tired action stars bound into girdles and lowered on to their horses with winches; only Peckinpah was able to achieve something lyrical with that gambit of casting 60-year-old cowboys as the leads.)
But American gangster films need to be made by Americans, I think, who capture the details better, since they take place in a 20th-century America that we in the audience still feel vitally connected to in some way. I never believed in Noodles and his friends for a [I]minute[/I], and the world they grew up in seemed artificial, too idealized; airy and spacious where it should have been claustrophobically cramped, and glowingly clean where it should've been crawling with filth. I thought AMERICA was a bore and a crashing failure for Leone, but, by then, he was "Sergio Leone",and so the movie was overpraised - the same way that critics [I]lambasted [/I] his spaghetti Westerns as utter shit on their original release,when UA was Anglicicizing him into "Frank Robertson" in the credit scrolls & promo material.
Then again, Mel's current Excellent Adventure in Hymiewood should remind us of how difficult is to get an accurate portrayal of Jewish villainy onto screens, intact and uncompromised......so maybe it's lucky that Leone went to his grave believing the only stumbling block his AMERICA faced was its four-hour length.
2004-02-29 21:17 | User Profile
Very interesting stuff, Ragman.
My girls love A&C. Especially "Buck Privates." They want to be the Andrews Sisters, who they think were real girls. And they're right.
You know, we've been corresponding for - what? - two years now, and I really have to say that you never fail to impress with not only the DEPTH of your knowledge of certain things (here, films), but your tremendous facility to express your opinions on a wide range of things. Seriously. You have real talent.
I think you may have missed your calling, Ragman. I can picture you in a tweed jacket with leather patches on the elbows smoking a pipe and ogling the sophomores in your Introduction to American Film course.
What do you do for a living? You mentioned it once, I can't recall.
As Bob Dylan (yeah, I know, Robert Zimmerman!) once put it:
[I]Oh the Ragman draws circles Up and down the block I'd ask him what the matter was But I know he don't talk[/I]
Cheers, dude.
Walter
2004-03-18 11:07 | User Profile
I thought I'd bump this thread and ask whether the film [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0790729407/qid=1079607824/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8915665-0341558?v=glance&s=dvd]Michael Collins [/URL] should be included in our classics list, and if not why not.
Walter
2004-03-18 11:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Gentlemen,
I hope I can trust your judgment. [I]They Live[/I], [I]Andrei Rublev[/I], [I]Black Robe[/I], and [I]Gallipoli[/I] are on the way.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen these films yet?
What do you think, especially about Andrei Rublev?
Walter
2004-03-18 14:49 | User Profile
Not yet. I'll have to wait till my girlfriend's in town.
2004-03-18 14:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Not yet. I'll have to wait till my girlfriend's in town.[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but please keep in mind that Andrei Rublev isn't exactly a "date movie!"
You know, the first time I saw "AR" I had no idea what it was about and I took this beautiful (with a capital "B") Polish girl from Lodz to see it. She asked to leave about half way through, about when the Mongol army rapes all the women in Yaroslavl.
Back when things were bad, dude.
Anyway, don't repeat my mistake!
I suggest a chick flick instead!
Walter
2004-03-18 20:08 | User Profile
Would "Midnight Express" qualify into the "from under the rubble" category?
It shows a White American character getting into some pretty creepy mess in a Turkish prison in the 1970s.
I know that it contains some objectionable homoeroticism, but the main character still remains hetero, and I frankly don't know any other mainstream movie that would show so unabashedly the consequences of getting under non-White majority's heel.
(Especially when we are dealing with Turks, who in my opinion have a firm hold on the silver medal in the "race with a most destructive influence in the history of this planet" -competition...)
As this excerpt from an Amazon review puts it:
[COLOR=Red]"This true to life movie was made possible by the brilliant film making of Alan Parker. He definiteley shows the audience how brutal and merciless the Turkish people are through the characters such as the Billy's Turkish lawyer, prison guard and cell-mate Rifky.All three characters potray what real Turks in power are really like."[/COLOR]
White prisoners in the Turkish prison stick together and show group mentality.
And it is at least partly based on a true story! (always a plus for me)
Petr
2004-03-23 09:24 | User Profile
What do you all think of the [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005LOKQ/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/102-1912434-2193755?v=glance&s=dvd&st=*]Princess Bride [/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003CXDD/ref=pd_sim_dv_2/102-1912434-2193755?v=glance&s=dvd]Willow[/URL]?
I suggest them both for the children's category.
Princess Bride features a beatiful Aryan couple and some good natured ethnic humor aimed at the Spanish and the Sicilians. It's a Jewish thing (written by William Goldman and directed by Rob Reiner) and so I'm worried that I may be missing something.
Willow had some great stuff, but it's been a while and maybe I'm just not remembering any PeeCee content - except for one heroic black midget. But that's not much.
Walter
2004-03-30 04:12 | User Profile
Just saw Andrei Rublev. I still don't know what to think. It really sucked me into 15th century Russia, and yet in many ways it seems that Russians aren't really so different now, they've just been pushed by the winding courses of history ever onward...only the faces of their masters change. Mother Russia suffers and Mother Russia endures. It seemed so focused (filmed in black in white) in the beginning and then suddenly the scope widens and everything is so epic. I found the animal cruelty disturbing in the knowledge that their suffering was not staged for the film (fake blood on swords is one thing but seeing a cow burned alive and a horse falling down a flight of stairs, breaking its legs and then being run through with a spear, is quite another) but I do realize why these things were shown. Russia's history is that of a sleepy pastoral nation punctuated with episodes of barbaric atrocity. You're right it's no date movie...I had to kind of work up the nerve to watch it after reading several reviews. I'm still digesting it in my mind. I do recommend it...but not for young kids.
2004-03-30 17:19 | User Profile
Any thought about Monty Python's Flying Circus. I'll admit a slight addiction to its "culturally literate inanities". They lived in an era when it was still possible to make fun of racial hypersensitivity. Where else could you find a character named Mrs. Nigger-Baiter or Rastus Odinga Odinga? Where else could you find a drink named the Harlem Stinger (made by having an old black wino gargle some foul concoction and retch it into a glass)?
2004-03-31 04:29 | User Profile
I have not had TV cable etc., for five years now and don't miss it, what's so ever.. I have not been to a theater for 15 years at least, but I do watch movie's on a DVD for over four years. I can't rent movies where I live as all the rental store only have fece for rent. Example three rental stores 30 miles from home did not have Tom Selleck's releast "Monte Walsh". I guess since he made on his own production of the movie, perhaps that might have something to do with it. So I have to purchase movie's, but only a few a year. This year, I purchased "Ride The Devil" "The Southerner" and "STATE FAIR" Truly felt very good about viewing these story's. Excellent is all I can say about movie "Ride The Devil" I shared the price with two other's so that made it a better deal, so you can see three movie's for 1/3 the price, and so did my friends ....
2004-03-31 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]I have not had TV cable etc., for five years now and don't miss it, what's so ever.. I have not been to a theater for 15 years at least, but I do watch movie's on a DVD for over four years. I can't rent movies where I live as all the rental store only have fece for rent. Example three rental stores 30 miles from home did not have Tom Selleck's releast "Monte Walsh". [/QUOTE]Have you considered Netflix? That works by mail; you create a list, send the DVD back when you are done, and they send you the next DVD on your list. And if you want to buy the DVD, there's always Amazon.com.
2004-04-03 10:40 | User Profile
The Omega Man. Charlton Heston is on!
2004-04-05 06:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Just saw Andrei Rublev. I still don't know what to think. It really sucked me into 15th century Russia, and yet in many ways it seems that Russians aren't really so different now, they've just been pushed by the winding courses of history ever onward...only the faces of their masters change. Mother Russia suffers and Mother Russia endures. It seemed so focused (filmed in black in white) in the beginning and then suddenly the scope widens and everything is so epic. I found the animal cruelty disturbing in the knowledge that their suffering was not staged for the film (fake blood on swords is one thing but seeing a cow burned alive and a horse falling down a flight of stairs, breaking its legs and then being run through with a spear, is quite another) but I do realize why these things were shown. Russia's history is that of a sleepy pastoral nation punctuated with episodes of barbaric atrocity. You're right it's no date movie...I had to kind of work up the nerve to watch it after reading several reviews. I'm still digesting it in my mind. I do recommend it...but not for young kids.[/QUOTE]
Great comments!
There are some very in-your-face nationalist messages in this film. Remember that there's a clear allegory going on here: the 14th century is a sort of "distant mirror" of the 20th. Rublev is standing in a ruined church after the Tatar attack and asks "how long will this last" to which his companion replies "probably forever." Which is true - the Jewish Bolsheviks inflicted that particular scene on Russia many times in the 20th century. I think it's at this point that Rublev pronounces the nationalist creed, saying something like "if only I could get the Russians to see that they are one Faith, one Blood, one Land!" It just doens't get any more explicit than that.
Another such moment is when Rublev talks about the crucifixion of the Russian peasant, and we see a Russian man being nailed to a cross on a snow covered Russian hill as his wife weeps. Again, this is clearly aimed at the horrors visited on the 20th century Russian peasant by the Jewish Bolsheviks, such as the forced collectivization of agriculture that starved millions of them to death as state policy. This connection is driven home as Rublev says during this scene something to the effect that "the Pharisees (get it?) rose to power through study and careful planning . . . " I submit that the connection to the Jewish Bolsheviks was obvious to all, which is why this film was shelved for so long in the Soviet Union, and then only played in very limited venues until the end of Perestoika.
There were other themes, of course, which is the very thing that ensures that this film will stand the test of time. There is the question of the artist and his role in society (a central theme in Russian art), the loss of a certain vitality in art with the suppression of paganism (again, an eternal theme in our art since the Renaissance), the treason of the elites, and so forth.
It's a great film in a technical sense, too. It's one of those films that they study in art school, like the Hitchcock classics.
Walter
2004-04-05 12:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Feric Jaggar]Any thought about Monty Python's Flying Circus. I'll admit a slight addiction to its "culturally literate inanities". They lived in an era when it was still possible to make fun of racial hypersensitivity. Where else could you find a character named Mrs. Nigger-Baiter or Rastus Odinga Odinga? Where else could you find a drink named the Harlem Stinger (made by having an old black wino gargle some foul concoction and retch it into a glass)?[/QUOTE]
I like much of their stuff. I guess that I should be offended by some of the more blasphemous moments in their films, but I always took it in good humor.
I thought "Life of Brian" and "Holy Grail" were hysterical.
I like much of the stuff from the tv series (I actually purchased the whole thing on DVD) but not all of it was up to snuff.
Walter
2004-04-05 12:44 | User Profile
I also nominate for the children's category the Wallace and Gromit cartoons [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004W3HD/qid=1081168709/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl27/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]The Wrong Trousers [/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304179022/qid=1081168709/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl27/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]A Close Shave[/URL].
These are wonderful clay animation pieces set in a nice and staid English village by genius animator Nick Park. Brilliant stuff, and too funny. The sheep in Close Shave is just a scream.
My kids love these things - watched them several times.
Also check out Nick Park's [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000051YMM/qid=1081168709/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl74/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846]Creature Comforts [/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004W3HC/ref=pd_sim_video_2/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]A Grand Day Out[/URL].
I would also like to suggest for further discussion two very fine Gerard Depardieu films [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1572522100/ref=pd_sim_dv_4/002-1351465-4525633?v=glance&s=dvd]The Return of Martin Guerre [/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6303042457/qid=1081188909/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl27/002-1351465-4525633?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]All the Mornings of the World[/URL] (I think only on VHS). Both of these take place in France several centuries ago, and deal with eternal themes. The former is all about a Natural Law understanding of crime, punishment and redemption, IMHO. The latter is just a beautiful film about high art and its motivations, again very much IMHO. Both of these films are gorgeous feasts for the eyes. I'd like to hear your opinons of them.
Walter
2004-04-05 18:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kosmos Luftwaffe]The Omega Man. Charlton Heston is on![/QUOTE I have some complaints about Omega Man, but cosidering it was a low budget movie and Heston's pay check at the time was most likely bigger than the cost of making the Movie, and because the movie made it finacially because of Heston, it's story line was worth watching with some funny scenes indeed. Still "The Omega Man" could not be made today, because back then L.A. CA. was still white, and the day light scenes were done on Sunday's Morning's at Sun up...Large Populations of non-white, white hating Savages now dominate all our major cities, and would make it impossible now to film those scenes in L.A. today.. As for our other U.S. citie's, only three of our remaining large U.S. citie's are still a majority white, two being Seattle and Portland Oregon both these citie's have Jewish Leftist Mayors, and Salt Lake City, I do not know... This thread has listed movies we should see.. Perhap, a thread should be started about major movie's that have damaged U.S. and were CRIMINAL assault against U.S. Such as the criminally insane movie M.A.S.H. It depicted Christian's as insane and spit at white athority, and promoted smoking dope, how many young G.l.'s who watched this filth in 1970-71 moive house, tried dope smoking because of it.. The movie was bad for the morale and conduct of our young men then.. So I say this movie M.A.S.H. is one of the top 10 criminal movie's every produced, for anti U.S. and anti Western man of he last 40 years..
2004-04-05 20:30 | User Profile
Full aye on the M.A.S.H.
This celluloid abomination has to be one the most genuinely disturbing movies I have seen.
Some serious nihilistic death-wish in there: "suicide is the solution..."
I rank it perhaps the most disgusting 70s mainstream movie along with the "Animal House". Quasi-Marxist decadence and petty resentment towards authorities at their worst.
And not even remotely funny!
Petr
2004-04-05 22:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler] As for our other U.S. citie's, only three of our remaining large U.S. citie's are still a majority white, two being Seattle and Portland Oregon both these citie's have Jewish Leftist Mayors, and Salt Lake City, I do not know.....[/QUOTE]
We are in dire straits for sure but its not quite that bad yet. I checked the census data at [url]http://www.city-data.com/top1.html[/url] for the 100 Largest Cities in the US (all of which are larger than Salt Lake City). By my count 54 of the 100 largest cities are still majority non-Hispanic white. Of course I would prefer 100 out of 100 but at least its not as bad as Mr. Butler thinks...not yet anyway.
2004-04-05 23:11 | User Profile
Good News, but for how much longer will those remaining cities stay white,with out deportations, and closing the borders.. Thank you for the correction. I did not know Salt Lake was not in the top 100 either....
2004-04-05 23:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]Good News, but for how much longer will those remaining cities stay white,with out deportations, and closing the borders.. Thank you for the correction. I did not know Salt Lake was not in the top 100 either....[/QUOTE]
You're right. Those figures were based on the 2000 census and I'll bet that about 5+ of those cities have since sunk below the 50% level.
2004-04-06 03:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I also nominate for the children's category the Wallace and Gromit cartoons [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004W3HD/qid=1081168709/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl27/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]The Wrong Trousers [/URL] and [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304179022/qid=1081168709/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl27/102-8084680-5802506?v=glance&s=video&n=507846]A Close Shave[/URL].
These are wonderful clay animation pieces set in a nice and staid English village by genius animator Nick Park. Brilliant stuff, and too funny. The sheep in Close Shave is just a scream.[/QUOTE]
'A Close Shave' was very good. The company that made it, Aardman Animation, eventually collaborrated with Hollywood and made a good, full-length picture, 'Chicken Run,' which is highly suitable for children (and the main voice is that of Mel Gibson, no less).
2004-04-06 03:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]Perhap, a thread should be started about major movie's that have damaged U.S. and were CRIMINAL assault against U.S. Such as the criminally insane movie M.A.S.H. It depicted Christian's as insane and spit at white athority, and promoted smoking dope, how many young G.l.'s who watched this filth in 1970-71 moive house, tried dope smoking because of it.. The movie was bad for the morale and conduct of our young men then.. So I say this movie M.A.S.H. is one of the top 10 criminal movie's every produced, for anti U.S. and anti Western man of he last 40 years..[/QUOTE]
I don't know what the author of the 'M.A.S.H.' novel intended to do (though seeing as how he was a Jew, its pretty easy to guess) but when Robert Altman made the film, he was attempting to make an anti-Vietnam War movie (albeit one that took place in Korea). Since that war (or the Korean one, for that matter) did little but cost the lives of the White portion of the 58,000 U.S. servicemen killed in that conflict, I can't really say I disapprove of efforts to criticize/satirize it. I don't recall the movie itself very well, other than that it was rather dull....
2004-04-06 07:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]'A Close Shave' was very good. The company that made it, Aardman Animation, eventually collaborrated with Hollywood and made a good, full-length picture, 'Chicken Run,' which is highly suitable for children (and the main voice is that of Mel Gibson, no less).[/QUOTE]
I liked Chicken Run pretty well, but I think Nick Park outdid himself with Close Shave.
Did you see Return of Martin Guerre and/or All the Mornings of the World?
Walter
2004-04-07 03:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler][QUOTE=Kosmos Luftwaffe]The Omega Man. Charlton Heston is on![/QUOTE I have some complaints about Omega Man, but cosidering it was a low budget movie and Heston's pay check at the time was most likely bigger than the cost of making the Movie, and because the movie made it finacially because of Heston, it's story line was worth watching with some funny scenes indeed. Still "The Omega Man" could not be made today, because back then L.A. CA. was still white, and the day light scenes were done on Sunday's Morning's at Sun up...Large Populations of non-white, white hating Savages now dominate all our major cities, and would make it impossible now to film those scenes in L.A. today.. As for our other U.S. citie's, only three of our remaining large U.S. citie's are still a majority white, two being Seattle and Portland Oregon both these citie's have Jewish Leftist Mayors, and Salt Lake City, I do not know... This thread has listed movies we should see.. Perhap, a thread should be started about major movie's that have damaged U.S. and were CRIMINAL assault against U.S. Such as the criminally insane movie M.A.S.H. It depicted Christian's as insane and spit at white athority, and promoted smoking dope, how many young G.l.'s who watched this filth in 1970-71 moive house, tried dope smoking because of it.. The movie was bad for the morale and conduct of our young men then.. So I say this movie M.A.S.H. is one of the top 10 criminal movie's every produced, for anti U.S. and anti Western man of he last 40 years..[/QUOTE]
You are right, Butler. There has been and still is a long list of bad entertainment productions comitted in the US. And this must be countered, surely one could team up with some psychiatrists and some litterature and movie authoroties and go through these productions scene by scene, taking notes and dragging these producers to court or atleast showing the public what evil intent lies behind so much of the entertainment.
Yes, well co-ordinated, evil intent from some of the people with much power in the movie industry.
It should be possible to turn this around, to make fun of their lowly and despicable intent. And then one can see these films in a new light, namely with an additional paper outpointing the real hidden script and agenda in the production, scene by scene.
So if you care, try orchestrating some of the above..
Still, for someone on this path of exposing the intentions, underlying much media-industry, there might be interesting times ahead indeed.
The modern popular music industry, for instance, are totally focused on luring kids into the hardest of illegal drugs. These are mighty forces on a totally satanic mission and their plan is to have you sitting in the middle of it, eating your soup, and be too scared or think it too unlikely to stand up and do anything about it.
It all seems to be parts of some grand plan, too dark and gruesome for ordenary people to comprehend.
Your list of undermining entertainment will be very long, might even include the Bible itself? Still, some scientific evaluation of the pop culture needs to be done.
When it comes to Omega Man, the movie looks good, it has some innate macho appeal and its wery retro-hip..
Yes, it has a mulatto woman fireing a gun and tons of generally weird stuff in it. But! The scenario migh occure, a plague foolowed by a movement of anti modernity and anti science. Further, the films aim to reverse all things and walues, the forcing the wiever to think or consider some new thoughts is interesting. Do they call it Primitivism nowadays?
And the gun-crazed loner is something some of us can relate to, and thats what makes the whole thing beutiful.
..but I would not recomend showing it to the kids.
2004-04-07 03:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]'A Close Shave' was very good. The company that made it, Aardman Animation, eventually collaborrated with Hollywood and made a good, full-length picture, 'Chicken Run,' which is highly suitable for children (and the main voice is that of Mel Gibson, no less).[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the first full-length Wallace and Gromit movie "Curse of the Wererabbit" due out next year. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3210262.stm[/url]
2004-04-07 09:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Did you see Return of Martin Guerre and/or All the Mornings of the World?[/QUOTE]
Now that you mention it, I believe I did see something called "The Return of Martin Guerre" at a local animation festival. Don't really recall much about it, however.
2004-04-07 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Now that you mention it, I believe I did see something called "The Return of Martin Guerre" at a local animation festival. Don't really recall much about it, however.[/QUOTE]
I hope that you and others will check out Return of Martin Guerre and All the Mornings of the World. The latter was really a beautiful film, maybe even a great film that will be studied in coming decades as a specimen of the best in 20th century filmaking (but I'm not enough of a critic to offer a firm opinion on that).
Walter
2004-04-13 09:04 | User Profile
I saw The Little Foxes with Bette Davis the other day, and I really enjoyed it. This in spite of the fact that I've never liked that bug-eyed bitch or her Tough Broad onscreen persona. For those who haven't seen it, she plays - well, a cold, scheming bug-eyed bitch in the turn-of-the-century- South who tries to get her dying, socially-responsible banker hubby to join her equally greedy brothers in a business venture with a Northern industrialist. This mob is one oily bunch of weasels: the perfect depiction of New South/Chamber of Commerce money-worshippers. I highly recommend it.
On Monty Python: I agree that it was hit or miss. Many times the studio audiences would sit in near silence when a skit fell flat, and rightfully so. But oh, when it worked, it was hilarious: the first time I saw John Cleese do his Minister of Silly Walks I howled until the tears ran.
For those who want something consistently superb in this vein, Cleese's Fawlty Towers is it: "Now remember - don't mention the war!" "We have Prawns Goebbels....." Plus, it was also a very racially incorrect show at times as well: in one episode, the senile old major was muttering about his days in India and said "No, they weren't wogs - they were niggers!" :thumbsup:
2004-04-13 19:58 | User Profile
To the list of musicals, I'd add [I]Kiss Me, Kate[/I] and [I]American in Paris[/I].
[I]South Pacific[/I] is a little touchier, for me. On one hand, it's flagrant multicultural, race-mixing propaganda, laid on with the heaviest trowel in the bucket (even liberals find "You Have to be Carefully Taught" excruciatingly preachy). Yet on the other hand, it has some of R & H's most magnificent -- almost transcendent -- music, stunning scenery, and (speaking of stunning scenery) the eye-poppingly beautiful and remarkably talented Mitzi Gaynor, by whom Hollyweird never did any justice at all. It's a film that both delights and infuriates me.
[I]The Pajama Game[/I] is another very entertaining piece, with the great John Raitt in his only film performance. The entire cast was taken intact from the Broadway stage production, with the exception of Janis Paige, who was replaced by Doris Day (who, wonder of wonders, is actually a great improvement).
Though it's not a musical, I'd also mention [I]Pollyanna[/I], made by Disney Studios when Walt was still alive. Hayley Mills is flawless, Jane Wyman a wonder to behold, and Karl Malden's emotional performance as Reverend Ford should have gotten him an Oscar, if those trinkets were actually handed out in recognition of talent.
2004-04-13 23:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]For those who want something consistently superb in this vein, Cleese's Fawlty Towers is it: "Now remember - don't mention the war!" "We have Prawns Goebbels....." Plus, it was also a very racially incorrect show at times as well: in one episode, the senile old major was muttering about his days in India and said "No, they weren't wogs - they were niggers!" :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
The line actually goes, "Now young lady, please, do not call them 'niggers.' Those people are wogs!" But yes, "Fawlty Towers" is a very amusing show (the two two best episodes are entitled "The Germans" and "The American").
