← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · N.B. Forrest
Thread ID: 8696 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2003-08-02
2003-08-02 10:04 | User Profile
Those of you who get TCM may have seen the inter-movie segment they're running about the unhappy life of Judy Garland. I'm sure you know the basic story at any rate. One old actress recalls a parade appearance and reception she did with Garland, recounting that Judy told her on the float that she hadn't eaten all day and was famished. When they got to the reception, there was a buffet. Everyone grabbed a plate and began digging in, but when Judy tried to, the studio scum dragged her away for more glad-handing. This brings us to Mayer's statement about her when someone said he was driving her too hard (paraphrasing): "Garland is my property. She will work until I tell her to stop".
According to Shirley Temple, that insufferable butt-ugly jewboy also tried to screw her mother - at the same time another zhid studio pervert was trying to slip her his schmaltz dripper.
2003-08-02 16:08 | User Profile
Yes Garland (Frances Gumm) was a jew - the daughter of a particularly disgusting, driven, stage-mother jew. She always had a tendency to fat, a really bad body and her face was never none too good to look at either.
She did have considerable acting talent (though her desperation to please and constant verging on hysteria give me the creeps). Of course, she also sang popular ditties very well and is a surprisingly (for such a lumpy, ungainly person) good dancer too.
However, a big part of the female movie star territory is looking great. Nobody forced that hyperventilating Jew to remain a movie star, nobody forced her to starve herself in order to pick up her $8000 a week check (or however much it was) except her mother, and herself.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for that neurotic mess?
2003-08-03 11:15 | User Profile
Didn't know Garland was a zhidess, but thought the name Gumm slightly suspicious. The post wasn't intended to engender sympathy for her, but to spotlight the outrageous arrogance of Mayer and his kind.
2003-08-04 17:44 | User Profile
Judy Garland was not Jewish. Nor was Vincent Minelli, Liza Minelli's father.
I can't get as angry as I might re those old Jew moguls of Hollywood. Oh, not that they weren't classless and vile; actually, they get a pass because they were classless and vile! To a man, they had risen not from universities and Frankfurt-school theorists but from ragpicking and fur-cutting - none of them had progressed even to high school. And perhaps as a result of this, they feared and resisted 'progressivism' in the movies all their lives. There is a reason most Hollywood product prior to the 60s reflected a radically different vision of the world, and much of it traces directly to these Jews who - having become wildly rich through the movie business - wanted nothing to upset or alienate the customers.
Until the 'progressive', university-educated Jews took control of the industry, the most effectively subversive force in Hollywood was none other than the US Government, who willfully encouraged and then demanded propaganda content in films [and not merely war propaganda, either].
Louis B Mayer's main contribution to film history was the Hardy Family, which he felt embodied the ideal American family; he personally saw to it that the Hardy films were budgeted & marketed as A films even though, at the time, all 'series' films were by default considered B-movies. He happened to be correct: the Hardy Family movies was the most successful 'series' franchise in America for 20 years, and his studio the most financially successful in the world. Until he was forced to step down for new, more 'progressive' and 'relevant' management, MGM had never ended a fiscal year in the red (astounding given the number of Chapter 11 and 13 reorganizations in Hollywood throughout the Depression).
None of this has anything to do with the quality of the movies, naturally, but it's still worth noting. And one other curious tidbit: as late as 1939.....a year after Kristallnacht....Mayer continued to submit his films to the German consulate for approval, making cuts wherever they were requested. (He was hardly the only Jew-mogul to do so.) Note that when Chaplin made THE GREAT DICTATOR, none of the studios would touch it (FDR had used Harry Hopkins as a go-between to assure Chaplin that the govt would ensure its eventual release; and indeed, when it did come out, it was under the auspices of United Artists, then exclusively a releasing company perpetually starved for product).
2003-08-04 17:57 | User Profile
There can be no denying that the content of Hollywitz movies pre WW2 was far more wholesome than the unceasing tide of jew turds they've inundated us with ever since. The so-called "moguls" - beady rat eyes shifting form side to side; still flinching from fear of the pogrom - were walking on eggshells.