2004-04-14 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]The line actually goes, "Now young lady, please, do not call them 'niggers.' Those people are wogs!" But yes, "Fawlty Towers" is a very amusing show (the two two best episodes are entitled "The Germans" and "The American").[/QUOTE]One of the many gripes I have against Alex Linder is his dissing of Monty Python...or was it his dissing of people who like Monty Python. Whichever. Sometimes Alex is just too obtuse for words (I am always suspicious of the "intellect" of atheists who reject/denigrate/misinterpret evolution).
Anyway, I do think those two episodes of Fawlty Towers are classics, but I'd also include the Health Inspector and the Dead Guest episodes as well (not sure of their actual titles).
On the subject of British comedies, must put in a plug for Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. Superb! Unfortunately a bit too high level to be appreciated by your average boobus-americanus, but a delight if you enjoy witty dialogue, politics, and complete and utter cynicism.
There's an Australian TV show, The Games, that is a bit similar to Yes, Minister, which I have seen on PBS, that is also well worth watching.
2004-04-14 08:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]On the subject of British comedies, must put in a plug for Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. Superb! Unfortunately a bit too high level to be appreciated by your average boobus-americanus, but a delight if you enjoy witty dialogue, politics, and complete and utter cynicism.[/QUOTE]
An extremely good British mini-series about politics, cyncisim and the like is "House of Cards." There are actually three separate mini-series about first Opposition Leader and later, Prime Minister Francis Urquardt of the Conservative Party. While it has sort of a leftist bias, and doesn't mention the Jewish question, it does an excellent job of portraying the vileness of our ruling class generally. The second series isn't as good as the first and third ones, which are truly excellent. While not actually a comedy, its very, very amusing.
2004-04-14 14:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]An extremely good British mini-series about politics, cyncisim and the like is "House of Cards." There are actually three separate mini-series about first Opposition Leader and later, Prime Minister Francis Urquardt of the Conservative Party. While it has sort of a leftist bias, and doesn't mention the Jewish question, it does an excellent job of portraying the vileness of our ruling class generally. The second series isn't as good as the first and third ones, which are truly excellent. While not actually a comedy, its very, very amusing.[/QUOTE]
Ian RIchardson was brilliant as Urquardt. Urbane evil oozed from every pore.
2004-04-26 13:48 | User Profile
A couple more candidates occurred to me this weekend:
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000056BSG/qid=1082986076/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1774772-7252153?v=glance&s=dvd]The Ice Storm[/URL]. This is a film by Ang Lee. Here's a review I lifted from Amazon:
[QUOTE]Asian American director Ang Lee sums up America in the early 1970s by focusing on the arrival of the sexual revolution in the 'burbs. Isolationism within a family, consumerism, and selfishness are personified by a cast that captures the self-obsession within two New England families. As the children struggle awkwardly with adolescence, their parents stumble through sexual experimentation. In the days of Watergate and Vietnam, society is breaking boundaries and ignoring convention. Following suit, these families are eschewing polite barriers and social taboos, with disastrous results. The "ice storm" of the title refers not only to a natural phenomenon but is a (rather heavy-handed) metaphor for a pervasive emotional temperament. The entire cast delivers textured, finely nuanced performances. This movie lingers in the psyche not only for the scope of the tragedy at its conclusion, but for Lee's often humorous and stingingly accurate assessment of pop culture. Based on Rick Moody's novel, this won the best-screenplay award at Cannes in 1997. --Rochelle O'Gorman[/QUOTE]
I vaguely recall an interview NPR did with Ang Lee when this flick came out, who said that something to the effect it was made as a sort of stern letter of warning to a dear old friend. Obviously still very much Chinese, Ang Lee professed a deep love for his adopted country, and was trying to tell us that things went very, very wrong with us in 1973, when the action of the film takes place. Ang Lee is trying to awaken us to the fact that our loss of confidence in ourselves and our wholesale abandonment of the old republican virtures spells our demise, which is clearly seen as a great loss to the world. It is a nationalist film, really, inasmuch as its clear message is that we white Americans became great because we held to certain ideals, and our total loss of self confidence is sure to be our undoing.
I should add that I think the choice of 1973 is right on. My intuition tells me that some sea change took place when Nixon was driven from power, and it further tells me that it had something to do with the rise to power of the gang who became known as the Neocons. It was when the WASPS gave up and began to surrender one institution after the next to the Jews - university chairs, seats in corporate board rooms, the abandonment of the Churches of the Bible in exchange for some mish-mash of Freudianism and Marxism, and so on. 1973 is the year of Roe v. Wade and the legalization of child murder. It was a redletter year, to be sure. The Year They Took Over. I recall a song by Steely Dan that came out around then called (I think) the Change of the Guard. I think that the very Jewish Walter Becker of Steely Dan also intuited the dynamic that was very much in the air in those years but also very unspoken.
The action takes place in New England, and the title of the film is a direct reference to the line in Robert Frost's "Birches" - "but swinging doesn't bend them down to stay/ice storms do that." There's a good deal of wife-swapping "swinging" going on in the film, but his point is that even this sort of immorality won't kill us, but the loss of our children in the future ice storm of legalized abortion, normalized immorality, Culture of Critique history, unbridled materialism, and "it's all about me" selfishness certainly will.
It's an important film from a talented director who I think wishes us whites well. I'd place it under the "nationalist" category.
The second candidate for Ygg's list is "[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005Q79A/qid%3D1082986581/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-1774772-7252153]What's Eating Gilbert Grape[/URL]," in the "from under the rubble" category. This is a very underappreciated film, IMHO. It stars Johnny Depp as the son of an horrendously fat mother in some dying white town in Iowa. His father committed suicide, and he and his sister are stuck with caring for his horrifically distended mother and their retarded brother (played brilliantly by Leonardo DiCaprio). The major theme of the film is "rising above it" - getting out of whatever malaise we are in. The retarded brother did it by climbing the water towner, the mother strives to make it before the end. Other themses are the economic destruction of small town Iowa by the arrival of Wal-Mart, our duties to our families and communities, and finding love and reproducing among the ashes.
Comments?
Walter
2004-04-26 15:24 | User Profile
I recently watched for the first time [B]Francois Truffaut's [/B] only English language film [B]"Faranheit 451"[/B], 1966, starring Julie Christie and Oscar Werner. I've never read Ray Bradbury's novel of the same title, but that book is next on my list. As for the film, I thought something like this totalitarian, herd-think, State enforced nightmare is still relevant, 38 years after this film was made. I can see it happening anyday now in the "land of the free".
2004-04-26 15:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I recently watched for the first time [B]Francois Truffaut's [/B] only English language film [B]"Faranheit 451"[/B], 1966, starring Julie Christie and Oscar Werner. I've never read Ray Bradbury's novel of the same title, but that book is next on my list. As for the film, I thought something like this totalitarian, herd-think, State enforced nightmare is still relevant, 38 years after this film was made. I can see it happening anyday now in the "land of the free".[/QUOTE]
I have it on VHS.
Illustrated Man was pretty good, too.
Walter
2004-04-30 09:49 | User Profile
I watched "High Fidelity" last night. I thought it was pretty good. It had some great lines - the screenplay was very well done.
There was some interracial sex, which to my mind excludes it pretty much automatically from the classics list, but I can see why Ygg included it in his list in the "from under the rubble" category. The protaganist winds up with the white girl and talk about starting a family, so all's well that ends well (hope I didn't spoil it for you.)
John Cusak has a couple of pals in the film who really fill the thing out well. The fat guy did one of the more memorable buddy roles in recent memory.
I'll be on the road the next couple of weeks, talk to you then.
Walter
2004-05-31 14:43 | User Profile
I watched "For the Love of the Game" starring Kevin Kostner last night.
It was a good film about two white people finding each other. It also depicted very well via flashbacks the protaganist's happy boyhood playing baseball with his big, handsome white working class father, and having naught but praise for the man. That was nice, and very rare these days.
I can't say it was a great film, though. The film's big strength lies in its absence of culturally destructive images and messages, IMHO.
Walter
2004-05-31 14:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I watched "High Fidelity" last night. I thought it was pretty good. It had some great lines - the screenplay was very well done.
There was some interracial sex, which to my mind excludes it pretty much automatically from the classics list, but I can see why Ygg included it in his list in the "from under the rubble" category. The protaganist winds up with the white girl and talk about starting a family, so all's well that ends well (hope I didn't spoil it for you.)[/QUOTE] Walter, I agree it was pretty good overall, I guess, however, I did find it offensive that the movie seemed to push the wacko feminist idea that a woman is completely entitled to get an abortion with no input from the baby's father whatsoever. If I recall correctly, the girlfriend gets angry that the father even presumes that she should have consulted him. That ain't cool.
2004-05-31 14:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walter, I agree it was pretty good overall, I guess, however, I did find it offensive that the movie seemed to push the wacko feminist idea that a woman is completely entitled to get an abortion with no input from the baby's father whatsoever. If I recall correctly, the girlfriend gets angry that the father even presumes that she should have consulted him. That ain't cool.[/QUOTE]
I must have missed that. I got the message that he just abandoned her after a few months, and basically left her to her own devices.
I thought that the film actually portrayed her as a heroine for making the tough choice and raising a baby at the age of 16. And the kid was white, and despite a few wrong turns as a teenager turned out pretty darned well, too. The Kevin Costner character was portrayed as playing a key role in getting her through adolesence and into young adulthood at USC, where the future was looking pretty bright for her.
2004-05-31 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I must have missed that. I got the message that he just abandoned her after a few months, and basically left her to her own devices.
I thought that the film actually portrayed her as a heroine for making the tough choice and raising a baby at the age of 16. And the kid was white, and despite a few wrong turns as a teenager turned out pretty darned well, too. The Kevin Costner character was portrayed as playing a key role in getting her through adolesence and into young adulthood at USC, where the future was looking pretty bright for her.[/QUOTE] I was referring to High Fidelity.
2004-06-01 05:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I was referring to High Fidelity.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Yeah, I agree that abortion thing in High Fidelity in there was quite bad. And of course HF had a couple of other questionable moments, like when the protaganist beds down with a pretty little high yellow girl.
Have you seen State and Main, another on Ygg's list that I viewed recently?
Screenplay by David Mamet, and whoa was the Jewish-Gentile conflict underlying our society today very much in evidence there.
An Irish lawyer says to the Jewish producer "Listen, you greasy little heeb . . ."
The producer later in the film says to the Irish lawyer "Listen, you speed-trap shaggetz . . . "
It's all about how Jewish values wind up perverting small town gentile America via Jewish domination of the media. Check it out, I'd love to hear your comments.
Walter
2004-06-01 14:14 | User Profile
Mamet being a arrogant, in-your-face Zionist who believes the rest of us combined aren't worth one Hebraic fingernail-paring, I would approach his texts with cautious skepticism.
2004-06-01 14:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Mamet being a arrogant, in-your-face Zionist who believes the rest of us combined aren't worth one Hebraic fingernail-paring, I would approach his texts with cautious skepticism.[/QUOTE]
To be sure.
But holy mackerel he sure does paint a picture of the problem.
It's perfect, really. The media shows up in a white town that's just a wonderful (if not a tad boring) place to live and raise a family, and then the Jews show up, corrupt their kids, pervert their culture, cover up crimes, commit perjury, and generally try to get the gentiles to pay the bill all the way.
The end of the film has the gentiles watching the filiming of a gentile actor play the fireman talking to the gentile slut actress (whom they dressed as a nun!) as the whole town stands around eating matzo.
Like you said, it's very in your face. Really to a shocking degree.
That film more than any that I've seen in a long time stands for the proposition that they really need to get the hell out of our country, or we'll cease being us.
I highly recommend it.
Walter
2004-06-30 03:21 | User Profile
Someone asked whether "Michael Collins" should be included. Of course. Didn't have the sexy swordplay of "Braveheart," but a fine film, nonetheless.
Mega-dittos on "They Live," too! Who knows about John Carpenter's politics? I dug the entire thing except the long fight in the alleyway between the white guy and the black guy, which I take to mean that whites and blacks are busy fighting one another instead of working together to expose the real enemy, and so on...
Ygg forgot to include "The Lion King." A rare classic in in the Eisner era.
The list should now include "Troy." And another for it's casting: "Jurassic Park."
2004-06-30 04:12 | User Profile
Did you guys see "The Pianist"?,,,,,, There was this part where a German officer made ten Jews prisoners lay face down on the ground and then he walked down the line shooting each one of them with one bullet at the top of the head,,,,,well, by the time he reached the number ten prisoner he ran out of bullets, prisoner number ten look up at him and the German looked down at him and then the German reloaded the Lugger and shot him also at the top of the head. The hands of the prisoners were not tied together.
I don't know if that scene was supposed to make me fell sorry for the Jews or what, but I'll tell you this much,,,,, Once again it showed me that what makes the Jews "brave" is their weapons and not their souls,,,,,,, The Palestinian people at least are using rocks,,,,,,, When the Palestinian people take over their land once again I will pay to put a statue somewhere in a small park, it will show a seven year old Palestinian boy with a rock in his hand.
2005-02-27 20:59 | User Profile
I just watched on DVD [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305252564/qid=1109537516/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8241630-8713752?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846]A Man for All Seasons.[/URL]
This film made Ygg's list, but as far as I can see only under the miscellaneous rubric. It deserves greater pride of place, IMHO.
Spartan production value enhanced the superb acting and spactacular dialogue of this masterpiece play by Robert Bolt.
The topic of an individual conscience before the power of the state is both timeless and timely.
I highly recommend a second look.
2005-02-28 07:24 | User Profile
Walter,
Have you seen the Russian movie [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/]The Return[/url]?
I rented and watched it a week or so ago. Very interesting and powerful film.
2005-02-28 08:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Walter,
Have you seen the Russian movie [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/]The Return[/url]?
I rented and watched it a week or so ago. Very interesting and powerful film.[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen it yet, but I'll go right out and buy a copy.
I'll let you know.
I bought a bunch of films that were pretty cheap bundled under a "Oscar Winning Films" or some such rubric.
Man for All Seasons was one of them - and that is really an excellent film and very deserving of its Oscar (1966 I think).
Others that I've watched so far are "Easy Rider" (I can't believe anybody ever took such twaddle seriously, it's a pass, I didn't even like the music), and two crime-spree films "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," both of which were interesting in a juvenile sort of way. I guess I'm too old and too world weary to find much romance in crime and irresponsibility.
2005-02-28 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Others that I've watched so far are "Easy Rider" (I can't believe anybody ever took such twaddle seriously, it's a pass, I didn't even like the music), and two crime-spree films "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," both of which were interesting in a juvenile sort of way. I guess I'm too old and too world weary to find much romance in crime and irresponsibility.[/QUOTE] I (sort of) liked 'Easy Rider' in high school, but now it just seems inexcusably self-indulgent.
2005-02-28 13:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I (sort of) liked 'Easy Rider' in high school, but now it just seems inexcusably self-indulgent.[/QUOTE]
Peter Fonda in that film utters what has to be one of the cheesiest lines in the history of the cinema.
They're at a hippie commune somewhere out in the New Mexico desert. A bunch of city kids living in a hovel. They're planting grain with no idea how to make it grow into a crop (like, say, irrigation and fertilizer). They're just throwing seeds onto dry sand and walking on it. The Dennis Hopper character beholds this sight and says something like "they'll never make it", to which Peter Fonda replies "no man, dig it. They'll make it. Really. They'll make it."
What total idiocy. All historical prcedent proves that sort of thing doesn't work, and the entire portrait of the place in the context of the film gave the viewer no real grounds to think that the place would succeed in any way. It was - I don't know - smarmy. A baldfaced lie, even in terms of the film itself. The line really creeped me out.
Then they go to a whorehouse in New Orleans and drop acid with a couple of hookers, running amock during Mardi Gras, spending money they made on a cocaine deal. And they're surprised the decent people of Lousiana didn't like seeing them around.
2005-02-28 14:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Then they go to a whorehouse in New Orleans and drop acid with a couple of hookers, running amock during Mardi Gras, spending money they made on a cocaine deal. And they're surprised the decent people of Lousiana didn't like seeing them around.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the totally gratuitous, 'evil, redneck Southerner' bit at the end always rubbed me the wrong way, as well.
2005-02-28 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yeah, the totally gratuitous, 'evil, redneck Southerner' bit at the end always rubbed me the wrong way, as well.[/QUOTE]
Butch Cassidy and Bonnie & Clyde also glorified extreme anti-social behavioiur. These films were all of a piece - noble outlaws lost in the depths of an unappreciative White America.
All three films are terribly subversive.
2005-02-28 17:15 | User Profile
Before I get to my suggestions for movies missing from Yggdrasil, I need to make a few points. When I refer to America or Americans I mean it in the best sense. I view America and Americans as embodying all the lofty, highfalutin widsom of Western Civilization, but carrying it off in a often self-effacing, down-to-earth, humorous way. I.e., Europeans can make fun of Americans as stupid and uncultured. Yes, we don't go to operas, or sit around cafes pointing out the triviality of Frankl's existential vacuum. But we do land men on the moon and build transistors and computer chips and lots of other shit no one else does or can do. So, don't immediately dismiss my suggestions as just typical low-brow American movies.
I was surprised that these movies listed below were not on the list, especially when I think of life growing up in America, and the intangible little things that make us who we are, which these movies convey:
The Big Chill Stand By Me Rudy Mystic River Hoosiers All the Right Moves Saving Private Ryan Shawshank Redemption Miracle (1980 US Hockey Team) Dead Poet's Society Aviator (still in theaters)
And these movies which also convey these very American things, but in a funny and/or playful way:
Animal House Ferris Bueller's Day Off Midnight Run Caddyshack King Pin This is Spinal Tap Fast Times at Ridgemont High Vacation The Breakfast Club Smokey and the Bandit Trading Places Fargo
And these movies-- also not listed on Yggdrasil's list-- which convery elements of what makes Americans and America unique, within either a suspenseful or dark theme:
A Simple Plan Jagged Edge 3 Days of the Condor The Game The Firm The Mechanic No Way Out Stepfather The Omen
2005-02-28 17:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yeah, the totally gratuitous, 'evil, redneck Southerner' bit at the end always rubbed me the wrong way, as well.[/QUOTE] Ultimately, that overshadows everything else in the movie.
2005-02-28 17:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]And these movies which also convey these very American things, but in a funny and/or playful way:
Animal House Ferris Bueller's Day Off Midnight Run Caddyshack King Pin This is Spinal Tap Fast Times at Ridgemont High Vacation The Breakfast Club Smokey and the Bandit Trading Places Fargo [/QUOTE]
I see some major problems with a number of these. Caddyshack has an overtly ethnic theme with the Jewish Dangerfield portrayed favorably against the backdrop of stereotypically stuffy WASPishness. Trading Places also evinces a hostility to old-line WASPs and espouses a radically environmentalist view of human personality development, although ultimately the perverse criminality of the privileged Duke brothers produces a paradox.
2005-02-28 18:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I see some major problems with a number of these. Caddyshack has an overtly ethnic theme with the Jewish Dangerfield portrayed favorably against the backdrop of stereotypically stuffy WASPishness. Trading Places also evinces a hostility to old-line WASPs and espouses a radically environmentalist view of human personality development, although ultimately the perverse criminality of the privileged Duke brothers produces a paradox.[/QUOTE] I think I can counter each of these points with the simple observation that the tearing down of the aristocratic class (WASPs) is quintessentially American. And as for the Jewish Dangerfield comment, well, in many ways I can relate to the typical working-class Jew much more readily than I can with upper crust WASPs.
2005-02-28 20:23 | User Profile
Peter Fonda: it's incredible that this guy, famous father and all, was ever a star. He projects weakness, vanity, and a kind of moneyed fatuousness that's semi-repellent. His later appearances, in things like THE LIMEY (where he's essentially playing himself and accentuating his negatives), can be okay but I've always found him insufferable. At least Jane was gorgeous.
I liked BONNIE AND CLYDE. It was one of the first crime/gangster films made after the heavy hand of the Production Code, which standardized falsifications and oversimplifying of actual events for the sake of happy endings and virtue triumphant, so you got both a realistic treatment (the folk hero angle of these Depression bandits is shown to be both organic [I]and [/I] manufactured, a nice touch) as well as a detailed period feel. There's lots of redneck-bashing in modern Hollywood, but not in BONNIE AND CLYDE, which respects its characters.
Just finished rewatching the 3-part documentary A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH AMERICAN FILM, which is Martin Scorsese (skunked [I]again [/I] last night!) discussing, via film-clips, the movies and genres he grew up enjoying. Can't recommend this enough (it's on DVD, and occasonally airs on TCM), if only because it provokes one into into reassessing - or just watching - 50 and 60-year-old movies with new eyes, and makes a great adjunct to lists like this. It's not an encyclopedic history-of-movies type of thing, and it stops dead around 1962 or so, but the use of clips is fantastic and the commentary is intelligent and insightful. One of the best movie documentaries you will ever see.
2005-02-28 22:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]
Just finished rewatching the 3-part documentary A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH AMERICAN FILM, which is Martin Scorsese (skunked again last night!) [/QUOTE] The Passion of the Christ was the best film of the year without question. Aviator was the best out of the films nominated. It's no longer the case that the best movie wins (remember Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan!).
2005-02-28 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]There's lots of redneck-bashing in modern Hollywood, [/QUOTE]If anything there is a glorifying of rednecks. Starting with all the Smokey and the Bandit films, law and justice films, et al. If one were to go by Hollywood they would have an elevated view of redneck America, where tough redneck guys like a Patrick Swayze character are noble and kick the ass of some no-good, outsider like a Ben Gazzara character (Roadhouse).
2005-03-01 08:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I liked BONNIE AND CLYDE. It was one of the first crime/gangster films made after the heavy hand of the Production Code, which standardized falsifications and oversimplifying of actual events for the sake of happy endings and virtue triumphant, so you got both a realistic treatment (the folk hero angle of these Depression bandits is shown to be both organic [I]and [/I] manufactured, a nice touch) as well as a detailed period feel. There's lots of redneck-bashing in modern Hollywood, but not in BONNIE AND CLYDE, which respects its characters.[/QUOTE]
I see what you're saying here. But the fact remains the film glorified the dregs of Southern society, and reveled in their killing Southern cops. They humiliate a Texan sheriff (Ranger?) and treat the good Southerners who resisted being robbed as drooling idiots.
There was an anti-capitalist message that was somewhat redeeming, but overall the film strikes me as celebrating the triumph of evil over good.
2005-03-01 08:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy] The Big Chill Stand By Me Rudy Mystic River Hoosiers All the Right Moves Saving Private Ryan Shawshank Redemption Miracle (1980 US Hockey Team) Dead Poet's Society Aviator (still in theaters)
And these movies which also convey these very American things, but in a funny and/or playful way:
Animal House Ferris Bueller's Day Off Midnight Run Caddyshack King Pin This is Spinal Tap Fast Times at Ridgemont High Vacation The Breakfast Club Smokey and the Bandit Trading Places Fargo
A Simple Plan Jagged Edge 3 Days of the Condor The Game The Firm The Mechanic No Way Out Stepfather The Omen[/QUOTE]
I liked some of these.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a terrific coming-of-age film. It's set in an extremely WASPish Chicago suburb (I think Winnetka), and so poor Cheesehead farmboys like me have a hard time relating directly to that much affluence, but nevertheless it portrayed whites in a good light, and even created a sort of hip American version of Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin in the person of Ferris. Same for the Breakfast Club. It was about white kids and their problems, refreshing.