I wonder how do we get the current mob of jooscum back on those shells........
2003-08-05 15:55 | User Profile
Il Ragno, I've been in the movie business all my life and therefore know a lot of jewish people. When ever the issue of Judy Garland has come up, they always tell me (and assume everybody knows) that she was all jewish. I've heard that so often from jews in the business, that I never even thought about it until you said it ain't so.
So, i did some INTERNET searches - and amazingly, Judy Garland, NE GUMM, must have been hatched out of an egg, as no site I found (except for white Nationalist sites, where she is called a jewess) ever mention her ethnicity or her religion. The family must have just materialized in that mid western 'all American' town! Maybe I've gone to the wrong sites, or missed the relevant parts. However, that's what I find and I find that what I have found (?) to be entirely consistent with Judy Garland, NE GUMM, being a jew. They often do that - change their names and try to keep their jewishness a non issue. Minnelli was not jewish. So, Liza is only half jewish, except jewish law says that if you have a jewish mother, you are jewish
Anyway, I also disagree materially with your assessment of the good old days in Hollywood. I sort of do agree, that some of the old timers actually did love the movies (Carl Laemmle of Universal and William Fox of Fox, for instance)- but still, they consistently pushed an egalitarian, 'progressive' we-are-all-the-same, anti white, anti male agenda from the moment they were able to steal the industry from the Aryans who invented it in France, England and the USA around 1915 or so.
Warner Brothers - the most notorious example - was on occasion enjoined by the courts to stay out of the field because of their totally criminal behavior. That is, until the big fix went in around 1915 or so. And, the people who won that round, are the people who wrote or had written all the film books. The term they like to use to describe their struggle against Edison and his partners in the M.P.P.C is 'independents.' The heroic 'independents' fighting a plucky David vs Goliath struggle against the bad, bad, white men who would oppress them. Except they were total crooks, who used typical jew tactics to get around their entirely within their patent's rights opponents. They were not the independents, they were the illegals.
The movie that put Warner Brothers on the map was 'My Four Years in Germany' - one of the first of oh so many vicious propaganda lie-fests about the German people that helped get this country into a war against Germany. And Warner Brothers was the first of the major American studios to have its films banned in Germany - on the release of 'Confessions of a Nazi Spy' in 1938. The painfully crude title reflects a painfully crude movie, the vulgarity of which is entirely consistent with the intentionally mind numbing garbage manufactured by there movie loving jews. If it can't be overtly anti white, then at least make it such low trash that it will have the effect of inevitably bringing public taste down to the lowest possible level.
The college educated jews who took over after the war, just continued what their fathers had done before them. I agree the fathers did it better, but the results are the same no matter who was doing the producing.
I've seen a lot of movies and what I see over and again are bad white men oppressing women, blacks, jews, etc. I see black and jew stereotypes - but of the most harmless, ah...lovable (?) kind. Amusing darkies, who are figures of fun but the idea of such Hollywood negroes stealing, raping or killing? Same for the jews - kindly store owners and tailors, amusing, quirky but oh-so-harmless!
Chaplin's movies had been released exclusively through United Artists since the day in 1919 when Chaplin was one of the original founders of that company.
Actually, if you want an example of the really highest class of Hollywood anti German, anti male propaganda, see Frank Borzage's The Mortal Storm of 1940. With the release of that movie in June of that year, Germany banned outright the screening on all American films on European screens. It is a beautiful and elegant movie, unfortunately built on assumptions about Germans and Germany that are total lies. But it is a great movie - Borzage was part Italian.
2003-08-05 22:48 | User Profile
Gott, I've been in the film business for the last 12 years, and I've heard much the same about Judy Garland. Jews can't wait to "confide" to me that Garland was "... really a jew." Of course, she's one of a score of old time stars jews like to "reveal" as crypto jews when the mood strikes. Even I was surprised at some of the people they mentioned. To be honest, these same jews were sometimes amused by non-jews that managed to get in and make it, because the jews thought they were fellow tribesmen - but the performers turned out to not be of the chosen. I guess the tribe admired the chutzpah of those that could fake it and ride the wave.
Il Ragno, I think your observations on the old time moguls are on the money for the most part. It's the children, the nephews, the children of the mogul's friends that ended up making Hollywood what is is today ;) . The old timers were (to put it simply) still putting profit above presenting endless hours of brainwashing and social commentary. To the old timers, trying to keep the audience happy, coming back, was the important thing. Working in egalitarian messages and other b.s. was to be done if it could slipped in without ruining box office receipts. Today, with the tribe controlling TV, newspapers, publishing, film, they don't care. The money comes in anyway. The tent-pole hits can fund the year round propaganda.
2003-08-05 23:16 | User Profile
I know nothing of the movie business other than the most basic. The revealing of Jewishness when found convenient by Jews is not new. I have been told more than once that Isaac Newton was a Jew.
2003-08-06 07:58 | User Profile
Any idea on which mogul Michael Lerner's "Cause I'm the meanest Kke in Hollywood" character in the movie Barton Fink* was based?
I'm guessing Jack Warner. Lerner was hilarious as the studio boss, BTW--as was Tony Shalhoub as his underling. :clown:
2003-08-06 16:55 | User Profile
wintermute (Posted on Aug 6 2003, 03:03)> > I have been told more than once that Isaac Newton was a Jew **
I find this very difficult to believe. Any supporting evidence? Wintermute**
As a matter of fact neither did I believe the people who told me this. When I asked, they offered no evidence.
2003-08-06 19:51 | User Profile
The meanest Jew (but he was upfront about it - refreshing honesty at least) was probably Harry Cohn at Columbia. I've heard that Newton thing once or twice also - but no proof was ever forthcoming. The typically humble argument is probably that he was to brilliant to not be a jew.
2003-08-07 14:26 | User Profile
The Barton Fink zhid was based on Mayer.
The Judy Garland not-a-Jew info is from Jewhoo, who would absolutely claim her for the Tribe if she was even half-a-yock-a-beeb. If they explicitly say she wasn't, I'm inclined to agree.
Warner Bros didn't exist until the 20s, and they weren't a major player until sound made them one. As far as anti-German propaganda, there is no way to fairly judge the studios without judging the US Federal Government which overtly encouraged these films. You would have, after all, expected anti-German films coming from a Jew-run industry all through the 30s, but it simply wasn't so. Not because these guys loved Hitler but because they feared loss of revenue. Jack Warner was one of the earliest to turn the tide but he had bitter reservations, for instance, about making MISSION TO MOSCOW in 1943 - which FDR had strongly urged him to make - because he believed it to be Red propaganda (which it was, and led directly to a number of HUAC investigations half a decade later).
William Fox - like his successor, Darryl Zanuck - wasn't Jewish. (Yeah, I was shocked learning that too. It's why Fox/TCF was referred to as the goyishe studio all through that era.)
I never claimed these old-time Jews loved white America, but they loved money. No way on Earth an uneducated rag-picker could earn the money they did in the movie biz, so their reticence towards 'progressivism' was built on 'don't rock the boat'. They feared govt intervention, public backlashes, investigating committees, etc...anything that might signal that the party was over. There could never have been a blacklist without the Jews on top deciding that either they clean house or Uncle Sam would clean it for them. For all the bellyaching about McCarthy, it's conveniently forgotten that it takes two to tango.
Those 'amusing darkies' of the 30s and 40s were there to placate Southern theater exchanges, who threatened to pull product if the blacks weren't denatured. Paramount, for instance, could not release BREWSTER'S MILLIONS in many Southern states because the exchanges objected to Rochester (!) being too 'uppity'! Rochester, mind you! There would have been little point to portraying evil, drug-dealing/rapist minorities since the massive explosion in minority crime was directly tied to the civil-rights movement, which came well after this period.
Gott, the 'anti-white' agenda you speak of began...incrementally...in the 1940s when the Commie tentacles of NY cells like The Group Theater had begun infiltrating the unions, particularly the IATSE and Writer's Guilds. Even then, it was a game of inches....the real explosion came in the 50s and 60s.
I get the impression from your comments that you're inadvertantly mixing eras here, although you're correct about the patent theft.