I disagree about Caddyshack. This had some very negative stereotypes of whites, including the breed-like-rabbits Irish Catholic family, the mean Sicilian kid, and the effete Episcopal Bishop, all against the background of the irresistibly obnoxious Jewishness of Rodney Dangerfield. This is pure kosher propaganda.
I have mixed feelings about Saving Private Ryan. On the one hand it glorifies white American fighting men making the point that it was Irish, Italian and Polish boys who died in France. It also made the point that the backbone of our Army is the officer corps staffed by men like the WASPish Captain Miller. That said, it's gross exageration of the role Jews played in that conflict basically negates the positive elements for me.
You have some other interesting suggestions. I'll have to give them further consideration.
I edit this to add that another good coming of age film is [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003CX96/qid=1109689814/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8241630-8713752?v=glance&s=dvd]Breaking Away[/URL]. I haven't seen this film in years, but as I recall it's a pretty good rah-rah patriotic flick about Midwestern values. At least I don't remember much by the way of PeeCee in it.
2005-03-01 13:32 | User Profile
[B][I] - "But the fact remains the film glorified the dregs of Southern society, and reveled in their killing Southern cops. They humiliate a Texan sheriff (Ranger?) and treat the good Southerners who resisted being robbed as drooling idiots."[/I][/B]
Yes, and its anarchistic message goes even deeper, as Bonnie in one scene tearfully denies that she has any ties to her mother anymore. Really, it's the 1960s-rebellion at its most repulsive "[I]mom and dad I want to kill you[/I]"-form.
Petr
2005-03-01 15:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I liked some of these.
Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a terrific coming-of-age film. It's set in an extremely WASPish Chicago suburb (I think Winnetka), and so poor Cheesehead farmboys like me have a hard time relating directly to that much affluence, but nevertheless it portrayed whites in a good light, and even created a sort of hip American version of Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin in the person of Ferris. Same for the Breakfast Club. It was about white kids and their problems, refreshing.
I disagree about Caddyshack. This had some very negative stereotypes of whites, including the breed-like-rabbits Irish Catholic family, the mean Sicilian kid, and the effete Episcopal Bishop, all against the background of the irresistibly obnoxious Jewishness of Rodney Dangerfield. This is pure kosher propaganda.
I have mixed feelings about Saving Private Ryan. On the one hand it glorifies white American fighting men making the point that it was Irish, Italian and Polish boys who died in France. It also made the point that the backbone of our Army is men like the WASPish Captain Miller. That said, it's gross exageration of the role Jews played in that conflict basically negates the positive elements for me.
You have some other interesting suggestions. I'll have to give them further consideration.[/QUOTE] Caddyshack: I suggest this movie because of its prominence in American culture (esp. American males), not because it's exceptional.
Saving Private Ryan: First, in comparsion to the modern day US military, there were a significant number of Jews in the US military serving in WWII. Second, in the Normandy cemetary scene the two gravestones with Stars of David were evident, but there was no attempt to diminish the sea of crosses.
2005-03-01 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Peter Fonda: it's incredible that this guy, famous father and all, was ever a star. He projects weakness, vanity, and a kind of moneyed fatuousness that's semi-repellent. His later appearances, in things like THE LIMEY (where he's essentially playing himself and accentuating his negatives), can be okay but I've always found him insufferable. At least Jane was gorgeous.
I liked BONNIE AND CLYDE. It was one of the first crime/gangster films made after the heavy hand of the Production Code, which standardized falsifications and oversimplifying of actual events for the sake of happy endings and virtue triumphant, so you got both a realistic treatment (the folk hero angle of these Depression bandits is shown to be both organic [I]and [/I] manufactured, a nice touch) as well as a detailed period feel. There's lots of redneck-bashing in modern Hollywood, but not in BONNIE AND CLYDE, which respects its characters.
Just finished rewatching the 3-part documentary A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH AMERICAN FILM, which is Martin Scorsese (skunked [I]again [/I] last night!) discussing, via film-clips, the movies and genres he grew up enjoying. Can't recommend this enough (it's on DVD, and occasonally airs on TCM), if only because it provokes one into into reassessing - or just watching - 50 and 60-year-old movies with new eyes, and makes a great adjunct to lists like this. It's not an encyclopedic history-of-movies type of thing, and it stops dead around 1962 or so, but the use of clips is fantastic and the commentary is intelligent and insightful. One of the best movie documentaries you will ever see.[/QUOTE]
Spider:
Scorsese's earlier survey of Italian cinema is also must-viewing--it, too, often airs on TCM.
It's a shame he invests so much energy in DiCaprio, though...Leo has magnetism without charisma and talent without genius. Too pretty and shallow a choice to portray Howard Hughes, IMHO.
2005-03-01 21:21 | User Profile
I thought he'd win for sure this time, given THE AVIATOR is his least-deserving picture.
You're referring to MI VIAGGIO EN ITALIA, his neorealist survey. I nabbed that the sole night it aired on TCM. Another fine doc that used even longer and more in-depth clips. But I have some mild reservations about neorealism, ie, most people forget about the 'neo' part and what it signifies, nor do they readily recognize the awesome propaganda potential - far beyond that of studio-shot films where a character will be shot point blank in the chest and not only won't bleed but somehow manages to fall [I]forward[/I].
2005-03-02 07:41 | User Profile
I bought the Stanly Kubrick collection on DVD that included a bonus disc called "Stanley Kubrick - A Life in Pictures."
It was an interesting portrait of Kubrick, but very much the Hollywood version. Rather sanitary. There was some mention of Kubrick's belief in the power of human nature, but it didn't even mention what he thought about evolution (2001 was about evolution, as were his other films).
The main point about his personality was his compulsivity and perfectionism. His daughter (he married a shiktsa named Christianne who played the German girl in his first big flick Paths of Glory) showed a 37 page memo he wrote to his wife and kids for how to take care of their cats when he left home to work on a movie. It was just nuts. He went into excruciating detail about how to break up their cat fights, what to feed them, and so forth.
They also showed footage of him chewing out Shelly Duval on the set of The Shining.
It was worth a look. Like I said, they didn't go into what Kubrick thought about basic questions. Mostly fluff, but some of it interesting.
2005-03-02 13:18 | User Profile
Ygg has a new review here:
[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/snowwht.htm[/url]
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
A White Nationalist Classic.
I have watched a number of Disney animated features intended for children.
The messages in these films are so clear and so overpowering that it is a wonder none of the volunteer reviewers on Amazon see them.
But they don't, and I suppose it is just as well.
Five are White Nationalist Classics. These are Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and Fantasia. Several others make the list but fall short of the WNC class.
None of these feature-length animated films deals with race or race conflict, so then why do any of them merit the WNC classification? The answer is that they encourage the other side of the WN coin, the code of amity, or broadly speaking, the behaviors and attitudes necessary to keep the group's cradle full.
The importance of these films is best illustrated by the very first Disney feature length animated movie - Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs - produced in 1937.
The story line is taken from one of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Snow White is a princess who, at the end of the story, marries her handsome prince. However, "Snow White" is not really a romance. She interacts with the Prince for only about two minutes, once at the very beginning of the movie and a minute or so at the end. Love and life-long commitment are automatic in this Movie. The fact of romance needs no development whatever and gets none. It is instinctive and instantaneous.
Thus, in order to find out what this movie is really about we must observe Show White's actual conduct - what does she spend her time doing in this film? And once we focus on exactly what Snow White spends her time doing, we see that if Snow White were a real princess, then she would be a most unusual one indeed.
When we first see her she is dressed in a plain torn skirt humming contentedly as she scrubs the steps of the Castle. Once in the forest, she finds the house of the Seven Dwarfs and notices that it is a filthy mess. She sets about merrily and lovingly washing dishes and cleaning the house with the help of her animated animal friends. Once the dwarfs discover her in their house, she cooks their dinner and affectionately asks them to bathe first - something the dwarfs apparently have not done in months, if ever.
Thus, Snow White brings to these seven diminutive miners the bare minimum of sanitation and civilization - regular baths, a clean house and clean dishes, and regular meals. And she does it cheerfully with her own labor.
She cooks their breakfast and kisses each one tenderly on the forehead as they go off to work. When they come home, she greets them affectionately at the door and has dinner ready.
Snow White is a selfless, sweet, maternal homemaker. She displays all of the peasant virtues. The message of Grimm's fairy tale as well as Walt Disney's movie is that the cheerful labor that goes into making a home and raising babies is the true royal quality, and it is that quality which ultimately merits the love of a handsome prince.
Of course, it has been at least 800 years since a European royal has actually swept a floor or washed a dish. But what Grimm and the European parents who bought his books recognized is that certain attitudes toward work and sacrifice were necessary in order for our race to survive and increase over generations.
In this modern age, our daughters have become so skilled at manipulating mom and dad into maid and butler service that they never wash dishes or do the laundry. The cohesion of the family dinner has given way to our fractured schedules and the isolation of the microwaved TV dinner. Parents leave the piles of dirty clothing which we find strewn all over our daughters' bedroom floors in hopes that they might someday clean up their own mess, but they never do. For some strange reason, the boys seem to do a slightly better job of picking up after themselves.
When they finally do move out of the house, their apartments are such a dreadful mess - and the sink and dishwasher are so jammed with months-old dirty dishes - that they never entertain friends at home, but feel compelled to frequent bars and restaurants for social interaction, falling head over heels into credit card debt, and losing a significant advantage which territorial boundaries can provide in maintaining standards in the mate selection process.
The basic building blocks of civilization celebrated in Snow White are melting away before our eyes.
Under the current cultural regime, only those with the most powerful instincts will be able to make the sacrifices necessary to form stable relationships and to raise children. As the gentle restraints and pressures of civilized norms crumble, huge numbers will succumb to their own self absorption, their lack of behavioral restraint, and their disdain for labor. They will leave no traces of their presence on this earth in the next generation.
Snow White lives to make life bright, cheerful and clean for all those around her, no matter what circumstances she may be placed in by others. She is the model of the female role you will see in re-runs of the 1950's family television series like The Donna Reed Show, Ozzie and Harriet, and Father Knows Best. It is the behavior which so infuriated the inner party critics of our culture, most famously Susan Sonntag who railed against the suburbs in the early 1960s as "Christian breeding grounds."
The modern hatred of all that Snow White represents shows up clearly in the 2004 remake of "The Stepford Wives." And it is this hatred which commands our unwavering allegiance to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the uniqueness and importance of Snow White is to contrast that movie with a more recent Disney effort at exploiting the apparently instinctive desire of little girls to find their "handsome prince."
The 1990 animated piece entitled "The Little Mermaid" follows the same broad outline.
However, when we examine the behavior of The Little Mermaid, we see a young girl who is completely self absorbed. She routinely disobeys her father and the rules of her society. She is willful and headstrong. She fails to show up at music rehearsals and performances, inconveniencing others. She manipulates those around her to get her way, and she is vain about her appearance. Finally, she abandons her family, her friends and her race - all those who should be most dear to her - never to see them again, so that she can become a human and marry her prince. She would never dream of cleaning the house or washing dishes.
I should note in passing that the typical Christian viewing "The Little Mermaid" would look for an abstract conceptual formula - marriage with no pre-marital sex - and conclude that The Little Mermaid is a "Christian friendly movie." However, the little mermaid's actual behavior is pure poison and profoundly anti-Christian. The little mermaid displays none of the behaviors which indicate a capacity for making the kinds of sacrifices necessary to stay married or to undertake the drudgery involved in caring for and cleaning up after children - or even to show up at feeding times. In fact, the movie glorifies the opposite behaviors.
The Little Mermaid is particularly seductive because it gets the aesthetic exactly right - the prince in that movie is a robust, aggressive, attractive and unambiguously white male - exactly the kind you would want your daughter to marry. And aside from her fish tail, the Little Mermaid is a very attractive and unambiguously white girl - one who wins the ultimate prize despite her behavior.
The message to Christians is clear. Focus on the behaviors which are being encouraged and celebrated in a film - and do not apply formulas based on conceptual abstractions or theological formulas. Hollywood can easily cripple your children by producing movies that conform to your conceptual abstractions, while encouraging behaviors and conduct which are wildly destructive of your childs ability to form a stable family.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs also established the pattern of demonstrating a single female's maternal qualities through her interactions with animated animals. Snow White's animated animal friends all serve as child substitutes - allowing her to display all of those qualities which add up to fitness for motherhood. Disney repeats these kinds of interactions to the same effect in Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.
Snow White had a profound influence on other movies.
For example, you can see Snow White's behavior toward animals exhibited by Ava Gardner in the John Ford masterpiece, "Mogambo" (1953) - a romance set in Africa also starring Clark Gable and Grace Kelly. The good hearted prostitute - one suited for marriage - is one of Hollywood's favorite themes. In "Stagecoach" (1939) John Ford has John Wayne's love interest display her maternal qualities with an actual baby born to another passenger. In Mogambo, John Ford has Ava Gardner's character demonstrate maternal qualities by mothering a baby elephant - a rough one who knows what he likes and grabs it (and Ava Gardner had lots to grab) and tosses her in the mud several times. Through it all Gardner remains true to Snow White's tender behavior, imitating her gestures and mannerisms as well as the inflection and tone of her voice. The similarity to the animated classic is uncanny. In these scenes, Gardner's character demonstrates that she is just an ordinary farm girl who has temporarily gone astray, with all the maternal peasant virtues of Show White.
Contrast the development of the "good hearted prostitute theme" in John Ford's classics with a more recent effort - "Pretty Woman" - in which we see no maternal qualities at all. Rather, we see behaviors which bespeak fitness for shopping, and fitness for tasteful selection of fashions appropriate to the role of high class, childless and relatively monogamous courtesan - a conception of the role of wife that is quite popular in Hollywood these days. The behaviors we see in "Pretty Woman" are those which display fitness for passing the time pleasantly as our race drifts toward extinction.
Conceptual abstractions and theological formulas are unreliable guides for judging whether a movie is good for your children. Movies, like church going, teach us very specific behaviors. Thus it is the behavior being promoted that counts. Little else matters.
You are what you watch.
Yggdrasil-
2005-03-02 14:44 | User Profile
Thanks for posting that perceptive review by Yggrasil.
I thought that [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JG6N/qid=1109773874/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8241630-8713752?v=glance&s=dvd]My Best Friend's Wedding [/URL] contained an interesting combination of all these themes.
That film portrays the plight of a high powered, attractive white career woman (Julia Roberts) who comes to Chicago for the wedding of her "best friend", a guy she hung out with in college and occasionally slept with (Dermot Mulroney). They have a deal that if either reaches the age of 28 without getting married, then they'll marry each other.
The Dermot Mulroney character is also an up-and-coming Young Turk of the business world, and he's engaged to marry the daughter of a wealthy Chicago magnate (Cameron Diaz), if memory serves. Anyway, Cameron Diaz's character is about 22, just graduated from a hoity-toity college, very domestic, intelligent and well-mannered. She is very much the wife and mother type. She wants babies and career seems a distant second to her interests. It's obviously a brilliant match for Dermot Mulroney and Cameron Diaz.
Julia Roberts, hearing her biological clock tick, decides she wants to marry Dermot Mulroney and tries to sabotage the wedding. She does some extremely mean and underhanded stuff to poor old Cameron, but Cameron shows an uncanny ability to roll with the punches, and in the end the wedding takes place and Julia is left alone (the suspense is half the movie, sorry if I ruined it for you).
Julia Roberts is comforted the night of her defeat by her homosexual friend (played brilliantly by Rupert Everett), who judge-like reads her life's sentence.
He says that she won't ever find a husband for a lot of reasons, but especially because she's attracted to intelligent and stylish young men who are in her generation overwhelmingly gay. He says that Julia will have wonderful things, dinners in fancy restaurants, and exotic vacations. He says that there won't be any sex, at least not much. However, to make up for it, he says that there will be a lot of dancing, and he takes her out to the dance floor for a waltz.
This film struck me as rather subversive of the Culture of Critique. I discern a very positive pro-fertility message here for whites. While superficially Julia Roberts is portrayed as this woman to be admired and emulated, yet upon a bit of reflection it seems clear that Cameron Diaz got by far the better deal. Cameron Diaz will look forward to a nice comfortable life filled with the challenges and rewards of an upper class domestic wifedom, while Julia Robert's can only look forward only to fading beauty, the transient rewards of a power career, and the dubious comfort of her close gay friends.
It looks like a no brainer to me. Dermot and Cameron get to live happily ever after in a Tolstyan "family happiness," hereas Julia never really gets a chance at happiness at all. She'll be a highly compensated spinster, growing bitter as she grows old.
I'd like to hear others' comments on this film.
2005-03-02 15:45 | User Profile
I don't know much about Yggdrasil, and was mostly uninterested in most of his site, but I do have a few comments on his views on films.
His views on A Clockwork Orange seemed a bit of a stretch in places. Maybe I am biased because I have read the novel, but there is not a strong case that the film is a commentary on Jewish/gentile relations. Perhaps I overlooked something in the review, but if my memory is right, there is not any indication from that article that Yggdrasil is aware that the film was based on a novel, though we can assume that he is, as he seems culturally literate. For that reason, I am surprised that he did not see anything of note in the fact that Kubrick ignored the last chapter of the book, which does have a very strong affect on the overall message.
Now, about his views on Disney cartoons, I find myself wondering if the author is not projecting his own ideas into the films where they do not exist. That the little mermaid hints at miscenegenation particularly strikes me as an example of the above. The story, again, was based on other material, this time a Hans Christian Andersen tale. I am not convinced that either Andersen or the Disney writers or producers meant to make any racial metaphor with elements of the story. It is possible that Yggdrasil does believe in ideas surfacing unconciously, a la Freud, or perhaps the failure of the writers the express the ideas they intended to, somewhat in the vein of the deconstructionist. But that seems fairly unlikely, given that such views would not be common for someone holding his other views.
In his overview about classification, he notes that he will not consider films which unfavorably depict Christianity or the Catholic Church. I don't know if Yggdrasil is a Catholic, and I am not a Christian. But, I can understand his interest in defending Christianity, but not so much Catholicism in especial. This might be my old protestant bias popping up, but I think it is quite possible to have a worldview quite sympathetic to that of Yggdrasil, or similar, without a special need to defend the Roman Catholic Church. I certainly don't see the institution as above criticism, and such criticism does not have to involve other racial or overtly political baggage.
2005-03-02 17:42 | User Profile
[I] - "I don't know if Yggdrasil is a Catholic, and I am not a Christian. But, I can understand his interest in defending Christianity, but not so much Catholicism in especial. This might be my old protestant bias popping up, but I think it is quite possible to have a worldview quite sympathetic to that of Yggdrasil, or similar, without a special need to defend the Roman Catholic Church."[/I]
Yggdrasil has a (Scottish?) Presbyterian background.
Petr
2005-03-02 21:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]Maybe I am biased because I have read the novel, but there is not a strong case that the film is a commentary on Jewish/gentile relations..[/QUOTE]
Good comments, but I respectfully disagree with that.
Kubrick's art was his own. He took ideas from books, but his films stood on their own legs.
Clockwork Orange was very clearly about Jewish culture destruction, made explicit by the very Jewish Dr. Brodsky (Kubrick type cast the actor - a very Jewish looking fellow) sitting in the back of the projection room personally directing Little Alex's torture designed to induce in him a Pavlovian aversion to the Western classics.
I think Kubrick really rubs the audience's nose in that - it seems inescapable to me. I too read the book (it's a realy charge if you speak Russian like me), but the Kubrick's masterpiece and Burgess's novel are two very different critters. Same for Kubricks "The Shining" and the novel.
Ygg is a Calvinist, but I think he sees the special hatred Jews have for the RCC and he rightly sees attacks on, say, Mel Gibson's brand of Christianity as an attack on all Christians.
2005-03-03 12:46 | User Profile
I watched Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket last night.
I think it was a good film, perhaps not great. It's probably right up there with the top 5 war movies ever made.
The big theme that I perceive is the duality of man's character. It's right out of Sir Arthur Kieth. Man loves his own and is willing to die for them, but he hates outsiders and seeks to kill them. Kubrick really leaves no doubt about that being the main theme. The Matthew Modine character wears a peace sign on his flak jacket and "Born to Kill" on this helmut. A colonel asks him what that's all about and Modine replies that it's about the "duality of man, the Jungian thing."
The drill instructor talked about stipping bare killer instincts.
It's of a piece with Kubrick's other films that explore human instinct and their affect on us, including the sex instinct (Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut), the killer instinct (Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket) and how evolution drives all of it forward (2001).
I would love to hear your comments.
2005-03-03 15:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]I don't know much about Yggdrasil, and was mostly uninterested in most of his site, but I do have a few comments on his views on films. I've talked off and on with Ygg since he first showed up on Usenet in the early 90's. You really should read more of his essays. They are well worth your time.
His views on A Clockwork Orange seemed a bit of a stretch in places. Maybe I am biased because I have read the novel, but there is not a strong case that the film is a commentary on Jewish/gentile relations. Perhaps I overlooked something in the review, but if my memory is right, there is not any indication from that article that Yggdrasil is aware that the film was based on a novel, though we can assume that he is, as he seems culturally literate. For that reason, I am surprised that he did not see anything of note in the fact that Kubrick ignored the last chapter of the book, which does have a very strong affect on the overall message.
First of all, Ygg is quite clear he is reviewing the film itself, from a WN perspective, and does so based on the images on screen, alone, and not the "baggage" that goes along with it - including "popular opinion" or received wisdom about what the film is "supposed" to be about, or what the film maker's alleged views or intentions were. His point is that often this baggage is a deliberate obfuscation of the "dangerous" subtext of these films which we are not supposed to be aware of.
As to the book, the American version - at least, the initial printings - did not include the final chapter. Apparently, Kubrick was not aware of the final chapter, and thus did not take it into consideration when he adapted it to film. I believe, according to a documentary I watched about Kubrick, that he wasn't acquianted with the final chapter til after the film was made, and people pointed out the oversight to him.
Now, about his views on Disney cartoons, I find myself wondering if the author is not projecting his own ideas into the films where they do not exist. That the little mermaid hints at miscenegenation particularly strikes me as an example of the above. The story, again, was based on other material, this time a Hans Christian Andersen tale. I am not convinced that either Andersen or the Disney writers or producers meant to make any racial metaphor with elements of the story. It is possible that Yggdrasil does believe in ideas surfacing unconciously, a la Freud, or perhaps the failure of the writers the express the ideas they intended to, somewhat in the vein of the deconstructionist. But that seems fairly unlikely, given that such views would not be common for someone holding his other views.
What projection? The films clearly show an older, more traditional Western ethic of "gender roles" vs. what we have today, and thus, there is no projection at all. It's obviously there; it just isn't obvious if one has gotten so used to it not to notice it, or the changes since that time. Once one "sees" this obvious difference between then and now, and understands the reasons for the change, the racial angle is inevitable. Since we are subjected to a constant media bombardment of racial brainwashing, the "unconscious" angle is also inevitable.
As to "deconstruction" this is simply a technique for analysing any product of culture, and it dovetails nicely with Evolutionary Psychology, as Ygg demonstrates in his writings about Sir Arthur Keith and Kevin MacDonald, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be the exclusive domain of Inner Party members. It's not at all unusual for someone like Ygg to "deconstruct" since that's the only way you can actually figure out what is going on; by not doing so, we leave the battlefield uncontested to the Inner Party, and attempt to fight them blindfolded.
I find it odd that you would think there is some contradiction between Ygg's beliefs, and his methods. They are perfectly matched.
In his overview about classification, he notes that he will not consider films which unfavorably depict Christianity or the Catholic Church. I don't know if Yggdrasil is a Catholic, and I am not a Christian. But, I can understand his interest in defending Christianity, but not so much Catholicism in especial. This might be my old protestant bias popping up, but I think it is quite possible to have a worldview quite sympathetic to that of Yggdrasil, or similar, without a special need to defend the Roman Catholic Church. I certainly don't see the institution as above criticism, and such criticism does not have to involve other racial or overtly political baggage.[/QUOTE] I never got the impression talking to Ygg that he was all that religious. But then again, I don't know him personally.
I think Ygg might distinguish between critiques of Christianity from a Western perspective, from "critiques" (a la "The Culture of Critique") of Christianity from an Inner Party perspective. I don't know if there are many good movies that would fit that qualification, though, since Westerners critical of Christianity aren't driven by the same visceral inner rage against Christianity that Inner Party members feel. It's not a very high priority for them and I doubt that most non- or anti-religious Westerners spend much time obsessing over Christianity.
2005-03-03 15:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I've talked off and on with Ygg since he first showed up on Usenet in the early 90's. You really should read more of his essays. They are well worth your time. That might be so, I did not look around much, and most of what I did see was lengthy excerpts from old Wall Street Journal pieces.
[QUOTE]First of all, Ygg is quite clear he is reviewing the film itself, from a WN perspective,[/QUOTE] That is fair enough, but then I fear that he will turn just about anything and everything into a metaphor for situations dealing with race relations.
[QUOTE] His point is that often this baggage is a deliberate obfuscation of the "dangerous" subtext of these films which we are not supposed to be aware of.[/QUOTE] That may all be true, but again, that is based on the premise that there is a component of ethnic conflict in everything.
[QUOTE] As to the book, the American version - at least, the initial printings - did not include the final chapter.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is fairly well known to readers of the book.
[QUOTE]
Apparently, Kubrick was not aware of the final chapter, and thus did not take it into consideration when he adapted it to film. I believe, according to a documentary I watched about Kubrick, that he wasn't acquianted with the final chapter til after the film was made, and people pointed out the oversight to him.[/QUOTE] That is understandable, and is better than deliberately overlooking the final chapter. It does not reflect well on Kubrick though, that he was ignorant of a chapter in the book he was cinematizing, though. That is somewhat irresponsible, but a different matter than purposely excluding material from the novel.
[QUOTE]What projection? The films clearly show an older, more traditional Western ethic of "gender roles" vs. what we have today, and thus, there is no projection at all. It's obviously there; it just isn't obvious if one has gotten so used to it not to notice it, or the changes since that time. Once one "sees" this obvious difference between then and now, and understands the reasons for the change, the racial angle is inevitable. Since we are subjected to a constant media bombardment of racial brainwashing, the "unconscious" angle is also inevitable.[/QUOTE] I refered only to the animated films, where a mermaid was in love with human. He seems to have interpreted this as symbolic of interracial relationships. This strikes me as similar to saying that Pinocchio is about a black person who really wants to be white.
Just because interracial relationships are in fact more common than in the past does not mean that a contemporary cartoon about a mermaid in love with a shoreside prince is "really" about the acceptablity of a white person being smitten with love for a member of another race.
Most of the films he reviewed, I do not believe I have seen. *A Clockwork Orange *might be the only one There was one called *Children of Heaven, *apparently an Iranian film about children. I intially confused this for the old French film *Children of Paradise*, about Parisian street performers and assorted "rabble" types of the 19th C (incidentally, a wonderful film, the pantomime scenes are fantastic)..
[QUOTE] I find it odd that you would think there is some contradiction between Ygg's beliefs, and his methods. They are perfectly matched.[/QUOTE] It is not so much that I see a contradiction, it is just speculation on my part about his views on whether or not the writer or producer of films and stories is reliable enough to relate whatever it is that person intended to do.
[QUOTE]
I think Ygg might distinguish between critiques of Christianity from a Western perspective, from "critiques" (a la "The Culture of Critique") of Christianity from an Inner Party perspective. .[/QUOTE] He may, though if he does, he does not explicitly say as much.
[QUOTE]I don't know if there are many good movies that would fit that qualification[/QUOTE] There might not be any. It is still possible to take a critical view of religion or the Catholic Church
2005-03-03 22:55 | User Profile
In a perfect world we would be able to judge these things via a simple [I]what was the author trying to say and did he succeed in doing so? [/I] yardstick.
Yggdrasil makes it pretty evident that his yardstick is [I]does this benefit my people, and if so, how?[/I]
Both are incredibly friggin' presumptrious. One approach seeks to speak authoritatively for a total stranger, the other for a billion total strangers. Name yer poison.
PS: I, too, love Marcel Carne's ENFANTS DU PARADIS. Nice to see it mentioned, even if it is in a sidebar.
2005-03-04 04:48 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
Sound like it might be a good film. Didn't Julia Roberts smoke nonstop in the film. [QUOTE]I thought that My Best Friend's Wedding contained an interesting combination of all these themes.
That film portrays the plight of a high powered, attractive white career woman (Julia Roberts) who comes to Chicago for the wedding of her "best friend", a guy she hung out with in college and occasionally slept with (Dermot Mulroney). They have a deal that if either reaches the age of 28 without getting married, then they'll marry each other.
The Dermot Mulroney character is also an up-and-coming Young Turk of the business world, and he's engaged to marry the daughter of a wealthy Chicago magnate (Cameron Diaz), if memory serves. Anyway, Cameron Diaz's character is about 22, just graduated from a hoity-toity college, very domestic, intelligent and well-mannered. She is very much the wife and mother type. She wants babies and career seems a distant second to her interests. It's obviously a brilliant match for Dermot Mulroney and Cameron Diaz.
Julia Roberts, hearing her biological clock tick, decides she wants to marry Dermot Mulroney and tries to sabotage the wedding. She does some extremely mean and underhanded stuff to poor old Cameron, but Cameron shows an uncanny ability to roll with the punches, and in the end the wedding takes place and Julia is left alone (the suspense is half the movie, sorry if I ruined it for you).
Julia Roberts is comforted the night of her defeat by her homosexual friend (played brilliantly by Rupert Everett), who judge-like reads her life's sentence.
This film struck me as rather subversive of the Culture of Critique. I discern a very positive pro-fertility message here for whites. While superficially Julia Roberts is portrayed as this woman to be admired and emulated, yet upon a bit of reflection it seems clear that Cameron Diaz got by far the better deal. Cameron Diaz will look forward to a nice comfortable life filled with the challenges and rewards of an upper class domestic wifedom, while Julia Robert's can only look forward only to fading beauty, the transient rewards of a power career, and the dubious comfort of her close gay friends.[/QUOTE]
2005-03-04 06:44 | User Profile
My take on Kubrick.
Unquestionably a brilliant moviemaker. He stylized a type of long unbroken take and gave it aesthetic value. The classic Kubrick shot is almost a still life: camera fixed, or sometimes zooming in/out with excruciatingly-slow exactitude; actors almost frozen to their marks, whether reading dialogue or not; a baleful [I]nothingness [/I] drenches the image that separates us from what we are watching. Like almost no one previous that I can think of, the Kubrick style emulates [I]the eye of God[/I], watching and interested - but above, aloof and remote from the action at the same time.
You as the audience are not plunged into the action; you don't get caught up in the plot mechanics; you neither love nor hate his characters, let alone see yourself in them, because you are seated at the feet of this god seeing what he sees....watching from the next-highest altitude possible. It's more likely you look upon Kubrick characters with a mixture of fear, pity and terror; but intellectualized, and from a far, safe distance. All of this makes his movies distinctly different than everybody else's; there's a heightened quality to them, and they age beautifully, because there is no commitment to the characters or to the story, only to the way he chooses to present the story and the effects he's trying to achieve.
Mind you, I'm not knocking the man, just setting down my impressions of his methodology. I suspect I'm right because, bit by bit throughout his career, Kubrick shed everything extraneous necessary to doing it his way. First, he abandoned Hollywood, relocating to England and never shooting a foot of film outside it after 1960. Next, he abandoned actors; or at least, bravura actors with palpable screen presence, magnetism. (It's probably no accident that his reputation leaped up several levels after he'd traded in the vibrant scenery-chewing of the Kirk Douglases and the George C Scotts for the blank-page prettiness of the Keir Dulleas and the Ryan O'Neals.) And, yeah, I know all about Jack Nicholson in THE SHINING - a great horror movie, no question - but Nicholson isn't even giving a [I]performance[/I], considering the character is clearly shown to be fubar long before his family ever arrives at the haunted hotel. He's playing crazy in two keys throughout the movie: [I]mezzoforte[/I], with simmering woodwinds, and [I]fortissimo[/I], with airhorn accompaniment.
That's also part of Kubrick's [I]the director as God [/I] style: this God has little more than contempt for his creation as reflected in the many bizarre performances in his movies: he makes essentially serious films, and then tweaks the construction by filling them with overstated, sometimes grotesquely broad low-comedy performances from the actors. They play caricatures and cartoons more than actual characters. This wasn't always true - see the enlisted men in PATHS OF GLORY - but this tendency was always there - see the officers in PATHS OF GLORY. But from STRANGELOVE on, he recognized no character's full humanity. And you certainly can't blame the actors for this, because Kubrick was notorious for exhausting his casts with endless retakes of every small bit of business, ad nauseum. I believe he was looking for that frazzled, half-loopy quality his films are full of. Get the actor to read the damn line so many times that it ceases to have any contextual meaning to the overall story...and print [I]that [/I] take. I don't know how you could explain the tone of things like FULL METAL JACKET or THE SHINING or BARRY LYNDON otherwise, where the languorous pace and the long, static shots are somehow crackling with tension and slowly-mounting pressure. Only Malcolm McDowall in CLOCKWORK can be said to give a great performance in a latter-day Kubrick; apparently Kubrick's experiences with a first-rate cast in DR STRANGELOVE soured him on working with dynamic actors ever again.
I guess I've come off as dissing Stanley the K, but actually I find his stuff fascinating for the singularity of his ambition. He was not going to let Shecky in Accounting impede him, nor would he worry himself with prima-donna name actors obsessing over how many close-ups they weren't getting. For sure, ALL of his movies except SPARTACUS are worth seeing and most of them are great. And like I said, his stuff stands the test of time. We've had 35 years of spaceships and CGI monsters and big-budget scifi but nothing to rival the complexity and commitment to a science fiction premise of 2001, and nowadays 'science fiction' means STAR WARS. We've had decades of youth-runs-wild pictures with their maudlin morality lectures of "kids are society's problem", but never anything that [I]showed [/I] you instead of [I]telling [/I] you with the audacious and caustic intelligence of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. I mean, even a timeworn genre like the caper movie, of which there've been countless, has never really surpassed the slap-in-the-face immediacy of his take on it with THE KILLING (Quentin Tarantino is [B]still [/B] stealing from it!)
Of his many imitators, the most technically adept are the Coen Brothers, but they just can't get the attitude down correctly. The Coens' loathing - for the audience, for their characters and for themselves - informs every film they make. (Again, this isn't to say they're not very talented.) Kubrick would never submerge himself in such petty neuroses. His contempt was an icy, generalized one, for humanity in general; the Coens seem to have never fully gotten over being tormented by the jocks at school. Kubrick held no particular grudges; he knew we'd blown it, and the rest of it was minutiae and window dressing.
2005-03-04 08:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]My take on Kubrick.
Unquestionably a brilliant moviemaker. He stylized a type of long unbroken take and gave it aesthetic value. The classic Kubrick shot is almost a still life: camera fixed, or sometimes zooming in/out with excruciatingly-slow exactitude; actors almost frozen to their marks, whether reading dialogue or not; a baleful [I]nothingness [/I] drenches the image that separates us from what we are watching. Like almost no one previous that I can think of, the Kubrick style emulates [I]the eye of God[/I], watching and interested - but above, aloof and remote from the action at the same time . . . snip.[/QUOTE]
Brilliant stuff, Ragman. I'll read that a couple more times to be sure.
One of the things that really came out in the Kubrick documentary was that he was first and foremost a [I]photographer.[/I]
He was heavily into photography even as a little kid, an obsession his Jewish parents cultivated by - get this - buying the kid a darkroom while he was still in junior high. Kubrick sold his first nationally printed photograph to (I think) Life (or was it Look) in 1945. It was a picture of a newstand owner looking very sad surrounded by headlines of FDR's passing. Kubrick was just 16!
He then made it as a photographer for a major magazine (I think, Look) but then - I can't believe the iron balls this kid had - he QUIT HIS DAY JOB and started making movies, from a loan from his dad and making a few bucks hustling chess games. Hustling chess games.
He was really an amazing guy. He had much, much more faith in his own abilities than I'll ever have, that's for sure. He combined a certain artistic genius with the brass balls of an entrepreneur.
Anyway, the point about him being a photographer first is key, as you allude to. Kubrick really re-made the entire cinematic art. The time warp scene in 2001, as just one example, set the stage for all light shows that came after.
Also, as you suggest, Barry Lyndon was apparently another of these milestones that leave cameramen green with envy. Kubrick dreamt up a super camera (it's in this documentary) for this flick. Note the way the candles show up (he uses lots of candle light) in the film. Their realistic, almost three dimensional flickering, was a cinematic first.
As a Jew, Kubrick's films were filled with kabbalistic references. This really came out strong in Eyes Wide Shut and Artificial Intelligence (he wrote and produced it, Spileberg directed it).
Again, thanks for your very insightful comments.
2005-03-04 11:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]That might be so, I did not look around much, and most of what I did see was lengthy excerpts from old Wall Street Journal pieces.
Ygg is brilliant. Maybe you had to be there at the time, but he was the only person on the Internet (which back then, early 90's, was just Usenet) who was articulating a White Nationalist message in a rational way utilizing evolutionary psychology and hard facts and statistics to back up his assertions, which no one else was doing. Literally, you had nothing at all from a WN perspective on the net except some very vague assertions and litany of complaints, but nothing solid at all. This was back when Stormfront was nothing but a dialup BBS, and guys like Jared Taylor was still an unknown newsletter writer.
That is fair enough, but then I fear that he will turn just about anything and everything into a metaphor for situations dealing with race relations.
Yeah, and? If you go to church every Sunday, you expect your pastor to turn everything into a sermon, too, don't you? Even if it is about subjects which you think have nothing to do with religion?
That may all be true, but again, that is based on the premise that there is a component of ethnic conflict in everything.
If it involves people, it does.
>
I refered only to the animated films, where a mermaid was in love with human. He seems to have interpreted this as symbolic of interracial relationships. This strikes me as similar to saying that Pinocchio is about a black person who really wants to be white.
Just because interracial relationships are in fact more common than in the past does not mean that a contemporary cartoon about a mermaid in love with a shoreside prince is "really" about the acceptablity of a white person being smitten with love for a member of another race.
Ygg has explicitly stated he isn't trying to read the minds of the makers of these films, and never makes such claims.
For instance, he has speculated on Kubrick's tribal loyalties to the Inner Party and whether he was trying to send a message to his fellow IP members with his movies, but Ygg says he can't know what Kubrick intended, esp. since Kubrick himself was silent on the subject, and that what is important to Ygg's readers is not what Kubrick intended, but what Ygg and his like minded film watchers take away from watching the films in question.
You and your relation to the film are what Ygg is interested in, not what the film maker may or may not have intended.
Most of the films he reviewed, I do not believe I have seen. *A Clockwork Orange *might be the only one There was one called *Children of Heaven, *apparently an Iranian film about children. I intially confused this for the old French film *Children of Paradise*, about Parisian street performers and assorted "rabble" types of the 19th C (incidentally, a wonderful film, the pantomime scenes are fantastic)..
Children of Heaven is an excellent Iranian film. Watch it.
>
It is not so much that I see a contradiction, it is just speculation on my part about his views on whether or not the writer or producer of films and stories is reliable enough to relate whatever it is that person intended to do.
Again, you are laboring under a serious misaprehension about what Ygg is trying to do. Nowhere does he make a claim about the intent of the moviemaker; he's more concerned with the effects on the white viewer, whether intended or not. > He may, though if he does, he does not explicitly say as much.
Maybe he should offer more disclaimers, but by now I think Ygg assumes his readers have read enough of him to understand his methods and purpose.
>
There might not be any. It is still possible to take a critical view of religion or the Catholic Church[/QUOTE]I've never heard Ygg claim otherwise.
2005-03-04 11:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]In a perfect world we would be able to judge these things via a simple [I]what was the author trying to say and did he succeed in doing so? [/I] yardstick.
Yggdrasil makes it pretty evident that his yardstick is [I]does this benefit my people, and if so, how?[/I]
Both are incredibly friggin' presumptrious. One approach seeks to speak authoritatively for a total stranger, the other for a billion total strangers. Name yer poison.[/QUOTE] That's a rather strange comparison.
The first approach assumes one knows something about the author, which is not always the case.
The second approach assumes that one can know what is best for "my people" which, in this case, by definition, is going to be people who think like Ygg, which means Ygg's approach is more along the lines of "how do I react to this film, given my feelings about my people, and thus, what should people like me who think and feel like me, what should they take away from this film?"
The second approach is NOT presumptuous because it's Ygg's way of looking at these films, given freely to anyone who is interested, especially anyone who thinks along similar lines to Ygg, or who is at least interested in how Ygg's line of thinking applies to the film in question.
Where, pray tell, is the presumption?
Ygg's not telling people what to think. Ygg's telling people what he thinks, given his principles, and is asking them, if they share his principles, to look at the film if they want and decide for themselves if Ygg is right, or not.
You're reading way, way too much into his alleged "presumption".
2005-03-04 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w] Yeah, and? If you go to church every Sunday, you expect your pastor to turn everything into a sermon, too, don't you? Even if it is about subjects which you think have nothing to do with religion?
If it involves people, it does.
Ygg has explicitly stated he isn't trying to read the minds of the makers of these films, and never makes such claims.[/QUOTE] This does not exactly give him license to decide that any or every particular film is about ethnic conflict. It is not very different than a marxist who sees class conflict or some similar notion in whatever subject is being reviewed. Now, it might not be a totally valid comparison, but I recall reading a piece of criticism somewhere, and the writer claimed that Milton's sonnet about his blindness (which can be found [url="http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem1457.html"]here[/url]) is "really" a commentary on English social relations of the 17th century. Part of what I am saying is that there does not have to a political spin put on artistic works, on some level they must be appreciated for the aesthetic pleasure or sense that they provide. There is a danger in politicizing everything, that can progress to the point where things might only be considered to have merit if they are politically useful or preach the right political message. There is a hint of a sort of Leninism or maybe general utilitarianism in that view.
[QUOTE] For instance, he has speculated on Kubrick's tribal loyalties to the Inner Party and whether he was trying to send a message to his fellow IP members with his movies, but Ygg says he can't know what Kubrick intended, esp. since Kubrick himself was silent on the subject, and that what is important to Ygg's readers is not what Kubrick intended, but what Ygg and his like minded film watchers take away from watching the films in question.[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with that speculation. But if for the sake of argument, he is right about Kubrick's intention, I think that such an aspect is a somewhat small part of this particular film.
[QUOTE]
**You** and your relation to the film are what Ygg is interested in, not what the film maker may or may not have intended.
Again, you are laboring under a serious misaprehension about what Ygg is trying to do. Nowhere does he make a claim about the intent of the moviemaker; he's more concerned with the effects on the white viewer, whether intended or not. [/QUOTE] He is justified in writing about the relationship of the viewers and film, but his view seems to assume that not only that there there is an unavoidable didacticism in the film, but there is a particular message we ought to take from it. Or, that there is a more subtle propaganda message that we should try and avoid. Maybe that is something we have to disagree on.
[QUOTE]Maybe he should offer more disclaimers, but by now I think Ygg assumes his readers have read enough of him to understand his methods and purpose. [/QUOTE] Does he take a stand either way? It is possible that he is reluctant to take a critical view for no other reason than that those religious issues were/are a very significant part of the Western tradition. And if he does take a critical view, but won't say so because other segments of the population do as well (if for different reasons), that is a bit of bad faith, or intellectual dishonesty. But I will not say that is the case, because I don't really know what his opinion is, with regard to those matters.
[QUOTE] I've never heard Ygg claim otherwise.[/QUOTE] And if he affirms this, he does not explicity state it.
2005-03-05 02:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]ALL of his movies except SPARTACUS are worth seeing
What do you dislike about 'Spartacus?'
[QUOTE=il ragno]nowadays 'science fiction' means STAR WARS.
Not to quibble, but the 'Star Wars' films aren't sci-fi, but rather fanasty films which merely happen to have space as their locale (much as how many Phillip K. Dick novels aren't sci-fi, but just stories about ordinary human existence, albeit on a 22nd century Matian colony or whatnot, simply because publishers weren't interested in his initial attempts to write such material within the context of contemporary American life).
2005-03-05 14:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]What do you dislike about 'Spartacus?'
[/QUOTE]
I cannot help but see Spartacus as Communist propaganda. Gracchus, as portrayed in the film, resembles Ted Kennedy. The film was too early for this to be deliberate, but the similarity is there.
2005-03-05 15:48 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I cannot help but see Spartacus as Communist propaganda. Gracchus, as portrayed in the film, resembles Ted Kennedy."[/I][/B]
Likewise, Crassus (played by Lawrence Olivier) is clearly portrayed as a prototype of a decadent, hypocritical Fascist dictator.
Petr
2005-03-05 17:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]I cannot help but see Spartacus as Communist propaganda. Gracchus, as portrayed in the film, resembles Ted Kennedy. The film was too early for this to be deliberate, but the similarity is there.[/QUOTE]
Author [URL=http://www.trussel.com/f_how.htm]Howard Fast [/URL] was a communist.
Jewish, of course.
He was on McCarthy's short list.
Nothing accidental here.
2005-03-06 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What do you dislike about 'Spartacus?'[/QUOTE]
I meant that it was a for-hire job that Kubrick did for the payday after Kirk Douglas asked him to direct the picture.
For the most part, epic international co-production historical pageants like SPARTACUS - like the big Biblical movies of the 50s - put me to sleep anyway. SPARTACUS has a great supporting cast - Ustinov, Olivier, Laughton, and the ever-underrated Charles McGraw (he played Marcellus, btw) - but 90% of the time you've got to endure Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis reading dialogue and striking heroic poses. [I]For three hours[/I].
2005-03-16 07:14 | User Profile
I watched [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6303282237/qid=1110956257/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7127565-3780852?v=glance&s=video]El Cid[/URL], starring Charlton Heston and Sopia Loren. It was made in 1961 and it was considered a technological achievement for the time.
I thought it was quite good, in a 1950s historical epic/costume drama sort of a way. It wasn't a great work of art, but it pretty good by general Hollywood standards, and it has a great and timely message for us. It's definitely a WN flick, you can decide for yourselves whether it's a "WN classic" or not.
Clearly, the subject matter is close to our hearts - the defense of Catholic Spain (and, as is made explicit in the film, of all of Europe) from dusky (and sometimes outright Negroid) Muslims.
El Cid is portrayed as a fervently loyal subject of his unworthy king, Alfonso. He remains loyal to his father (he kills the King's champion in a duel over his father's honor that is the catalyst for his later exile and romantic difficulties), his king (who realizes El Cid's greatness only at the moment of El Cid's triumph and death) and his country (which is riven by petty personal rivalries, even as a foreign enemy threatens to crush them all). The people greet El Cid as one of their own, and wind up taking up the defense of Spain into their own hands under El Cid's crusade, which the King joins only reluctantly and only after all other options fail.
The Church is portrayed very positively - it's a force for honor, mercy, reason, culture and cultural cohesion in Spain, as opposed to the venality, dissension and even subversion of the aristocratic elites, both Christian and Muslim (the Muslim Emir of Andalucia is portrayed as a total sybaritic despot).