2003-08-07 20:46 | User Profile
My First Four Years in Germany was the first full-scale Warner Brothers movie - it was released in March of 1918, and was a vicious distortion of the memoirs of the American ambassador to Germany.
William Fox (Wilhelm Fried) was born in Hungary to Germany jewish parents. He, and his wife - jewish - absolutely no doubt about them at all. He's my favorite of the Hollywood moguls (along with Carl Laemmle) as he really didn't have any jewish agenda, was a nice guy and ran a happy studio at which the directors called the shots. John Ford, Frank Borzage and Raoul Walsh made some very good movies there, and of course, Fox was responsible for bringing F. W. Murnau to the USA where he made a few masterpieces (Sunrise, City Girl, Tabu).
About the anti German stuff - it is usually subtle, often couched in 'comic' terms - not overt German bashing (that comes later). For one thing the German consulate in LA had a persistent and embarrassing (for the US government) habit of complaining when Hollywood was too disrespectful/insulting and after all, the US was not at war and had full diplomatic relations with Germany all through this period. Also, US public opinion was overwhelmingly against any involvement in the European thing and the America First crowd had a habit of telling people that 6 of the 7 important Hollywood studios were run by jews who were thus propagandizing the US into a jew's war (where have I heard that expression before?). In Hollywood films of the period, not nice guys, authoritarian figures, the anal-retentive stickler for the rules at the expense of kissy-huggy humanity - was more likely to be German or have stereotypically German mannerisms than not in this period.
I don't buy the they-only-loved-money argument - Warner Brothers, the most despicable of all those producers - have a totally consistent anti German bias from the day they begin making films. Anti German, anti white, anti gentile. The third brother - Albert - was married to a gentile and as he was dying (when The Jazz Singer was about to premiere) begged his brothers to take care of his wife and child. The minute he was dead - Jack and Harry bought the courts to take the child away from her gentile mother and saw to it that mother and child never saw each other again - so the child could be brought up 100% jew. As the mother was a movie actress, they also saw to it that she never got real work again. She drank herself to death (you can see her as an extra in a few sound films). That isn't doing it just to make money. That is doing it for hate.
MGM, which had better taste and was smarter than WB, did it with a bit more class - but, when they released The Mortal Storm in June of 1940, they knew full well that the result would be the immediate banning of all American films from European screens. Those European screens accounted for a full 40% of Hollywood's profits. So, 18 months before the beginning of the war they engineered (along with their jew brethren in politics) MGM and the other studios kissed goodbye to all that money. It's not just the money to them, and it never was. Lenin understood very well the propagandistic power of the movie medium and his jew pals in Hollywood did too.
The collusion between the industry and the government is a complex and very interesting issue for sure. Suffice it for now to say that there are plenty of jews in both of those power rackets, and that Roosevelt's crowd was particularly heavy with jews.
Brewster's Millions - the Allan Dwan/Edward Small film from 1945? That was a UA, not Paramount picture. UA was much easier to push around than any of the important producers, let alone a vertically integrated major like Paramount.
2003-08-08 03:18 | User Profile
Paramount produced BREWSTER'S but perioodically farmed out films to product-starved UA during the war years - as with I MARRIED A WITCH and others. They were aware of potential exhibitor problems with BREWSTER'S which may have led them to fobbing it off on UA.
I found that Wm Fox 'goy' thing astonishing, so I can see being misinformed there. Maybe the fact that he actually did time 'convinced' me of his lack of tribal affiliation. I really can't offer an opinion on Wm Fox's tenure outside of a scant few titles as so many of the pre-merger Fox titles are either lost or very difficult to see. Certainly SEVENTH HEAVEN, SUNRISE and the Will Rogers talkies are all very well made.
As for the individual Warner Brothers....nobody's arguing that these moguls were, by and large, boors and ham-fisted martinets. I just think it's tricky to judge most studio product by the respective bosses because 95% of the time, the actual movie-making was relegated to cast, crews and production heads like - in Warners' case - Hal Wallis & Ray Griffith.
Again, I don't doubt that what you say about My First Four Years in Germany is true, but it's ridiculous to maintain that anti-German sentiment was the work of one studio or one particular film. It's equally suspect to assume that they'd willingly forego money and close the very profitable European market for a round of Aryan-bashing. It's a known fact that the government laid a heavy hand on the arts during WWs 1 & 2 to keep war fever high. Certainly, the government's record during WW1 alone is shameful. Not even Griffith (DW) was immune - in fact, he was strongly encouraged to stoke the fires of anti-Hun sentiment for HEARTS OF THE WORLD, commissioned by Great Britain for the sole purpose of dragooning the US into the war.
And all of which is immaterial to my original point, which was that the difference between old Hollywood and new Hollywood is that old Hwood tended to reflect the fantasies, aspirations & values of the audience....whereas the new Hwood reflects those of the filmmakers, executives and powerbrokers. Part of that is the economics of the business, but part of that is also the natural reticence of those old Jews to frighten the horses and potentially upset the applecart. Particularly in an era when audience boycotts were real possibilities that carried real weight.
2003-08-20 16:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Gott@Aug 7 2003, 14:46 * *I don't buy the they-only-loved-money argument - Warner Brothers, the most despicable of all those producers - have a totally consistent anti German bias from the day they begin making films. Anti German, anti white, anti gentile. **
On TCM this morning:
Black Legion (1937)
Synopsis
This hard-hitting, socially conscious drama, the sort of story that Warner Bros. made their hallmark in the 1930s, concerns a factory worker named Frank Taylor (Humphrey Bogart), who is convinced that a big promotion is right around the corner for him. However, the promotion goes to a harder-working Polish immigrant named Joe Dombrowski (Henry Brandon). Angry and upset, Frank is approached by members of a secret organization called the Black Legion, who believe in "America for Americans" and want to drive away immigrants and racial minorities through violent means. Wearing black robes, Frank and the other members of the Legion go on a torchlight raid, driving Dombrowski and his family from their home. With Dombrowski gone from the plant, Frank gets the job, which means more money and a higher standard of living for him and his family. But his outlaw activities with the Legion begin taking up more of his time (and his money, as they make a healthy profit selling robes, weapons, and racist geegaws to their membership), which drives a wedge between Frank and his wife Ruth (Erin O'Brien-Moore). Frank begins drinking and starts slapping Ruth around; she leaves him, and Frank takes up with a floozie named Pearl (Helen Flint). Ed (Dick Foran), a good friend of Frank's, sees that his buddy is drinking too much and ruining his life, so he tries to step in and express his concern. His tongue loosened by alcohol, Frank tells Ed about his secret life with the violent Legion; the next morning, Frank is afraid that Ed might inform on him to the police, so he tells the Legion leadership what has happened. They subsequently order Ed to be captured and executed. While Warner Bros. attempted to avoid the wrath of Black Legion and Ku Klux Klan members by stating that all characters and institutions were entirely fictional, Black Legion was still a brave attack on hate groups, given that lynchings were not uncommon in parts of the United States in the mid-1930s. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
[url=http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/movie/details/0,7286,VID-V++++85215,00.html]http://www.blockbuster.com/bb/movie/detail...++85215,00.html[/url]
2003-08-27 01:06 | User Profile
I'm new here, and I'm impressed with the knowledge shared on this thread.
I read a bio of Frank Capra years ago and this tough, smart, little engineer-trained Sicilian wasn't afraid of Harry Cohn and proved it time and again as he made movies that Cohn either resisted or sabotaged completely. Capra insisted, persisted and prevaled much of the time, earning Cohn's grudging respect. But it wasn't easy for a goy to make it in those days especially when he wanted his name above the title. That's why Chaplin never dissuaded anyone from thinking he was a Jew. He wasn't, but he believed it opened doors in that very prejudicial club.
As for Bogart, I recall an inteview done with his wife, Lauren Bacall, nee Betty Peretz, long after he died. The interviewer questioned her about that trip they both took to Wash. DC with a host of other stars protesting HUAC. There he was in a photo with Danny Kaye, Richard Conte, June Havoc among many others. Bacall, not too bright a bulb to begin with, said after that incident, Bogart realized he'd been used by the commies in Hollywood and had nothing more to do with them once he was convinced they had an agenda different from his own.