The good guys are (mostly) white and Christian, and the bad guys are (mostly) African and Muslim.
It's almost all good.
However, one of the subplots is that a group of Andalusian Muslims side with El Cid against the Morroccan ben Yousef's invading army. These Moors are portrayed as potentially loyal Spanish subjects, and it seems to me that there was some sort of multi-culti implication that there was room in Spain for both Christians and Moors under a united Christian crown. That's a very dangerous notion, and I personally found it objectionable. But that is the only blemish I noted in this otherwise fine pro-white film, and even then it was only implied.
There's also a sappy love story with the very lovely and nubile Sophia Loren. She is the daughter of the King's champion that Charlton Heston killed in a duel for slapping his father in the face with his glove. Sophia vows to take revenge on Charlton, but ultimately she just can't resist his Charlton Heston studliness, and ultimatelyshe surrenders to his tender-yet-manly embrace. Not very steamy by today's standards, but as hard as it is to imagine chicks actually go for that sort of thing.
There's a lot of fine swashbuckling. The scene where Charlton jousts to the death the champion of a rival king for the control of some Spanish city is Hollywood at its best.
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
2005-03-16 07:21 | User Profile
[B][I] - "However, one of the subplots is that a group of Andalusian Muslims side with El Cid against the Morroccan ben Yousef's invading army. These Moors are portrayed as potentially loyal Spanish subjects, and it seems to me that there was some sort of multi-culti implication that there was room in Spain for both Christians and Moors under a united Christian crown. That's a very dangerous notion, and I personally found it objectionable."[/I][/B]
It's not even any subplot, it's practically one of the main themes and made very obvious.
"El Cid" therefore contains a very clear prototype of multiculturalism, and so I didn't think it was such a good film.
The producer of this film was some Samuel Bronston (a disguised form of "Bronstein"), so the PC injection was perhaps inevitable.
Petr
2005-03-16 07:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "However, one of the subplots is that a group of Andalusian Muslims side with El Cid against the Morroccan ben Yousef's invading army. These Moors are portrayed as potentially loyal Spanish subjects, and it seems to me that there was some sort of multi-culti implication that there was room in Spain for both Christians and Moors under a united Christian crown. That's a very dangerous notion, and I personally found it objectionable."[/I][/B]
It's not even any subplot, it's practically one of the main themes and made very obvious.
"El Cid" therefore contains a very clear prototype of multiculturalism, and so I didn't think it was such a good film.
The producer of this film was some Samuel Bronston (a disguised form of "Bronstein"), so the PC injection was perhaps inevitable.
Petr[/QUOTE]
I think we have to juxtapose that with all the Christian symbolism.
El Cid is wandering in exile when he meets in front of three crosses a leper named Lazarus. He speaks to a mysterious little girl in front of a well who offers him the shelter of "her Father" (prototype of Mary). Vows made on the Bible have tangible spiritual force. In the end El Cid rides through the surf with a large cross emblazoned on his shield. It really is quite overwhelming.
And besides, I think that such tactical alliances are possible and even likely. Christians betrayed El Cid to the Moors, but Moorish allies of El Cid saved him from that ambush. I don't know what the history in detail, but that rings true to me on a tactical level. It is the larger, strategic implication that multiculturalism can work that I find terribly dangerous. However, even if that is what El Cid thought, it can easily be pointed out that he was mistaken in that. The Moors (and the Jews) were forced out of Spain only several centuries later, under Isabella, when the experiment was finally proved unworkable.
I agree it's a blemish, but for me it doesn't ruin the whole film for instruction purposes.
2005-03-16 07:51 | User Profile
Charlton Heston brings a certain amount of unintentional self-parody into all his roles. Unless the picture allows for that - gives him a chance to at least fake being in on the joke - it's kind of hard to take him seriously.
Maybe I'm being unfair to EL CID, though. I saw it once, years ago, but it was that horrible, and horrible-looking, pan-n-scan print that circulated on tv and videotape for years. So it was kind of a dull, expensive blur to me - at least it is now. I'm sure if I catch the widescreen cut it would improve immeasurably.
2005-03-20 06:29 | User Profile
I've been forced to the conclusion that Heston was pretty much a hack. I saw him as Gordon in Khartoum again the other day: his "English" accent was embarrassingly bad. Olivier destroyed him in their scenes together.
He was good in Will Penny, and I like several other movies he was in (Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes,The Omega Man) - but those were good in spite of him, for the most part.
2005-03-20 08:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]He was good in Will Penny, and I like several other movies he was in (Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes,The Omega Man) - but those were good in spite of him, for the most part. [/QUOTE]Kirk Douglas and Charleton Heston were the Bill Shatner's of their day -- their ham fisted overacting was so bad that it was actually good. As for Omega Man, this was a big budget "Good looking Nordic white man bones bubble lipped Moon Cricket with monstrously large 'fro" remake of an obscure Italian Vincent Price vehicle, "The Last Man on Earth", which was not only truer to Richard Matheson's short novel "I am Legend", but the cinematic negative of "Omega Man" in that it featured bone chilling atmospheric horror and a superb performance by the master of the macabre in a low budget flick that rivalled 'Plan 9 from outer space' for cheesy special effects.
2005-03-20 16:49 | User Profile
I note that Yggdrasil rated "[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JMJ4/qid=1111337862/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3858053-2995340?v=glance&s=dvd]Lost in Translation[/URL]" as a White Nationalist Classic.
Any thoughts on why he might have done that (it's "lost" on me)?
2005-03-20 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]I've been forced to the conclusion that Heston was pretty much a hack. I saw him as Gordon in Khartoum again the other day: his "English" accent was embarrassingly bad. Olivier destroyed him in their scenes together.
He was good in Will Penny, and I like several other movies he was in (Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes,The Omega Man) - but those were good in spite of him, for the most part.[/QUOTE]
It's good to see you posting again, NBF.
Not only was Heston incapable of doing accents convincingly, he was incapable of playing anything other than the tough guy hero. And for that matter, he could only play the American tough guy hero - even in El Cid and Khartoum he's basically playing an old west cowboy.
The surest sign of a hack actor is when they play the same part in movie after movie. In spite of his pretenses to the contrary (i.e. his attempts at Shakespeare) was basically a type-cast "personality actor" who took the same hard-bitten, rather monotone persona to every role he was in. I put him in the same league as John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, if of a somewhat higher calliber.
2005-03-21 00:12 | User Profile
Say, anybody here ever see the movie Xanadu with Olivia Newton-John? I just checked it out at the library a few days ago. It has to be one of the most hideously horrible movies of all time. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. :blink:
2005-03-21 00:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I know, because I, Stanley Kubrick, was at that Party. So was Barbara. So was Bill. And the dyke dancing with the hooker was Hillary.":[/QUOTE]
Well ... that explains the dearth of little boys and girls. Kubrick was slumming with Dems instead of enjoying the Pink Ballets of the super-elite?
As for the 200 million number, I think the bar's getting lower every day. [url=www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=15312912%26method=full%26siteid=106694%26headline=-name_page.html]Super-Rich Orgy[/url]
Though I do believe it will be sometime before the human sacrifice (which Malachi Martin disclosed to Christopher Story as happening any night of the week in New York) also a part of the spectacle becomes sufficiently commonplace as to obviate its usefulness for compromise and blackmail.
2005-03-21 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]banging the secretary[/QUOTE]
Don't you ever wonder who it is your wife wants to bang almost daily besides you? Or is that a singularly female self-destructive trait which primes her for jealousy?
2005-03-21 01:13 | User Profile
What did your kids think of Nemo?
I love the film ... though I had to see it twice right away because I was so stunned by the image of a Dad holding an embryo in his fin and pledging his protection that I couldn't quite concentrate first time around.
2005-03-21 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Don't you ever wonder who it is your wife wants to bang almost daily besides you? Or is that a singularly female self-destructive trait which primes her for jealousy?[/QUOTE]
Male jealousy is a very different green-eyed critter from the female variety...
2005-03-21 03:30 | User Profile
Maybe someday you can expound on a thread where the subject's "on topic".
I had a guy who taught me to be jealous once ... strewing little pearls of wisdom such as "A woman's never jealous of the right other woman." Self-deprecating sorts aren't as susceptible to jealousy as others, but it still took me a while to shake some of that off.
2005-03-21 04:25 | User Profile
Jealousy's not an entirely negative emotion.
It is good for men and women to understand each other's differences better--certainly things won't get better in the West until they get more in tune with timeless Nature.
2005-03-21 07:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=AntiYuppie]It's good to see you posting again, NBF.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, AY. One of the things I missed was your erudite posts.
[QUOTE]Not only was Heston incapable of doing accents convincingly, he was incapable of playing anything other than the tough guy hero. And for that matter, he could only play the American tough guy hero - even in El Cid and Khartoum he's basically playing an old west cowboy. [/QUOTE]
I once saw him give a crowd an extended taste of one of the characters he played during a C-Span televised speech - and the character was a geriatric chink. Cringe-inducing.
2005-03-21 08:30 | User Profile
Joe Flaherty of the old SCTV show used to play Heston in all their epic- and disaster-movie parodies. He'd "do" Chuck by squinting, breathing hard, talking as if severely constipated, and slapping his palm against his neck to indicate "frustration". Classic.
2005-03-21 09:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Don't you ever wonder who it is your wife wants to bang almost daily besides you? Or is that a singularly female self-destructive trait which primes her for jealousy?[/QUOTE] The inner workings of the female mind are total a mystery to me.
2005-03-21 09:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]What did your kids think of Nemo?
I love the film ... though I had to see it twice right away because I was so stunned by the image of a Dad holding an embryo in his fin and pledging his protection that I couldn't quite concentrate first time around.[/QUOTE] My kids loved it.
The animation was wonderful, too.
What did you think of "Lost in Translation?" Any thoughts on why Ygg would have tagged it "WNC?"
2005-03-21 13:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What did you think of "Lost in Translation?" Any thoughts on why Ygg would have tagged it "WNC?"[/QUOTE]
I'm sure it is because it captures and presents, albeit rather abstractly, the alienation of a stranger in a strange land.
2005-03-21 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I'm sure it is because it captures and presents, albeit rather abstractly, the alienation of a stranger in a strange land.[/QUOTE]
Whats even more alienating, Kierkegaardian Brother, is to become a stranger in one's own land...
2005-03-21 20:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I'm sure it is because it captures and presents, albeit rather abstractly, the alienation of a stranger in a strange land.[/QUOTE]
The Bill Murray character was alienated from about everything, including his wife.
And he is in Japan, with the Japanese being what they are in all their glory. He's like a "white crow" as the Russians say.
But I don't see how that makes it a WNC.
2005-03-21 21:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Bill Murray character was alienated from about everything, including his wife.
And he is in Japan, with the Japanese being what they are in all their glory. He's like a "white crow" as the Russians say.
But I don't see how that makes it a WNC.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I can't see how [B]Lost In Translation[/B] is a White Nationalis classic, but I did like the movie alot. It was a haunting and very sublime film. I even bought the soundtrack.
Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film maker of all time. Period. If you liked Kubrick's classic masterpiece "[B]Barry Lyndon[/B]" based on William Makepeace Thackery's novel, then you might like the current film [B]"Vanity Fair"[/B] based on the Thackery novel of the same title. It doesn't even come close to "[B]Barry Lyndon[/B]", not even close, BUT, if you like these sort of 19th Century stories of hangers-on mixing with nobility, conniving and backstabbing their rise in status, and then only to see them crash and burn, then you might like "[B]Vanity Fair.[/B]" Great cinematography too.
I do NOT recommend anyone see the Coen Bros. film "[B]The Ladykillers[/B]"! Wow what an anti-White disaster that movie was! Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!
2005-03-21 22:08 | User Profile
What are people's thoughts on [URL=http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html]Metropolitan[/URL] ?
2005-03-21 22:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Bill Murray character was alienated from about everything, including his wife.
And he is in Japan, with the Japanese being what they are in all their glory. He's like a "white crow" as the Russians say.
But I don't see how that makes it a WNC.[/QUOTE]
In my humble opinion, Yggdrasil's one fault is his willingness to conjure up White Nationalist subtexts hidden in films where no White consciousness exists at all.
2005-03-21 23:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]... you might like the current film [B]"Vanity Fair"[/B] based on the Thackery novel of the same title. It doesn't even come close to "[B]Barry Lyndon[/B]", not even close, BUT, if you like these sort of 19th Century stories of hangers-on mixing with nobility, conniving and backstabbing their rise in status, and then only to see them crash and burn, then you might like "[B]Vanity Fair.[/B]" Great cinematography too.[/QUOTE]
I generally do like 19th-century period pieces (I loved Sense and Sensibility and Emma, for example), but I hated Vanity Fair. The efforts to paint Becky as a feminist heroine were just too heavy-handed for my taste. Reese Witherspoon gave a fine performance as Becky, but the liesurely Thackeray novel was too hacked, compressed and rushed into a feature-film time frame for smooth narrative. This was a sumptuous propaganda piece for the Womyns' Resource Center, rather than a thoughtful adaptation of a literary classic. The fact that it was directed by a wogess with little or no understanding of or respect for Thackeray's own culture may have a great deal to do with all these faults:
[url]http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0619762/bio[/url]
You have to watch the interview with this woman on the DVD special features to get a true feel for the complete myopia she brings to her nominal source material.
In an interview with a worshipful Jeff Otto, Mira Nair said: "I think in the tale of Becky Sharp, she was modern then, and she's totally timeless nowââ¬Â¦ Then, to have a Becky, who didn't like the cards that society gave her and to create her own deck was a radical thingââ¬Â¦ Today, we are still doing that as women especially." To her, Vanity Fair was a tome about Womyns' Empowerment.
Fans of the Harry Potter films will be relieved to know that, although a worshipful film industry offered her the director's seat for Order of the Phoenix, she declined to bring her special dusky magic to that upcoming picture.
I do agree with you about the cinematography, though. Stunning. Pity the rest of the film couldn't match it.
2005-03-22 08:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Joe Flaherty of the old SCTV show used to play Heston in all their epic- and disaster-movie parodies. He'd "do" Chuck by squinting, breathing hard, talking as if severely constipated, and slapping his palm against his neck to indicate "frustration". Classic.[/QUOTE]
Ah, SCTV. I miss that show. Bob & Doug MacKenzie, the Shmenge Bros., Count Floyd, "Gimme a 'C' - a bouncy 'C'!" :biggrin: .....
2005-03-22 09:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What did you think of "Lost in Translation?" Any thoughts on why Ygg would have tagged it "WNC?"[/QUOTE]
To answer your first question, I give it two thumbs down. It dragged on too long, the characters were unlikeable, and the humour was tepid and lame e.g. "Loger Moore". Funny because Japanese people pronounce "r" as "l". Ha! Excuse me while I die laughing. I liked Murray better in "Meatballs".
Also, there is no WNC element to it at all, IMHO.
2005-03-22 11:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]What are people's thoughts on [URL=http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html]Metropolitan[/URL] ?[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen it.
Can't find it on DVD.
2005-03-22 13:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Ah, SCTV. I miss that show. [/QUOTE]
While SNL was mired in topical humor....sketches based on whatever was in the news that week...SCTV went the complete other direction and cross-hybridized all sorts of pop-culture detritus. You'd never have any idea who was President, or what the Issues of the Day were, while watching it. Like "The Road to Fantasy Island", which dropped Hope (Dave Thomas) and Crosby (Flaherty) on Ricardo Montalban's (Eugene Levy) tropical hideaway, with a miniaturized John Candy superimposed on the footage as the midget Tattoo. Completely surreal.
I remember once they satirized 40s jungle melodramas like "White Cargo" and "The Bribe" - although it's hard to believe most viewers in the 80s even recognized the genre, or those specific sources, by then. To further season this lunatic stew, they introduced the obligatory pair of freewheeling American tourists to interact with all the sinister villagers and shady European emigres: the ultra-obscure 60s lounge act Sandler & Young. It was hilarious if you recognized the references and bewildering if you didn't. But then, if you were bewildered, you'd [I]already [/I] changed the channel to SNL.
That's what I loved about SCTV. It temporarily liberated you from topical, this-just-in, Carson-monologue humor - by not only revving up the Wayback Machine, but throwing a monkey wrench inside at the last minute for good luck.
Besides all the great characters NB has already listed, mention must be made of Don Caballero, the cheapskate station owner who could walk perfectly well, but preferred a wheelchair because it looked more dignified.
2005-03-23 12:07 | User Profile
I watched [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005PJ8O/qid=1111578886/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3858053-2995340?v=glance&s=dvd]Patton[/URL] last night, starring the late, great George C. Scott.
It swept the Oscars in 1970. I thought it was a very good film.
While I grow somewhat weary of looking for WN moments in these films (a habit of mind I regretably seem to have formed), I have to say there were a few here.
First, the Germans were portrayed rather positively. Patton heaps praise on Rommel and the abilities of the German soldier. He says that being a member of the Nazi party wasn't that different from being a Republican or a Democrat in the States. There was no talk of German atrocities, and the Holocaust wasn't mentioned. The only Jewish reference that I noticed were two Stars of David prominently displayed among the crosses marking the graves of American dead in North Africa.
Second, and perhaps most surprisingly, he says at the end that America fought "the wrong people" and should have instead fought the Soviets.
Third, all the players were white. The only black was an American sargeant who was Patton's personal servant. A very dignified role, too. He was Patton's confidant, as is fitting for an American soldier.
The American Third Army is rightly portrayed as pulling off a series of stunning victories that no other army could have matched.
The film is a pean to the American fighting man, and to a lesser extent a well-earned bow in the direction of our Limey cousins.
The only thing I didn't like about the flick (aside from the fact that it's three hours long!) is that it didn't deal with Patton's death in a car accident shortly after the war ended in what I think were suspicious circumstances. In the film Patton's death is presaged by a runaway oxcart that nearly kills him, but for General Bradley pulling him out of harm's way at the last second. Patton says something to the effect that wouldn't it be ironic that he would get killed in some accident after slogging through the war on two fronts.
Patton's alleged murder is raw meat for us conspiracy theorist types, and stopping the film on the eve of his death seems unfair to both Patton and the audience. The ending just seemed artificial and contrived to me for that reason. And it is well known that Patton rejected that anti-German Morganthau plan, that would have reduced the great German people to rural poverty for at least a generation and left Western Europe vulnerable to a Soviet attack. So we have a Kosher motive. There's also some question as to Patton's political ambitions (although the film states explicity that he had none), and so there's a political motive from the forces in the States jockeying to draft WWII generals to their cause (like especially Eisenhauer).
But that's more of a quibble than anything else. Other than that ducking of a very controversial issue of Patton's death, I think the film is very much worth a second look.
2005-03-24 16:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I watched [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005PJ8O/qid=1111578886/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3858053-2995340?v=glance&s=dvd]Patton[/URL] last night, starring the late, great George C. Scott.
It swept the Oscars in 1970. I thought it was a very good film.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of how it may look now, I clearly recall how Patton was marketed at the time of its release. Its aim was to show what a disgusting pillar of the Establishment George Patton was; to hold him up to the ridicule and marijuana-drenched scorn of the countercultural left. Heebiewood -- and a very substantial portion of the ticket-buying audience -- regarded Patton as a goose-stepping militaristic robot, scarcely one step above a (gasp!) Nazi. The film was supposed to reinforce that flower-power stereotype by showing him in what the left considered the worst possible light.
Like Cabaret, its long-term effect has been quite the opposite of what was intended.
2005-03-24 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]Regardless of how it may look now, I clearly recall how Patton was marketed at the time of its release. Its aim was to show what a disgusting pillar of the Establishment George Patton was; to hold him up to the ridicule and marijuana-drenched scorn of the countercultural left. Heebiewood -- and a very substantial portion of the ticket-buying audience -- regarded Patton as a goose-stepping militaristic robot, scarcely one step above a (gasp!) Nazi. The film was supposed to reinforce that flower-power stereotype by showing him in what the left considered the worst possible light.
Like Cabaret, its long-term effect has been quite the opposite of what was intended.[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting observation.
I don't recall much about the original release at all.
I must say though that it's hard to see it as anything except flattering to both Patton and the American military. Patton was portrayed as being something of a megalomaniacal peacock (he even calls himself a "primadonna") but he's also shown as being very human. He kisses one of his soldiers who held out all night in fierce combat while his tanks were unable to maneuvre because they were denied gasoline. He shouts his praise for the men of the Third Army.
Like you say, if the intention was to denigrate both the memory of Patton and the American military, they definitely shot themselves in the foot.
2005-07-29 21:18 | User Profile
I just saw 'The Searchers' with John Wayne, which is a quite explicitly pro-white Western. I also recently saw the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, which seems to be Ridley Scott's finest work. What do you folks think of these two films?
2005-07-29 23:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]In my humble opinion, Yggdrasil's one fault is his willingness to conjure up White Nationalist subtexts hidden in films where no White consciousness exists at all.[/QUOTE]I think you are confusing "subtexts" with "intent".
One can read subtexts into anything, regardless of the intent of the author/director.
2005-07-29 23:45 | User Profile
I just got The Incredibles on DVD.
Yggdrasil should definitely watch this DVD; he might find it worth a written review as well.
A very fun, pro-white movie: pro-white by subtext, of course; I have no way of knowing the intent of Brad Bird, the writer/director of The Incredibles, and before that, of Iron Giant.
This film is also Pixar's latest, but more adult oriented than the previous Pixar films. In other words, except for the action sequences, most of the movie will be a bit over the heads of the kiddies.
The story is a typical comic book superhero scenario, with a twist: the superheros have been driven out of work by incessant lawsuits by a greedy, resentful, jealous public.
The Incredibles are a family of superheros trying to "fit in". There are a number of interesting anti-egalitarian observations that "when everyone is special, no one is" and "when everyone is super, no one is", and the general exaltation of mediocrity in modern society.
There is an early scene with the the son, Dash, in trouble in the principal's office with a stereotypically Jewish school teacher, which Ygg might find interesting.
The superhero abilities mirror the personalities: Dashiel, or "Dash" is a potential "ritalin kid": he can run fast, hyperactive, etc. Violet is the shy, body conscious early teen girl, who feels invisible, and also can turn invisible and put up force fields. The baby Jack-Jack is still "without powers". The overextended "soccer Mom" can stretch; in her former life she was Elastigirl (voiced by Holly Hunter, one of my favs). The father is Mr. Incredible, typical muscled superhero, indestructable, etc.
There are some themes here that are more adult oriented than kid oriented: trouble at work, oppressive boss, male midlife crisis, suspected adultery, marriage trouble, etc.
But this isn't a movie that dwells on such problems overmuch; these problems are dealt with a light touch, and sets up the happy resolution and coming together of the family in the second half of the movie.
As is explained in the bonus DVD "making of" section, The Incredibles is about "things exploding and people hugging".
There is the "token black character" a "freeze ray" type called Frozone, amusingly voiced by Samuel L. Jackson. This was the only nod to political correctness, and it's only a very small part of the movie and does not detract from the overall movie.
I won't go into any more details, except to say that there is a lot of material here about white families and their contemporary problems that Ygg might find to be suitable material for a review.
More importantly, this is a fun movie, a joy to watch. I've watched it over and over many times, it's a gorgeous, well written movie. The voice talent is outstanding, matched perfectly by some unbelievable animation. This is a living cartoon; unlike some creepy movies that have tried to make "life like" copies of real humans, that just look wrong, The Incredibles understands the virtues of caricature, capturing the essence of a personality rather than wasting time with an almost, but never quite good enough, attempt to duplicate "reality".
There's also some fun extra material on the bonus DVD, including a short called "Jack-Jack Attacks" which shows what happened to the baby sitter, and the "Boundin" short cartoon that was playing in theaters before The Incredibles.
Anyway, fun movie, fun DVD, highly recommend.
2005-07-30 01:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I think you are confusing "subtexts" with "intent".
One can read subtexts into anything, regardless of the intent of the author/director.[/QUOTE]
One can, but that doesn't one should. If you look around here [url="http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/"]http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/[/url]
you will find the same thing, but from a communist point of view. Most reviews decide one of three things about the films in question: 1. an exploration of class struggle, 2. Capitalist/Imperialist propaganda or 3. a more nebulous category, not quite distinct from 1 and/or 2 but the film is deemed disgusting, but interesting as a case study of horrors of modern life.
2005-07-30 01:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]One can, but that doesn't one should. If you look around here [url="http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/"]http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/[/url]
you will find the same thing, but from a communist point of view. Most reviews decide one of three things about the films in question: 1. an exploration of class struggle, 2. Capitalist/Imperialist propaganda or 3. a more nebulous category, not quite distinct from 1 and/or 2 but the film is deemed disgusting, but interesting as a case study of horrors of modern life.[/QUOTE]Well, if you don't like this kind of movie review, don't read it.
People have been doing this kind of "review" since they first began to think systematically about things.
There are different kinds of reviews; some are motivated by notions of art, others by notions of "entertainment value", others by religious or political points of view. All are valid ways of reviewing things.
I enjoy reading reviews in any and all of the above categories. If you find one of these categories not to your taste, stop reading them.
2005-07-30 06:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I just saw 'The Searchers' with John Wayne, which is a quite explicitly pro-white Western. I also recently saw the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, which seems to be Ridley Scott's finest work. What do you folks think of these two films?[/QUOTE]
Chances are, I watched at least the majority of "The Searchers" while flipping channels during the 1970s, but all those Westerns I watched during the Carter and Ford administrations have kind of all run together in my head, so I can't comment on it.
Any film as praised as "Blade Runner" is over-rated, however, in this particular instance, its a bit less over-rated than one would have reason to expect (translation: despite being over-rated, its still damn good). Its certainly one of the best sci-fi films (definitely Top 10, probably Top 5, and a credible candidate for Best of All Time). I can personally vouch for it being extremely faithful to the Phillip K. Dick novel [u]Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?[/u], upon which it is based (but was given a more "mainstream"/mediocre/unimaginative/uncreative title; the original title is actually quite good and appropriate for the subject matter). I also know Phillip K. Dick regarded the film, by virtue of the fact it was based on his novel, to be his greatest achievement (he died a few months later).
2005-07-30 06:30 | User Profile
Does anyone know the story behind George C. Scott's refusal to accept the Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Gen. Patton?
In regards to Gen. Rommel, he was quite the magnificent bastard. And his book comes highly recommended.... :jester:
2005-07-30 12:20 | User Profile
I don't think any of the Dick movies have ever really captured his uniquely paranoid worldview. BLADE RUNNER (at least the director's cut) is a handsome-looking film but far too enervated and glacial to really build up any momentum. I gen'ly find Ridley Scott to be an faux-arty bore. He can compose images that knock you for six but there's rarely any narrative force or character-depth in his movies. And for some reason he ends them all with climactic cat-and-mouse confrontations that drearily stick to another source text, How to Make A Summer Blockbuster.
Probably the closest thing I've seen to an ideal Dick movie isn't even based on a Dick story. There was, 20 years ago or so, a low-budget, made-for-PBS movie called THE LATHE OF HEAVEN (based on an Ursula LeGuin story) that actually captures the Dick flavor - of the grotesque amid the commonplace, and the banality of dystopia (which actualy makes the dystopia even more awful a prospect) - quite well. It also is surprisingly faithful to the Dickian device of the protagonist being an ordinary common man - Kafkaesque, almost - as opposed to the two-fisted action-movie-guys they keep casting in these proper Dick adaptations. Philip Dick had a fertile imagination, but I don't think even he could've foreseen Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ben Affleck or Tom Cruise portraying the characters he'd written.
2005-07-30 12:27 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "I don't think any of the Dick movies have ever really captured his uniquely paranoid worldview. "[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Philip K. Dick was a quite typical [B]neo-Gnostic[/B], so I don't think his paranoia was [B]that[/B] unique, especially if you know something about the wacky dogmas of this ancient heresy.
Petr
2005-07-30 12:45 | User Profile
I have yet to encounter a writer of fiction who has passed your white-glove test, Petr.
And yes I am familiar with his gnosticism but that didn't manifest fully until his last three novels which grew increasingly more demented. I don't think Dick was fully sane when he'd written them; few people do. His earlier work however was most unique in its paranoia mainly because nobody else was even remotely touching on his themes as obssessively as he was: fear of technology allied to militarism, fear of false memories blurring authentic existence from manufactured existence, and of being so conditioned as to no longer tell the real from the only-apparently-real. Other writers have mined the territory, particularly since Dick's death, but I can't think of anyone who merged coming technological/superstate nightmares with small-town mundanity the way he did. Particularly in his tyro period of the early 50s, when he was primarily writig short stories, a decade before he'd begin reshaping them into his novels.
2005-07-30 13:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]snip Other writers have mined the territory, particularly since Dick's death, but I can't think of anyone who merged coming technological/superstate nightmares with small-town mundanity the way he did. Particularly in his tyro period of the early 50s, when he was primarily writig short stories, a decade before he'd begin reshaping them into his novels.[/QUOTE]
As you and I discussed here a while back, IMHO the really important Dickian SF "B" movie for us is "Screamers."
"Screamers" is a very powerful (and visually interesting) parable of the terrible power of our own evolved tribal defense instincts that are made a million times more lethal by our brains' hardwired ability to hide our true profoundly aggressive intentions from our conscious minds.
AS E. O. Wilson pointed out, the sincere man who is consciously convinced of his cause is always stronger than the liar or hypocrite. Evolution made sure that we all have the ability to advance our group interests by adopting with complete conscious sincerity the interests of the out-group. This sincerity makes the out-group view us as their own, and allows us to gain entry into the enemy camp.
In other words, by dressing our genocidal intent in warm smiles and self-sacrificial gestures of in-group concern that we adopt with all conscious honesty, we induce the enemy to lower his guard. We achieve this appearance of honesty by means of our brains' hardwiring automatically concealing our true hateful intentions from our conscious minds. And once we've gained access to the enemy's internal council, the blades come out and horrible damage is wreaked upon the enemy, for he is defenseless at that moment.
Our conscious minds are often shocked by the results. Our conscious minds really feel pain after the subconscious takes over and works out its plan, but that's a small price to pay. The world commits genocide, and then repents and gnashes its teeth over man's inhumanity to man, even as it moves to commit more mass murder.
E.O. Wilson described this phenomenon well, albeit briefly, in his "On Human Nature." This is the same natural phenomenon that is the subject of Prof. McDonald's trilogy. The thing that gives Jews their power over us is that most of them are completely sincere in their protestations of only wanting the best for us, even as their group defense instinct guides them unseen to equisitely coordinated attacks on us effortlessly. Their sincerity makes us trust them enough to let them into our inner circle. Sincerity is the key to Jewish power.
"Screamers" is an exceedingly important film for us, as it illustrates beautifully the painful truth about our own depraved hearts. But since this evolved tribal defense instinct that is concealed from our conscious minds is exactly the thing that allowed our enemies the Jews access to our camp, it is of vital importance that all of us whites get this point and get it now.
"Screamers" is a comic book version of Kevin McDonald. It's educational value is beyond measure for us.
It should have a prominent place on the classics list.
2005-07-30 13:41 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Evolution made sure that we all have the ability to advance our group interests by adopting with complete conscious sincerity the interests of the out-group."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
I do not like these evolutionist just-so stories. Here you are using the abstract concept of "evolution" as a theleologically personified force. And what evidence there is for the existence opf these "memes" that seem to be the latest evo fad?
Petr
2005-07-30 13:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Evolution made sure that we all have the ability to advance our group interests by adopting with complete conscious sincerity the interests of the out-group."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
I do not like these evolutionist just-so stories. Here you are using the abstract concept of "evolution" as a theleologically personified force. And what evidence there is for the existence opf these "memes" that seem to be the latest evo fad?
Petr[/QUOTE]
Read E. O. Wilson's "On Human Nature."
It's all there.
And doesn't it make sense?
If Nature can camoflauge an insect to look so much like a twig that it even has false leaves with insect damage (it can), then it can design the human brain to conceal its true intentions from the conscious mind.
Again, this is the basis of McDonald's insight. It's extremely important that we all get this.
As a Catholic, I view this as a Natural Law proof of original sin. Calvin was right - our hearts truly are utterly depraved.
2005-07-30 14:14 | User Profile
Walt, Are you familiar with The Searchers? It tells the story of Ethan, a former Confederate soldier, whose brother's family is butchered by Comanches, with the exception of his niece, who is taken captive. Ethan then embarks on a five year quest to recover the niece from the Indians, accompanied by his one-eighth Cherokee adopted nephew. This movie is a powerful meditation on in-group/out-group dynamics. What does it mean to be part of a group? How much is blood? How much is self-identification? To what lengths are we willing to go to protect the integrity of our group from outsiders? In one scene, the two searchers see some white women who have been recently rescued from sexual slavery at the hands of the Comanche, and who are whooping and wailing. The young man says something about how he has never seen white women act that way, to which Ethan replies, "They're not white anymore." Highly recommended.
As for Blade Runner, I don't know what to think. I have heard such wildly varying interpretations of the film, that I have been unable to form a solid opinion.
2005-07-30 14:22 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "If Nature can camoflauge an insect to look so much like a twig that it even has false leaves with insect damage (it can), then it can design the human brain to conceal its true intentions from the conscious mind."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
It smells of the same kind of [B]superstition[/B] as the Freudian psychoanalysis - that the conscious mind is a mere plaything of the id. It would also deny the very concept of free will.
(And I do not believe in the existence of any personified "Nature" either. Naturalists deny the existence of God, consistent theists deny the existence of "Nature" with a big "N".)
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Again, this is the basis of McDonald's insight. It's extremely important that we all get this.""[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
I have never been impressed with MacDonald's evolutionist theorizing - I just liked the way he managed to assemble the empirical evidence against Jews in a systematic, non-polemical, in a word respectable manner. His evo-theories were just a baggage to me.
Petr
2005-07-30 15:03 | User Profile
I have yet to encounter a writer of fiction who has passed your white-glove test, Petr.
As the very act of writing fiction is a manner of playing God, I stand by the above statement. Petr has admonished the faithful against everyone from Aeschylus to Chekhov to Twain to whomever you care to name. His literary criticism is just that, with no exceptions that I've seen.
PS: with the lone exception of BLADE RUNNER, bear in mind that all the "Dick movies" have been freely - way freely- adapted from his early short stories. MINORITY REPORT...a 2-hour-and-20-minute movie...was "fleshed out" from a 15-page story. SCREAMERS was taken from one of my favorites, "Second Variety", barely a novelette. Etc, etc. The thing to be wary of is what they're padding these stories [I]with[/I], which is often a load of unDickian action-movie tripe.
The best thing about the Dick movies, bad as some of them are, is that each new one keeps THE COLLECTED STORIES OF PHILIP K DICK (a 5-volume set) in print....which is not only fortunate but remarkable, as the short story collection is a fast-disappearing species in our world. When these stories wre first written, Dick was turning them out at a rate of one a week, tryng to establish himself in the pulps....as you might expect, the prose is not elegant and the dialogue clunky at times (not a situation that rectified itself when he turned novelist, btw) but I highly recommend any/all of them as startling glimpses into an incredibly fertile mind. Dick did not, as many sf writers did and still do, employ 'series' characters or recurring backgrounds to set his stories in. Each time out, he literally started with a blank page, and filled it with his mad and prescient ideas; he'd tighten up the second draft, put it in the mail, and begin another. Even after he'd made his mark as a novelist, he'd occasionally return to the short form with always-interesting results. His anti-abortion story, "The Pre Persons" (1973) is still one of the most compelling arguments against the practice, sf or not. By setting his story in a near-future where 'abortion trucks' operate like dog catchers, scooping up kids under 12 no longer wanted by their parents for prompt gassing at local abortion centers, he was making a grimly-effective point about how slides down slippery slopes begin, and where they must inevitably lead to. He was eaten alive by the feminists and the lib-left for writing it, but commented a short time later:
[QUOTE]"I admit that this story amounts to special pleading, and I'm sorry to offend those who disagree with me about abortion-on-demand. But for the pre-person's sake I am not sorry. "[I]Hier steh' Ich; Ich kann nicht anders[/I]", as Martin Luther said. I stand where I stand". [/QUOTE]
2005-07-30 18:05 | User Profile
I have never been much of a movie buff (or a fiction reader, for that matter) but lately I have realized what, in retrospect, seems like a very obvious point. Most people are never going to deeply explore the intricacies of Christian theology, or thoroughly analyse the arguments of Culture of Critique, or meditate deeply upon the differences between truth and the propaganda they see everyday. The masses will never be reached in these ways. They will, however, respond to art -- fiction, music, movies, theater, etc. that speak to them on a level that is more experiential than analytical. In the work of reclaiming Western Civilization, the artist and the poet are at least as important as the statesman and the theorist.
2005-07-30 19:59 | User Profile
Petr, why do you object to Chekhov amd Aeschylus? I would guess that the issue with Aeschylus comes from the views of justice in the Oresteia ?
2005-07-30 20:22 | User Profile
[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Petr, why do you object to Chekhov amd Aeschylus?"[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[B]I do not[/B] (not to Aeschylus at least). Il Ragno just [B]put words into my mouth[/B]. This borders on lying about me. Ragno constantly tries to turn his opponents into crude caricatures, and since he such a darn funny-guy, many people do not even notice it.
(I have said some pretty bitter things about Mark Twain, here:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15604&highlight=gorky[/url]
Petr
2005-07-30 20:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But he should not lend his pen to the support of an ephemeral imperialism, even though the imperialism of Great Britain is humane and the word there means something different from what it means with us. Kipling should sing the songs of the people."[/QUOTE] Interesting that a communist would say this. I have to confess some admiration for some of Gorky's work. He has an amusing vignette about meeting a billionaire and his expectations beforehand.
Faust asks in that thread about Gorky and the Bolsheviks. He was an early critic, and in fact, one of the earliest, and left the nation. He was later invited back by Stalin and even surprisingly (in light of his previous denounciations of the regime) became an apologist for the terror and other assorted Stalinist brutality. It is possible he was under pressure to do this though, and some claim that the government had played some role in his death.
2005-07-30 20:58 | User Profile
Solzhenitsyn displayed quite an acid attitude towards Gorky in his "[I]GULAG Archipelago[/I]", whom he saw as an advocate of the "new Socialist man," cleansed from normal human emotions.
Petr
2005-07-30 20:59 | User Profile
I do not (not to Aeschylus at least). Il Ragno just put words into my mouth.
Just one, obviously: Aeschylus.
And were I to begin a thread praising his plays to the skies, you'd be along in no time, muttering your disapproval. Because you find all non-devotional art to be suspect in nature; and even 90% of the religious art gets the pursed-lips, head-shaking-'no' treatment.
The only toss-up is whether you find the works, or the fact that people admire them, to be more blasphemous.
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17134&page=3&pp=15&highlight=Oscar+Wilde[/url]
It's not just about my personal taste, but the effect I think these works would have on general morality. Plato would probably ban all these authors from his ideal state.
Oscar Wilde was an overrated elitistic faggot. Wilde's works could encourage shallow aestheticism, elitism and smart-aleckiness. (Predecessor of liberal faggoty yuppies)
Ambrose Bierce's tales were often unimaginably depraved and nihilistic and he died in Mexico fighting on the side of mestizo rebel Pancho Villa. Bierce's works could produce sadists and nihilists with little respect for human life, and of course even less for God. ("My Favorite Murder" is stomach-turning)
Mark Twain was Bolshevik symphatizer and an overall liberal puke. Adoring Twain's works could give prestige and justification to Hollywood films that portray White southerners as dumb, violent, racist neanderthals ("Pa Finn," anyone?). Like AntiYuppie put it, he was essentially the Michael Moore of his times.
Gotta love the Wilde quip. Not too surprising that a dogmatic dullard would be up-in-arms over the menace of "smart-aleckiness", eh?
2005-07-30 21:03 | User Profile
[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "And were I to begin a thread praising his plays to the skies, you'd be along in no time, muttering your disapproval. Because you find all non-devotional art to be suspect in nature; and even 90% of the religious art gets the pursed-lips, head-shaking-'no' treatment."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
And there you go again, [B]caricaturing [/B] me and idly speculating about my potential actions in potential situations.
I stand by my words on these authors, except perhaps Wilde would have deserved [B]a bit [/B] less harsher treatment.
Not all "classics" are worth preserving.
Petr
2005-07-30 21:12 | User Profile
Just answer this one question.
Do you find art (painting, literature, music, sculpture, film) not explicitly religious in nature to be generally suspect? Yes or no?
2005-07-30 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Solzhenitsyn displayed quite an acid attitude towards Gorky in his "GULAG Archipelago", whom he saw as an advocate of the "new Socialist man," cleansed from normal human emotions.
Petr[/QUOTE] That is quite true, I do not have an unqualified love for Gorky or anything like that, but some of his stuff is not without merit.
2005-07-30 21:41 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "Do you find art (painting, literature, music, sculpture, film) not explicitly religious in nature to be generally suspect? Yes or no?"[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
NO. "[B]He who is not against us is for us[/B]." (Luke 9:50, NKJ)
With a little training, one can soon detect when art ceases to be elevating or just innocently entertaining, and becomes either aggressively propagandistic (for a wrong cause) or effeminate, degenerate "[I]art pour l'art[/I]" masturbation.
([B]All[/B] art is religious, either explicitly or implicitly, btw.)
Petr
2005-07-30 23:48 | User Profile
Maybe a little off topic here, but heres a skewering of Disnified versions of various works:
[indent]
The Inferno by Dante Aligheri
[size=+2]T[/size]he poet Dante (the voice of Bruce Willis) is led by his friend Virgil (the voice of Anthony Quinn) on a magical trip underground to the land of "Heck." Among the delightful creatures they visit are the lovebirds Paolo and Francesca (the voices of Andrew Dice Clay and Rosie O'Donnell), the Crying Trees (the band Nirvana), and the Five Singing Little Devils (the Jacksons). Moby Dick by Herman Melville
[size=+2]C[/size]rusty seafarer Captain Ahab (the voice of Dom Deluise) and his lovely mermaid friend Fishtail (speaking voice of Brett Butler, singing voice of Alanis Morrissette) take Ahab's young nephew Ishmael (Matthew Broderick) on a delightful romp at sea in search of the legendary great white whale Moby Dick (voice of Robin Williams). Though songs of the whale's evil temper and destructiveness are sung by many of the friendly natives on the islands visited by the jolly crew, Moby turns out to be a lonely, but lovable, giant. Ishmael learns an important lesson: Things aren't always as they appear! Animal Farm by George Orwell
[size=+2]P[/size]igs, chickens, horses -- all the familiar barnyard crowd -- are the heroes of this charming celebration of teamwork and diversity. The poor animals, having suffered for years on a failing farm under the tyranny of the cruel farmer Jones (Robert Goulet), are suddenly liberated when Jones trips and falls down a well. Though things are chaotic at first, the kindly young pigs Snowball (Michael J. Fox) and Napoleon (Eddie Murphy) help the animals all work together to turn the farm into a model of efficiency and happiness. After the animals nurse Jones back to health, he changes his evil ways and promises to treat all living things as his equal. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
[size=+2]W[/size]ith his father dead and his evil uncle Claudius (Sylvester Stallone) now ruling over the once-happy people of Denmark, all seems lost for poor prince Hamlet (Johnny Depp). But Hamlet's father (Leslie Nielson) is only pretending to be dead until he can safely help place his young son on the throne and his evil brother in jail. Featuring an underwater ballet with the beautiful Ophelia (Bette Midler) and the loony antics of a wise-guy skull named Yorick (Rodney Dangerfield), Hamlet's best friend. No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre
[size=+2]O[/size]ld friends Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, and Minnie Mouse are surprised to find themselves sharing a room in a beautiful resort hotel. Their every need is catered to by a mysterious butler (Jim Carrey). Opening in conjunction with Walt Disney World's new attraction, Being-and-Nothingness Land. The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
[size=+2]Y[/size]oung Gregor Samsa (Arnold Schwarzenegger), overwhelmed by the demands of his job as a clerk, wishes each night that he was a creature without responsibility. He is amazed one morning when he awakes to find himself changed into a beautiful beetle, which delights his family and terrifies his cruel boss (Jerry Seinfeld), who is horribly afraid of insects. Jiminy Cricket guides young Gregor to a happy community of insects that nest below the dull city of Prague. Oedipus Rex by Sophocles
[size=+2]T[/size]hanks to the advice of a wise old owl (Sally Kellerman), a young boy (Neil Patrick Harris) avoids many traps set by the evil fates (Candice Bergen, Cybill Shepard, and Mary Tyler Moore) to help save Greece from disaster. The boy, who was stolen from his family at birth, is finally reunited with his loving mother (Barbara Streisand) and father (Bill Cosby). Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
[size=+2]V[/size]ladimir and Estragon (the delightful Chip 'n' Dale) wait for Godot (Rush Limbaugh), who arrives with limitless presents and makes all their dreams come true.
[/indent] [url]http://www.bway.net/~hunger/classics.html[/url]
2005-07-31 00:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=robinder]Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
[size=+2]V[/size]ladimir and Estragon (the delightful Chip 'n' Dale) wait for Godot (Rush Limbaugh), who arrives with limitless presents and makes all their dreams come true.
[/indent] [url]http://www.bway.net/~hunger/classics.html[/url][/QUOTE]
:thumbsup:
2005-07-31 12:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walt, Are you familiar with The Searchers? . . . snip . . As for Blade Runner, I don't know what to think. I have heard such wildly varying interpretations of the film, that I have been unable to form a solid opinion.[/QUOTE]
Yes, in fact I own it on DVD. I agree with your assessment.
As to Blade Runner, I think that it really is a WN film. LA was a multiculti nightmare, the world was run by a very Jewish-looking fellow named Tyrell, and all the Aryans were bred as shortlived slaves. I think that the film even hints that the protaganist cop was a "skin job."
Frankly, I see no other way to view the film. It is a Jewish fantasy - a Jewish-dominated world inhabited by harmless chewies and other mixed-race generic types with the dangerous Aryans their slaves (including sex slaves), who were rendered harmless through control of their memories and sense of identity.
2005-08-04 15:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]The best thing about the Dick movies, bad as some of them are, is that each new one keeps THE COLLECTED STORIES OF PHILIP K DICK (a 5-volume set) in print....which is not only fortunate but remarkable, as the short story collection is a fast-disappearing species in our world.[/QUOTE]
I've read all five volumes myself (and indeed, have them sitting on one of my bookshelves, or soon will, once I unpack them here at our new apartment). Volume 1 was by far the best (you gotta love "Roog," and that story which ends with the human telling the spider "I'm sorry I misunderstood you," right before he's eaten by several billion insects bent on the destruction of humanity), while Volumes 2-4 were also very good. Volume 5 was not that good, in my opinion, but it does include a story that, in addition to being one of the best of Volume 5 irrespective of socio-political considerations, is also a rabidly anti-abortion story that earned Dick death threats from radical feminist individuals & groups.
Dick also gave thousands of dollars to the National Right-to-Life Committee and allowed them to list his name as a supporter in ads published in major newspapers at the time. You hear that, Petr? He was a substantial abortion foe coming out of a decadent, ostensibly liberal-left millieu. That's got to be good for something.
2005-08-04 17:40 | User Profile
I recently re-viewed the 1964 classic film [B]"Becket"[/B] starring Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. Excellent movie. I even think Petr would like it :smile:
I just picked up [B]"Soylent Green"[/B] from the library and anticipate watching this fine classic this weekend. I hope the library didn't put me on "the List" for taking out this movie!
2005-08-04 18:41 | User Profile
Vol. 5 is a bit up-and-down, but then it covers a much broader scope of time than the first 4, being essentially all the short fiction he wrote after becoming a fulltime novelist. About 16 years or so, and maybe unavoidably marked by false starts and abandoned experiments.
But, c'mon, O'Keeffe, there are a few amazing stories in there: "I Hope I Will Arrive Soon" is maybe his ultimate mindf**k story, and "Faith of Our Fathers" is almost as good. "The Electric Ant", "Game of Unchance" and "Retreat Syndrome" and a few others are also worthy additions to the canon. (And of course if Arnie hadn't made TOTAL RECALL in mid-publishing schedule, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" would've appeared in Vol 5 as well.)
2005-08-05 12:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Vol. 5 is a bit up-and-down...But, c'mon, O'Keeffe, there are a few amazing stories in there: "I Hope I Will Arrive Soon" is maybe his ultimate mindf**k story, and "Faith of Our Fathers" is almost as good. "The Electric Ant", "Game of Unchance" and "Retreat Syndrome" and a few others are also worthy additions to the canon. (And of course if Arnie hadn't made TOTAL RECALL in mid-publishing schedule, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" would've appeared in Vol 5 as well.)[/QUOTE]
I didn't realize "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" (which I first read about a decade before Schwarzenegger's mediocre film adaptation) was chronologically aligned with the fifth volume, so to speak; it was one of Dick's better short stories. I read volume 5 in '98, as I recall, so I can't comment on any of the stories you reference; the anti-abortion one is the only Vol. 5 tale I can remember presently. I just know that after reading all five volumes in succession (more or less; I think I read about three other books while reading those five), Volume 5, while worth the purchase price and time spent quite easily, was never-the-less, and by a good margin, my least favorite of the collection. Volume 1 was by a good piece my absolute favorite of the series; "marvelous" would be a good word for it. I would unhesitatingly recommend all five volumes, of course.
2005-08-17 17:02 | User Profile
I recently signed up for Netflix, and I have been slowly working my way through Ygg's list. Recently, I saw Arrowhead and El Cid.
El Cid was an enjoyable old-style Hollywood epic, but I have mixed feelings about it. It did show the Catholic Church in an extremely favorable light, and it portrayed medieval Christian society in Spain quite positively. Furthermore, it showed the invading Moors as fanatical and barbarous. However, it showed El Cid allying himself with Moors already in Spain, and derided those who were unenthusiastic about embracing Muslims as bosom friends. And in a Arabic twist on the 'Numinious Negro' phenomenon, the Moorish allies were also portrayed as almost preternaturally honorable and enlightened, perhaps to offset the portrayal of the Moorish invaders. All in all, I recommend it, but I don't consider it a white classic. I would be remiss if I did not mention that it also starred a young Sophia Loren. Good gracious, was that woman ever smokin'. :yes:
2005-08-17 17:12 | User Profile
Q - good observations on El Cid, I agree. The Christian imagery - which was really quite striking - made up for the sop thrown to Muslims, IMHO. We have crosses salvaged from burning churches, angelic girls appearing at wells and offering refuge to a persecuted couple in a barn, and crosses on the haft of swords raised in defense of a white Christian nation, to name but a few.
Also, I think that one can view this apparent sucking up to these African Muslims as an artistic choice needed to underscore the treachery and back-biting of the white Christian elites, the very things that put the African Muslims in chage over white Christians in the first place. I agree that it didn't really work, and the apparent Jewishness of the director makes one question the true motives of that choice, but all told I think El Cid is a fine film that belongs on our list.
Yesterday I watched Lawrence of Arabia (introducing Peter O'Toole!). Starring also Anthony Quinn, Omar Sherif, and Alec Guiness. I don't think it qualifies for the WNC list, but it did make a racial point, with Lawrence finally pinching his white flesh and telling Omar Sherif that "this is what I am." It also took the whole concept of empires to task, including both the British and Ottoman Empires, while making the point that the Arab nation wound up under first Turkish and then British and French domination because they couldn't put aside their petty tribal differences long enough to fight the common foe.
Any thoughts on Lawrence of Arabia?
2005-08-17 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Any thoughts on Lawrence of Arabia?[/QUOTE] I must shamefacedly admit that I have never seen it, but I plan to soon (it's in my Netflix queue.) As I mentioned in a previous post, I have never been much of a movie buff, so a lot of these are new to me.
Have you seen Arrowhead? What were your impressions?
2005-08-17 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I must shamefacedly admit that I have never seen it, but I plan to soon (it's in my Netflix queue.) As I mentioned in a previous post, I have never been much of a movie buff, so a lot of these are new to me.
Have you seen Arrowhead? What were your impressions?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I bought a copy of Arrowhead. I thought it was quite good. And the racial point couldn't have been more explicit. They just don't make 'em like that anymore!
2005-08-17 17:48 | User Profile
I realize this is heresy but I've always found David Lean overrated. That's not to say he doesn't make a visually sumptious movie, because LOA does feature all that incredible desert photography; but credit for that rightly belongs to Freddie Young, the cameraman.
We tend, in our rock-star culture, to lionize directors overmuch anyway - and usually at the expense of the scenarist and the cameraman. That's not to downplay the work of legitimately fine directors, but, c'mon - few people ever cite the cinematographer, and writers routinely get ignored by critics unless the director also wrote the screenplay. In the case of Lean's movies - LOA in particular - you might as well give God an onscreen credit, since He made the desert; all Lean did was photograph it.
Although LOA was generally well-cast - any movie with Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins and Alec Guinness in it is going to be at least worth a look - O'Toole is another matter. I suppose his mannered, showy turn was his way of wink-winking [I]hey, my character's a homo![/I] at the audience during an era when such things were soft-pedaled, but he's just too over-the-top here; too affected and actorish for my taste. When Anthony Quinn comes off as restrained by comparison, I start hearing the sounding of the Ham Alert.
What's usually true of all of Lean's movies (except his two great Dickens movies of the 40s) is the immediacy isn't there. For all the great visuals and in-depth characterizations (and the intolerable length of most of his epics) I never feel plunged into the story - there's always that dryly professorial air, that Englishman-on-holiday sense of being once removed from the events portrayed. Lean is much better at films set in the UK where he can unclench his rectum and relax that stiff upper lip. (RYAN'S DAUGHTER may not be any good but at least there's some authentic, unrehearsed emotion in it.) For me, the best Lean is still the one-two punch of his OLIVER TWIST and GREAT EXPECTATIONS.
2005-08-17 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE][il ragno]I realize this is heresy but I've always found David Lean overrated. That's not to say he doesn't make a visually sumptious movie, because LOA does feature all that incredible desert photography; but credit for that rightly belongs to Freddie Young, the cameraman.[/QUOTE]
It was a visually rapturous film. Just a feast for the eyes.
[QUOTE]In the case of Lean's movies - LOA in particular - you might as well give God an onscreen credit, since He made the desert; all Lean did was photograph it. [/QUOTE] You're a genius, Ragman.
[QUOTE]Although LOA was generally well-cast - any movie with Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins and Alec Guinness in it is going to be at least worth a look - O'Toole is another matter. [/QUOTE]
I agree. O'Toole really overacted in those scenes where he feels all this remorse and revulsion at himself for doing what he had to do. I didn't think the whole dissection of Lawrence's character came off well at all.
[QUOTE]I suppose his mannered, showy turn was his way of wink-winking [I]hey, my character's a homo![/I] at the audience during an era when such things were soft-pedaled, but he's just too over-the-top here; too affected and actorish for my taste. [/QUOTE]
You may recall that the Turks give him his soul-shattering scourging after the Turkish general starts feeling him up during interrogation and O'Toole knees him in the nuts. I didn't know what to make of that.
QUOTE For me, the best Lean is still the one-two punch of his OLIVER TWIST and GREAT EXPECTATIONS.[/QUOTE]
It's been a while, but I thought Ryan's Daughter was terrific, with an important WN anti-imperialist message. Maybe one could quibble with the casting and some of the acting, but that's about it. IMHO of course. What didn't you like about it?
Also, the cinematography in Ryan's Daughter was just stunning. As you say, God definitely gets onscreen credit for the "terrible beauty" of Ireland - the Land of the Aryans - captured so brilliantly in that film.
2005-08-17 18:29 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "You may recall that the Turks give him his soul-shattering scourging after the Turkish general starts feeling him up during interrogation and O'Toole knees him in the nuts. I didn't know what to make of that. "[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
It was OBVIOUSLY hinted at that scene that Lawrence was not only scourged but then also [B]sodomized[/B] by Turks.
(There is a glimpse of that Turkish officer peeking from a door at Lawrence being scourged, and he has opened his jacket and his bare chest shows.)
Anyways, I agree with Ragno; "Lawrence of Arabia" is overrated, and so is "Doctor Zhivago," that other Lean flick.
Petr
2005-08-17 19:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][I][B] - It was OBVIOUSLY hinted at that scene that Lawrence was not only scourged but then also [B]sodomized[/B] by Turks.[/QUOTE]
Right. Those Turkish soldiers were eying him greedily.
I thought Dr. Zhivago was another visually stunning film that lacked character depth.
On the topic of Dr. Zhivago, I read recently that John Hartford - the American country/folk music writer (may he rest in peace) - wrote his monster hit "Gentle on My Mind" after seeing Dr. Zhivago for the first time and falling in love with Julie Christie. Mr. Hartford was quoted as saying "I would have drunk that girl's bathwater."
I know how he feels.
2005-08-17 20:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] As to Blade Runner, I think that it really is a WN film. LA was a multiculti nightmare, the world was run by a very Jewish-looking fellow named Tyrell, and all the Aryans were bred as shortlived slaves. I think that the film even hints that the protaganist cop was a "skin job." [/QUOTE]
One might make similar observations about The Fifth Element. If ever there was a multiculti dystopia, it's Luc Bresson's future New York. The president is (of course) a negro and darkies, homosexuals and assorted freaks abound everywhere. The only intelligent people in the whole loathsome Diverse stew are the priest Vito Cornelius (Ian Holm), the resourceful soldier of fortune Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) and the genetically perfect LeeLoo (Milla Jovovich) -- all thoroughly White.
The three of them manage to save the world (a world which the viewer is entitled to wonder is really worth saving), in spite of the melange of incompetent techno-wiggers and coloreds that always manage to get in their way.
Most prominent of all is the flamingly effeminate media creation Ruby Rhod, a scrawny and apparently bisexual negro (worshipped by White girls, of course) whose screeching falsetto and campy mince will ring true with any White who's seen what's become of the "entertainment" industry over the past forty years or so.
If there's any identifiably anti-Chosen thread in this film, I've never been able to identify it. But for a really good look at the logical conclusion to current trends in our debased society, there are few better than The Fifth Element
2005-08-18 02:33 | User Profile
Any thoughts on American History X? I thought it was sick and pointless, I can understand why some of the Skinheads loved it. But I have no idea what the writer were trying to do. The Skinheads came off looking better than the Afro and the plot line did not make much sense from the standpoint of making an anti-"racist" film.
2005-08-18 08:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]"Lawrence of Arabia" is overrated[/QUOTE]
I saw it fairly recently, and I'm inclined to agree,
2005-08-18 09:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Any thoughts on American History X? I thought it was sick and pointless, I can understand why some of the Skinheads loved it. But I have no idea what the writer were trying to do. The Skinheads came off looking better than the Afro and the plot line did not make much sense from the standpoint of making an anti-"racist" film.[/QUOTE]
That movie attempted to be anti-racist proaganda directed at racists, in large part. Its innately contradictory nature made it a confused mess of little note.
2005-08-18 09:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I thought Ryan's Daughter was terrific, with an important WN anti-imperialist message. Maybe one could quibble with the casting and some of the acting, but that's about it. IMHO of course. What didn't you like about it?[/QUOTE]
You know what? [I]Nobody's [/I] seen it in quite some time. In fact, it's my understanding that there are [I]no [/I] existing 70mm prints left of RYAN'S DAUGHTER....incidentally, the last film to be shot in 70mm. Which is a disgrace, and yet a good barometer of how completely subservient to commercial dictates motion pictures are and will likely always be. I know for a fact that the only home-video version of RD (long out of circulation) is...all too typically...a horrendous, washed-out, pan-n-scan version of an inferior 35mm print. Presumably, the reason it isn't on DVD yet is they're tryioing to assemble a composite version from the best 35mm prints available that will at least credibly mimic its original-release grandeur.
My own problem with RD is that I just couldn't bring myself to [I]care [/I] about Sarah Miles and that soldier. And, as much of RD's visual splendor is built around their affair, if you don't much care for [I]them [/I] then the visuals are gonna seem like manipulative overkill. Also by this time "a David Lean film" automatically meant a three-hour plus super-spectacular - but not every story lends itself to that sort of elephantine treatment. The funny thing is that it's now considered a critical and commercial failure, whereas all I can recall of it is long lines at the box-office....which is borne out by a contemporary review for RD by the Times' Vincent Canby. You don't hear much about Canby these days, but I find his reviews to be very effective time capsules of the 60s-70s era: you don't get the parsing cultural insights you got from Pauline Kael or John Simon, but he usually managed to capture the mood (and anxieties) of the audience fairly well.
[QUOTE][B]Thoroughly Romantic Rosy[/B] By VINCENT CANBY
IF it's true, as one reviewer has written, that every frame of David Lean's new film, "Ryan's Daughter," is "a work of pure and undiluted genius," there are, according to my calculations, approximately 276,480 works of pure and undiluted genius in the 192-minute movie, which should put "Ryan's Daughter" on a par with such other repositories as the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum and the Hermitage.
This is a rather staggering amount of Art to be contained by any single movie, but since "The Bridge on the River Kwai" in 1957, all of David Lean's films have been statistically impressive. They have become longer and longer ("Lawrence of Arabia" ran just 20 minutes short of four hours); they are very expensive (something over $10,000,000 each, with every dollar on view on the screen), and they collect awards of one sort or another by the bushelful. "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago," the two earlier collaborations between Mr. Lean and Robert Bolt, his scriptwriter on "Ryan's Daughter," won a total of 13 Oscars, which are almost enough to stock a Hollywood souvenir shop.
Most important, at least for the people who finance Mr. Lean, his recent films have found huge, and hugely appreciative, audiences. "Dr. Zhivago," which was badly received by most critics, has earned something like $38,000,000 in the United States alone. I have an idea that "Ryan's Daughter," which has been reviewed with a good deal more kindness than I think it deserves, will do almost as well—for reasons that have a lot less to do with art (the real, lower-case kind that enriches and enlarges one's perceptions) than with the state of mind of a large portion of the audience at this juncture in movie history. [B]That audience really is tired of movies of unmotivated violence, of sex without ordering inhibitions, of equivocal motives and ambiguous realities. It dreams of a world in which there is still a moral order, in which, in fact, crimes can still justify their punishments.[/B]
"Ryan's Daughter" is, in outline, a respectable, never-meant-to-be love story, set in 1916 on the wild west coast of Ireland where, except for a small British garrison and the high rate of unemployment, the "troubles" in Dublin seem extremely remote. Rosy Ryan (Sarah Miles), the daughter of Kirrary's publican, is a sweet, responsive girl whose dreams have been shaped by Byron, Beethoven and Captain Blood, and by pulp fiction on the order of something titled "The King's Mistress."
Married to a nice, dull, middle-aged schoolmaster (Robert Mitchum), a man who prefers to press wildflowers to Rosy herself, she falls passionately in love with the real-life equivalent of one of her fictional heroes. This is the new commander of the British occupation force, a beautiful, lame major (Christopher Jones), who has been posted to Ireland after being wounded on the Western Front. The major never says very much, but he looks great (like a magazine illustration of a hero), he suffers periodic seizures that appear to be epileptic (but are really memories of life on the front), and he provides the deprived Rosy with her first orgasms.
It is no news, I think, that Mr. Lean is one of the great technicians of the movies, and one's memories of later Lean films are mostly of beautifully photographed locales (Ceylon, Syria, Finland) and of extraordinarily well choreographed events—the blowing up of the bridge in "River Kwai," the capture of the train in "Lawrence" and the beginning of the Russian Revolution in "Dr. Zhivago." There is a stunning storm sequence in "Ryan's Daughter," but I suspect that the extraordinary event that one will remember most vividly is Rosy's sexual awakening. As the major makes love to Rosy in a magical forest, dandelions lose their seeds, the sun peers through the leaves to make an effulgent sign of the cross, and the trees themselves go through a little series of ecstatic shudders.
This kind of scenic grandeur does not define depth of emotion (it simply substitutes for it), but it does define a universe so responsive to Rosy that her moods actually dictate the weather. Rosy's love affair with the major obviously cannot come to any good end, since it contravenes not only the marriage sacrament but also political loyalties, but there can't be too much despair for Rosy because, after all, she inhabits a system that acknowledges her, and in which there is promise of salvation for every transgression. At a time when the real world seems to be coming apart at the seams, when rewards and punishments are hopelessly muddled, this is a most reassuring concept, one that may also be responsible for what Mr. Lean likes to describe as the "identification" that audiences feel with his films.
"Ryan's Daughter" is not a stupid film. It is full of all of the sheer technical wizardry that money can buy. It is, by design, canny and shrewd — I have no doubt that the theme from the schlocky Maurice Jarre score, which sounds very Mediterranean, will turn out to be immensely popular with disc jockeys and may, like "Lara's Theme" from "Dr. Zhivago," evolve into the film's biggest selling point. This background score is numbingly pretty, but few of us, I suspect, are completely immune to the effect of such calculated prettiness, at least in small doses.
In this connection, [B]I'm reminded of a statement made by Mr. Bolt in the course of a radio interview last summer. In talking about today's youth and their anti-intellectualism, he said, according to the transcript: "Your gut reaction to a thing is utterly unreliable, and anybody with any degree of detachment, who has lived any length of time, knows that this is so. . . . Let us say that the subject, for a moment, is sympathy. One can be moved to tears by a Victorian painting of a little orphan in the snow, clutching a starving dog on the steps of the mansion house. And there is nothing intrinsically deplorable in being so moved. But a moment's reflection, a moment's taste, a moment's educated perception shows that you've been taken for a ride, that nothing has been said, that your reaction and your tears are largely self-indulgent."
It does seem to me that "Ryan's Daughter" is somewhat like the Victorian, painting Mr. Bolt describes. It aims at a gut reaction that is not intrinsically deplorable, but is really rather self-indulgent. It is quite possible to go excavating around in the film, as one friend of mine has done, to find all sorts of clues to larger meanings. One scene, showing the fishermen of Kirrary walking up the beach hidden by their boats, which they carry over their heads, has been interpreted as symbolic of man's primordial emergence from the sea. That may well be, but it hasn't much to do with the rest of the film, and, indeed, in a movie so full of other soapy gestures, this sort of interpretation seems no more artistically valid than most objects normally found on a beach.[/B]
There are a number of undeniably good things in "Ryan's Daughter"—the quality of Freddie Young's photography, even when the uses to which it is put are something less than admirable; the performances of Mr. Mitchum (restrained, but full of presence) and of Miss Miles, who has a curious ability to seem a positive stick one minute and a full-blown beauty the next; even Mr. Lean's affection for the "well-made" film with a beginning, middle and end.
In Dickens (as in Mr. Lean's lovely adaptations of "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist"), one accepts the well-made plot, with all of its conventions like coincidental meetings, overheard conversations, and such, because they are not only devices, but the manner of a specific kind of fictional life. Mr. Bolt's screenplay never quite achieves that sort of independent reality. When Michael, the village idiot (played by John Mills in make-up as grotesque as Quasimodo's), standing troll-like under a bridge, just happens to overhear Rosy and her major saying their good-byes after a tryst, one's first reaction is to snicker, not to panic for the sake of the lovers.
Mr. Lean further stretches our sense of identification by casting Christopher Jones as Rosy's love-object. He is, I think, a decent enough actor but he simply hasn't the weight to balance that of Mr. Mitchum, nor is the character written with much perception. Limping around the beaches with Rosy (everybody in the film seems to walk peculiarly, but that may be because they do a lot of walking in sand), he looks and behaves like an actor out of a summer stock production of "Journey's End."
It is significant, but not especially encouraging, that people tend to speak of Mr. Lean's work in very painterly terms. One man recently characterized the director's movies as "broad canvases," and John Mills has been quoted as saying that watching Mr. Lean in the cutting room is "like watching a master painter at work." There are in "Ryan's Daughter" a lot of canvas, paint, brushstrokes, tones and planes of vision. However, the art it represents belongs to that school of very classy calendar art supported by airlines, insurance corporations and a few enlightened barber shops. It doesn't transfigure the world. It embalms it.
POSTSCRIPT: I first saw "Ryan's Daughter" at a press preview at the Ziegfeld Theater, where the audience reaction tended toward rudeness. Five days later, I returned to see it with a paying audience that stood patiently in line around the block before getting into the theater. The members of that audience loved the movie even before they entered the lobby, and, from the reverence with which they greeted the movie itself, they also loved it while seeing it.
The movie is playing on what is called a "reserved performance policy," two shows a day on weekdays, three on weekends. Patrons may purchase the unreserved seats prior to the performance, but if they arrive an hour early to make sure of obtaining tickets, they cannot enter the theater until the earlier show has let out.
[B]As a result, at least at the 5 P.M. showing I attended, close to 1,000 people were in a cue down 54th Street to Sixth Avenue, up Sixth to 55th Street and around that corner. [/B] Once we did enter the lobby, we were greeted by a large sign asking: "Tired of standing in line?" It was a plug for the Walter Reade Theater's new VIP Club, which allows a patron, for an annual fee, to circumvent any Walter Reade theater line for immediate seating. My only question is, what happens if everybody, by some fluke, becomes a VIP?[/QUOTE]
2005-08-18 10:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You know what? Nobody's seen it in quite some time. In fact, it's my understanding that there are no existing 70mm prints left of RYAN'S DAUGHTER....incidentally, the last film to be shot in 70mm. .[/QUOTE]
Wow, that is really tragic. How in the world did that happen? You'd think that after the producers put that kind of money into the project they'd make sure that the original work would survive.
That was a very astute review, thanks for posting it. I think the critic is taking a rather prissy I'm-far-above-it-all attitude aimed at painting a portrait of himself as superior to the unwashed mass of RD fans. He's really engaged in major ego self-massage here.
But all of that is quite beside the point. Sure RD doesn't belong in the Louvre, you don't need to be a great esthete to understand that. The point is that that's not it's purpose. RD is art - even high art - but it was designed precisely to appeal to mass emotions, not for a few over-refined souls in the ivory tower. And that's exactly what we're looking for in our WNC movie list.
And besides, what's so unworthy about getting emotional over a Victorian painting of hungry orphans, or even one of Dickens' novels (lots of cheap, tear-jerking manipulation there!). It has it's place and I think we should embrace it as genuine art. This guy is way wide of the mark by implying that Leans films do qualify as genuine art. He starts by condemning with slight praise and then out comes the dagger (typical for nelly-type fags, I don't know if this guy fits the bill) right at the end. Embalm? That's much too unkind.
[QUOTE]It is significant, but not especially encouraging, that people tend to speak of Mr. Lean's work in very painterly terms. One man recently characterized the director's movies as "broad canvases," and John Mills has been quoted as saying that watching Mr. Lean in the cutting room is "like watching a master painter at work." There are in "Ryan's Daughter" a lot of canvas, paint, brushstrokes, tones and planes of vision. However, the art it represents belongs to that school of very classy calendar art supported by airlines, insurance corporations and a few enlightened barber shops. It doesn't transfigure the world. It embalms it.[/QUOTE]
He's right on the money about the cinematography, though. RD really is visually stunning. But then again if he admits it's visually stunning, how can he imply as he does that it's not genuine art?
2005-08-19 00:27 | User Profile
Kevin_O'Keeffe
Yes, that sounds about right. But I thought it odd that Afros were shown as vile savages. And the ending made no sense, after getting out prison the first thing he wants to do is get his family out of the bad(non-white) area. And then his bother is murdered by a Afro thug.
"That movie attempted to be anti-racist proaganda directed at racists, in large part. Its innately contradictory nature made it a confused mess of little note."
[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Faust Any thoughts on American History X? I thought it was sick and pointless, I can understand why some of the Skinheads loved it. But I have no idea what the writer were trying to do. The Skinheads came off looking better than the Afro and the plot line did not make much sense from the standpoint of making an anti-"racist" film.[/QUOTE]
2005-08-19 05:09 | User Profile
I knew AHX was going to suck before I watched it, and it didn't "disappoint".
I especially liked the part where the white guy with the swastika tattoo on his chest gets raped in the joint. By another white guy with a swastika tattoo on his chest. And then gets understanding and respect from the bongoes he's locked down with.
The finale, by the way, struck me as Hollywitz's sly way of telling the white audience you're not strong enough to fight the black man and win, so stop trying - stay alive and just crawl away.
2005-08-19 05:14 | User Profile
The nigger-stomping scene was kinda entertaining. The rest of the movie didn't make any sense.
2005-08-19 07:49 | User Profile
il ragno
I found it funny that only people who liked the film were a few skinheads, many Liberals hated it too. The script was just plain bad; the film was a failure as ant-ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â propaganda. The main problem with film was it gave an too realistic portrayal of non-white destroying America. This kind damages oneââ¬â¢s case for ant-ââ¬Åracism.ââ¬Â You might have something about the finale. It is clear the writers hate Europeans so much they think any attack is deserved because we are ââ¬Åevilââ¬Â ââ¬Åracists.ââ¬Â The script writing on American History X just plain bad.
A review by VNN:
American History X by H. Becker [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/movie2.htm[/url]
2005-08-19 11:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It is clear the writers hate Europeans so much they think any attack is deserved because we are “evil” “racists.” The script writing on American History X just plain bad. [/QUOTE]
I kinda got the impression the intent of AHX was to frame the issue as white losers vs black losers, with Jews getting a free pass altogether. Outside of one superfluous sidebar comment yelled out by Edward Norton at the dinner table, Jews were never mentioned at all. Hmmmm.
2005-08-20 03:24 | User Profile
il ragno,
I never thought of the Edward Nortonââ¬â¢s characterââ¬â¢s family as losers, they seemed like a nice middle class southern California family trying to deal with destruction of the state by Afros and Mexicans. That one of the problems with film, and why it failed as anti-ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â propaganda. It may clear Afros are savages and you do not want to live anywhere near them. At the end of Edward Nortonââ¬â¢s characterââ¬â¢s wants to move his family out California. This makes no sense as anti-ââ¬Åracistââ¬Â propaganda.
2005-08-20 03:49 | User Profile
Not Ed Norton's family....Norton and his skinhead buddies. And Norton's family is actually portrayed as slipping into genteel poverty after the father's death, living amid Glorious Diversity as they are.
2005-09-16 08:38 | User Profile
I bought a copy of Cromwell (1970 - Richard Harris) on a recent trip to Moscow. An entire series of "Oscar" movies is being published there. Most of these films have both optional Russian and English soundtracks and/or subtitles.
BTW, that's where I found El Cid, which I think is much harder to find in the States.
Anyhoo, I watched Cromwell yesterday for the first time in ages, and I have to say it is indeed a marvelous film. There's a deeply Christian Nationalist message, the acting is stupendous (all star cast, including Richard Harris and Alec Guiness) and the battle scenes are a sumptuous feast for the eyes.
It's truly a "must see" flick.
2005-09-16 10:35 | User Profile
Walter, could you possibly offer us your review of "Cromwell"?
I am intrigued to know how a traditional Roman Catholic like you could be so enthusiastic about a film with such a subject.
(Are you of Irish origin? "Yannis" sounds like Greek...)
Petr
2005-09-16 12:17 | User Profile
Last night, I watched [u]On The Waterfront[/u] for the first time, and I must say that I was very impressed. Technically speaking, it was well-done, and the narrative was engrossing. Brando was, of course, magnificent, as pre-fat-and-nutty-as-a-fruitcake Brando always was. The thing that leapt out at me, however, was the astonishingly positive and masculine portrayal of the Catholic priest, played by Karl Malden. He was neither an effete bedwetter type, nor a closet homosexual, nor a coward, nor a sadistic inquisitor. Rather, he provides the moral courage for Brando's character, and eventually for the rest of the longshoremen, to stand up to the corrupt union boss. His role reminded me of the Capucin monk who tirelessly rode among the defenders of Vienna and kept up their courage when the city was besieged by the Turks. Other opinions?
2005-09-17 09:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Walter, could you possibly offer us your review of "Cromwell"?
I am intrigued to know how a traditional Roman Catholic like you could be so enthusiastic about a film with such a subject.
(Are you of Irish origin? "Yannis" sounds like Greek...)
Petr[/QUOTE] Thanks for asking, Petr.
Well, it's history, as they say. Hopefully, after 350 years we can have a little objectivity on an event.
I am of Irish ancestry mostly, although there's a good dollop of Welsh, English, Scottish and Pennsylvania Dutch in there from the distaff side.
Anyway, I see Cromwell as a great nationalist leader. He loved England, and he fought (nominally Protestant) tyranny in England. He insisted on the rights of free white men of property to govern themselves, and laid the groundwork for a constitutional monarchy, which I consider the best form of government for free white men of property.
Had Cromwell stopped with his plans for England, then he would have been indisputably the greatest man England ever produced, which is saying an awful lot. But, unfortunately, Cromwell forever sullied his name, and that of England, by denying to the Irish the same rights he demanded for the English. There was no freedom of conscience, right to trial, security in property and so forth for the Irish. And this is where he went tragically wrong.
But the fact remains that English freedom - the very freedom we fight for in the States - owes its life to Oliver Cromwell. The converse fact that this same fight for English freedom meant an immiserated serfdom for the Irish is one of the great tragedies of our collective history.
Hitler is another example of a great man gone wrong. Had Hitler stopped in, say, 1938 with the repudiation of the grossly unjust WWI reparations, annexation of the Sudetenland and even perhaps seizure of the Polish Corridor, then history would have called him the greatest statesman Germany produced since Barbarossa, which again is saying an awful lot, but it's nonetheless true. Hitler's achievements were nothing short of astounding. But alas, Hitler did not stop in 1938. Like Cromwell, his ambitions extended much too far beyond his own national doorstep, and he fell into the Sin of Babel by clearly violating the God-given rights of other nations.
Mussolini presents a similar case. He was the father of a proud and united Italy, until he gave himself over to dreams of Empire.
Franco didn't make that mistake, and although this comparatively ignoble generation of Spaniards do not fully appreciate his greatness (and he did treat the Basques quite shabbily, although nothing to compare with Cromwell's out-and-out attmpted genocide of the Irish), Franco laid the groundwork for a prosperous Spain ruled by a constitutional monarchy.
Lee Kwan Yu is another of my nationalist heroes, but I digress.
As to the film Cromwell, I see it first as a work of art, and as such it's truly a fine achievement. As I said, the cinematography is wonderful, and the acting of the all-star cast is, well, stellar. Classic performances by the (Irish, oh the irony!) Richard Harris and the brilliant Alec Guiness. And, again, the nationalist message for us is very clear: we want to build the sort of godly American nation ruled by free white men of property that Cromwell wanted to build. A nation that can govern itself because the free white men who wield political power throught the vote are virtuous and capable of govering themselves.
I hope I've answered your question.
2005-09-17 09:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Last night, I watched [u]On The Waterfront[/u] for the first time, and I must say that I was very impressed. Technically speaking, it was well-done, and the narrative was engrossing. Brando was, of course, magnificent, as pre-fat-and-nutty-as-a-fruitcake Brando always was. The thing that leapt out at me, however, was the astonishingly positive and masculine portrayal of the Catholic priest, played by Karl Malden. He was neither an effete bedwetter type, nor a closet homosexual, nor a coward, nor a sadistic inquisitor. Rather, he provides the moral courage for Brando's character, and eventually for the rest of the longshoremen, to stand up to the corrupt union boss. His role reminded me of the Capucin monk who tirelessly rode among the defenders of Vienna and kept up their courage when the city was besieged by the Turks. Other opinions?[/QUOTE]
I think it's a marvelous film. The young Marlon Brando at his finest.
Besides being a great work of art, On the Waterfront presents a number of important Christian Nationalist lessons, incluiding: (1) that workers should work for just wages, and that denying them a living wage breeds corrpution (2) that all honest work is ennobling, (3) that loafing on the job is sinful and corrupting, (4) that our ministers of the gospel have standing orders to work in their local communities for worker solidarity, workers' rights, and honest government.
The film portrayed the Catholic Church in a very positive light, something that you just don't see nowadays.
It should be on Ygg's classics list.
2005-09-17 09:47 | User Profile
I watched "Luther" on DVD last night.
I thought it was quite good.
Luther was presented very positively, which is fine with me. My only objection is that I think it portrays Luther much more like a St. Francis of Assisi than he really was. I always saw Luther as being a big, strong German peasant with all the courseness of his working class background - but with a 185 IQ. People like that are scary, not nicey-nice (I've known a few). I think Luther's writings bear that out, but I won't argue the point. Anyway, the Ralph Fiennes character was a bit too much the milquetoast, IMHO.
As to the film's treatment of the Catholic Church, I felt that it was actually much more even-handed in its treatment of the Catholic Church than I'd anticipated. Rome was portrayed as horribly corrupt, which of course it was, and Luther was shown as resisting very real abuses, which again of course he was. But I think the film asks the question of whether Luther went too far in actually tearing the Church asunder, a question that I think lies at the heart of the current discussions of this central historical event. The Peasant Revolt was shown sympathetically, with Luther himself admitting that he'd not foreseen what some Lutherans unleashed (albeit unfairly) in his name.
One of the last lines was a Catholic cardinal stating that the Church at that critical moment needed as Pope a giant like Luther instead of midget like Pope Leo, and I have to say that's hard to dispute.
The film is beautifully made. It flows nicely, and it's a joy to look at. Some of the moments where Luther preaches a simple faith in Christ are quite poignant.
Ygg saw this film as an example of "revolution from above." His point is well taken. Luther was a great mind at a great university leading a discussion among the European elites of his day. The Lutheran princes revolted against Pope and Emporer, while simultaneously putting down ruthless a Lutheran-inspired peasant revolt. Interesting. I don't think that's how it will shake out with us in the next couple of decades, though. I think that we're looking at a revolution of white middle classes, a la Cromwell, instead of the peasant revolt of Braveheart or a revolt of white elites like Luther's movement.
I'd like to hear your comments.
2005-10-06 10:38 | User Profile
I looks like Nick Park just put out another feature-length Wallace and Gromit cartoon.
I can hardly wait.
[url]http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/movies/05wall.html?th&emc=th&oref=login[/url]
October 5, 2005 A New Challenge for an Englishman and His Dog By A. O. SCOTT I hope you will forgive me for saying so - and I hope the filmmakers will forgive me, too - but "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" has forced me to ponder the deepest mysteries of cinema. Why, for instance, do certain faces haunt and move us as they do?
I am thinking of Gromit, the mute and loyal animated dog whose selflessness and intelligence can be counted on, when things get really crazy, to save the day. Gromit has no mouth, and yet his face is one of the most expressive ever committed to the screen. In particular, his brow - a protuberance overhanging his spherical, googly eyes - is an almost unmatched register of emotion. Resignation, worry, tenderness and disgust all come alive in that plasticine nub. To keep matters within the DreamWorks menagerie, you might compare Gromit to Shrek, who has the genetic advantages of Mike Myers's Scots burr, a bevy of celebrity-voiced sidekicks and rivals, and state-of-the-art computer-animation technology. Good for him. But Gromit, made by hand and animated by a painstaking stop-motion process, has something Shrek will never acquire in a hundred sequels: a soul.
And this unassuming pooch's feature film debut, after appearances in three sublime half-hour shorts, is thus a solemn occasion (even if the movie itself is utterly silly). His face now enters the pantheon of stars whose charisma transcends speech. Keaton, Chaplin, Garbo - let them now make room for Gromit. Which is in no way to slight Wallace, his entrepreneurial owner, who speaks in the voice of Peter Sallis and who personifies all the traditional virtues of the provincial English middle class. (His shortcomings are entirely his own, of course.)
Anyway, "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" finds master and hound running a pest-control company specializing in the humane disposal of rabbits. These creatures are infesting the local gardens on the eve of an important vegetable competition, imperiling giant pumpkins and carrots as well as Gromit's prize melon.
Sheltering the bunnies threatens to overwhelm Wallace and Gromit's modest household, and so Wallace invents a device that will cure their craving for fresh produce, with predictably disastrous results. What I mean is that it is predictable that the results will be disastrous, but the particular shape of the disaster springs with delightful surprise from the imaginations of Nick Park and Steve Box, who directed the film, and Mark Burton and Bob Baker, with whom they wrote it. They have also assembled a fine supporting cast of bounders, ninnies and local biddies, notably a pompadoured villain named Victor (voiced by Ralph Fiennes) and his aristocratic would-be fiancée, the flame-haired, green-thumbed Lady Tottington (trilled by Helena Bonham Carter), otherwise known as Totty.
That nickname is mildly naughty British slang, and there are a few other hints of bawdiness in the movie, adding a dash of Benny Hill vulgarity that is entirely appropriate to its sensibility. The animation is a marvel - all the more so because the most demanding sequences seem almost casually tossed off. The world of Wallace and Gromit is one of the few genuinely eccentric places left in the movies, a place where lumpy, doughy characters achieve a peculiar dignity in spite of their grotesque features and the ridiculousness of their circumstances.
It is a world I have been longing to revisit ever since my children wore out the tapes of "A Close Shave" (formerly known in our house as "the one with the mean dog"), "The Wrong Trousers" ("the one with the mean bird") and "A Grand Day Out" ("the one when they go to the moon"). I was a bit worried that more superficially sophisticated pleasures - "Lizzie Maguire" or whatever tweener sitcoms the kids are into these days - had eroded the appeal of Wallace and Gromit, but I need not have. We all had a marvelous time. Perhaps it was the giant furry were-rabbit, or maybe the twinkle of romance between Wallace and Totty, or even the uplifting and nutritious pro-vegetable message (which resonates with the implicit vegetarianism of Mr. Park and Peter Lord's "Chicken Run"). All of that and more, I'm sure. But for me, most of all, it was Gromit's forehead, which gave me renewed appreciation for the magic of movies. If only I had a dog like that.
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Opens today in New York and Los Angeles.
Directed by Nick Park and Steve Box; written by Mr. Box, Mr. Park, Mark Burton and Bob Baker; directors of photography, Dave Alex Riddett and Tristan Oliver; edited by David McCormick and Gregory Perler; music by Julian Nott; supervising animator, Loyd Price; produced by Claire Jennings, Carla Shelley, Peter Lord, David Sproxton and Mr. Park; released by DreamWorks Animation and Aardman Features. Running time: 85 minutes. This film is rated G.
WITH THE VOICES OF: Peter Sallis (Wallace), Ralph Fiennes (Victor Quartermaine), Helena Bonham Carter (Lady Campanula Tottington), Peter Kay (P. C. Mackintosh), Nicholas Smith (the Rev. Clement Hedges) and Liz Smith (Mrs. Mulch).
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top
2005-10-06 10:43 | User Profile
This may not be a fully relevant, but the movie [I]Dark City[/I] (1998) is an excellent introduction into that paranoid, [B]Gnostic[/B] worldview that Matrix later exploited - and that is [I]all too familiar [/I] to groups that have to work underground, under relentlessly spiritually oppressing environment.
[SIZE=4][B][COLOR=Purple]"Gnostic Noir: Symbolism and [I]The [/I] [I]Dark City[/I]"[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]
[url]http://vincentbridges.com/drstrange/noir.html[/url]
Petr
2005-10-06 10:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]This may not be a fully relevant, but the movie [I]Dark City[/I] (1998) is an excellent introduction into that paranoid, [B]Gnostic[/B] worldview that Matrix later exploited - and that is [I]all too familiar [/I] to groups that have to work underground, under relentlessly spiritually oppressing environment.
[SIZE=4][B][COLOR=Purple]"Gnostic Noir: Symbolism and The Dark City"[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE]
[url]http://vincentbridges.com/drstrange/noir.html[/url]
Petr[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. It's really the same plot as Matrix, and in a way I prefer DC to Marix. The visuals are really quite stunning.
I believe I plugged that film here or on another thread in the hopes that Ygg would include it on his list. Don't know if he ever did.
2005-10-06 10:55 | User Profile
In [I]The Dark City[/I], Kiefer Sutherland plays a sort of "undercover WN activist" part - forced to work for the benefit of sinister strangers, but secretly organizing an uprising against them - "to take back our city," as he puts it.
This is actually the film's opening monologue by Sutherland:
[COLOR=Blue][I]"First, there was darkness, then came the Strangers."
"They were a race as old as time itself. They had mastered the ultimate technology: the ability to alter physical reality by will alone. They called this ability 'tuning.' But they were dying. Their civilization was in decline. So they abandoned their own world, seeking a cure for their own mortality. Their endless journey brought them to a small blue world in the farthest corner of the galaxy. Our world. Here they thought they had finally found what they had been searching for."
"[B]I am a human. I have betrayed my own kind."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Petr
2005-10-08 06:34 | User Profile
[B]I looks like Nick Park just put out another feature-length Wallace and Gromit cartoon.
I can hardly wait.[/B]
I saw a preview clip from the movie last night, and it's was delightful: a bunch of bunnies invaded the kitchen, cleaning out the fridge; Gromit charges in and rounds up the buck-toothed scamps, then one of them laughingly taps him on the head with a wooden spoon.... :lol:
I didn't know it would be that harmlessly amusing. Have to check it out.
2005-10-08 12:31 | User Profile
Wallace and Gromit are outstanding. No multicultural agenda, no PC indoctrination, just the English gently poking fun at themselves. The wife and I plan to go see The Curse of the Were-rabbit this weekend.
2005-10-17 15:28 | User Profile
Just watched [B]"Downfall"[/B] (Untergang) on DVD. I thought the movie was very well made. Hitler's character is portrayed as very human. Furthermore, what I found impressive, were the ideas expressed in the film by Hitler and Goebbels specifically in the moments of their last testimonies. It's quite amazing, IMO, to think that these men of the Third Reich were so prescient in seeing what the world would become after National Socialism. Some of those feelings are openly expressed in different parts of the dialogue by various characters. However, my biggest problem with the film was that it didn't deal the mass rape of German women by the hordes of Russian soldiers who captured and occupied the city. Why?
I'd like to know what other WN's thought about this film.
2005-10-19 04:29 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill]Wallace and Gromit are outstanding. No multicultural agenda, no PC indoctrination, just the English gently poking fun at themselves. The wife and I plan to go see The Curse of the Were-rabbit this weekend.
Our whole family enjoyed it. Good fun, and generally free of politics. Huzzah, someone who can make a good film . . . and is of course not a Hollywood sort! :holiday:
AE
2005-10-23 09:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest][B]I I didn't know it would be that harmlessly amusing. Have to check it out.[/QUOTE] Nick Park really has an eye for the comedy inherent in certain animals.
His "A Close Shave" is a study in the hilarious buffoonery of sheep. It's a "must see" flick.
He also had a very short (about ten minutes?) tune called "Creature Comforts" in the format of BBC interviews with certain zoo animals. I must have watched 20 times. I just can't get enough of it.
A Close Shave and The Wrong Trousers (featuring a hardened criminal penguin that escaped from the local zoo) were pretty short though, about a half hour each I think. It's nice to see that he's put out a feature length tune.
2005-10-23 12:24 | User Profile
[quote=Walter Yannis] A Close Shave and The Wrong Trousers (featuring a hardened criminal penguin that escaped from the local zoo) were pretty short though, about a half hour each I think. It's nice to see that he's put out a feature length tune. The Wrong Trousers is an hilarious short film. The close-ups of the evil penguin's steely gaze (accompanied by super dramatic music) crack me up every time.
2005-10-28 14:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Nick Park really has an eye for the comedy inherent in certain animals.
His "A Close Shave" is a study in the hilarious buffoonery of sheep. It's a "must see" flick.
He also had a very short (about ten minutes?) tune called "Creature Comforts" in the format of BBC interviews with certain zoo animals. I must have watched 20 times. I just can't get enough of it. I have this on DVD. Hilarious. The DVD also includes a number of other shorts by Nick Park which are quite good.
A Close Shave and The Wrong Trousers (featuring a hardened criminal penguin that escaped from the local zoo) were pretty short though, about a half hour each I think. It's nice to see that he's put out a feature length tune.[/QUOTE] I have to second the above comment about the penguin in The Wrong Trousers. Never before have I watched a claymation animal, apparently with a completely motionless face, and felt I could read its mind! You could almost see the wheels turning. Nick Park really knows how to breathe life into his characters - a little bit of Nick Park's animation goes a long way. A slight eyebrow movement here, a slight motion of the mouth there - and we can literally see the character's emotions as clear as a human actor's. Amazing talent.
2005-10-29 09:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I have this on DVD. Hilarious. The DVD also includes a number of other shorts by Nick Park which are quite good.
I have to second the above comment about the penguin in The Wrong Trousers. Never before have I watched a claymation animal, apparently with a completely motionless face, and felt I could read its mind! You could almost see the wheels turning. Nick Park really knows how to breathe life into his characters - a little bit of Nick Park's animation goes a long way. A slight eyebrow movement here, a slight motion of the mouth there - and we can literally see the character's emotions as clear as a human actor's. Amazing talent.[/QUOTE]
I saw in the news that a fire destroyed the entire set of Were-Rabbit.
Everything but the film - which was mercifully completed - was destroyed.
How sad.
2005-10-31 02:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I have this on DVD. Hilarious. The DVD also includes a number of other shorts by Nick Park which are quite good.
I have to second the above comment about the penguin in The Wrong Trousers. Never before have I watched a claymation animal, apparently with a completely motionless face, and felt I could read its mind! You could almost see the wheels turning. [B]Nick Park really knows how to breathe life into his characters[/B] - a little bit of Nick Park's animation goes a long way. A slight eyebrow movement here, a slight motion of the mouth there - and we can literally see the character's emotions as clear as a human actor's. [B]Amazing talent[/B].[/QUOTE] I agree. I've been a fan of his for years and have all 3 Wallace and Gromit videos. "The wrong trousers" is my favorite. On the VCR version I have he calls the penguin a kike. Surprised the heck out of me. The railroad scene at the end is hilarious.
Just saw the New "Curse of the Wererabbit" movie today with my kids. The constant string of puns went right over their heads but they laughed through it anyway. Not as good as his shorts IMHO but still a keeper.