I always felt the reason Hollywood of the 30's and 40's was so in tune with the American public was because they were being forced to watch their Ps and Qs. But the bottomline was still the driving force behind movie making, although some were better than others in separating the winners from the losers. I thought they gave this country one hell of a great time and a tremendous legacy. Whether I agree or disagree with their politics seems almost insignificant compared to the thousands of hours of entertainment they provided. In the book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, it's clear to anyone that they dominated the landscape not because they were smarter or better at it than anyone else. It was because they were inherent risk takers and cheats with an unspoken but fierce tribal loyalty. But you can't deny they produced magnificent entertainment.
When Dore Schary took over from L.B. Mayer it was clear that the "progressives" were going to push the envelope with "message" movies and the leftist agenda was in full swing. But the post-WWII public was changing and so too were the movies. Does life imitate art or is it the other way around? L.B. Mayer once responded to someone who was concerned about putting a certain topic on screen and the public's readiness to accept it with, they'll accept anything I put in front of them because I'll make it look normal, or words to that effect.
As to Judy Garland. I believe she was one of the best and brightest entertainers to ever grace the silver screen. Her talent was unmatched. She could do it all and had a voice no coach could help obtain. Her father was a homosexual and left his family early in her life. That she's now being judged by her frailties and not her gifts isn't fair. She had a tough life and made many bad decisions but it didn't detract one iota from her immense talents. Hollywood is an insatiable meat grinder, even for the strong, but for someone like Judy Garland, it was a disaster. It ate her up and spit her out, and through it all she lost more and more of herself, but not her voice. She was manipulative and paranoid, but that was more a result of her pill popping than her true nature. I thought she was great and we'll never see the likes of her pass our way again.
2003-09-05 13:12 | User Profile
Nice post DakotaBlue. Personally, I find the ego battles between Capra and Cohn pretty funny, as I don't much care for Capra's movies. Cohn was a very impressive guy to turn desperately Z grade Columbia into a real studio the way he did. Capra helped him to do that to some extent, but it was mostly Cohn (and his brother, I believe also had a big hand in the right decisions that Columbia invariably took). Universal, which started with vastly more, wound up with considerably less during the studio era, because Cohn was able to make films so economically but cleverly and in tune with the public pulse while the Laemmleââ¬â¢s at Universal (to 1936) were not. Cohn enticed directors far better than Capra to come over to unfashionable Columbia to make movies by giving them the kind of freedom they could not get at the more ritzy addresses in town. Borzage (mostly Italian blood) made two of his most original films there, LaCava (a much better Italian American director than Capra) made a number of terrific films there, Ford made a movie for Cohn and wonderful Leo McCarey very deservedly won a AA for his The Awful Truth there. If for nothing else, the world owes to Harry Cohn the inventions of Rita Hayworth and then Kim Novak and they are very high-grade eye-candy indeed, especially Rita.
I don't much like the heavy handed propaganda of the Capra story films and I really dislike the propaganda 'documentaries' he made or supervised during the war. For one thing they - particularly the first one which he personally director/compiled - steal very freely from German documentary films. Sometimes actual footage which is used totally out of context to twist the meaning, but even more to the entire approach which is stolen from Fritz Hipplerââ¬â¢s work, particularly the brilliant Feldzug in Polan and Sieg Im Westen (which isnââ¬â¢t officially credited to Hippler as director but which he did really make). The later films in that Capra series get longer and longer and more and more grossly sentimental and lying. The Russian one ââ¬â made by a jew import to Hollywood I believe ââ¬â is a really astonishing series of distortions and outright lies and what moaning and self-pitying sniveling!
I could not agree more to your remark about the Hollywood jews not being smarter ââ¬â no, rather more dishonest and totally unscrupulous. The whole story of how hard they worked together to keep gentile Howard Hughes out of the movie making business in the late 20s early 30s is a excellent case in point. It was by then a closed club exclusively made up of jews in the management positions and they saw to it that it stayed that way except for the later (1934/35) addition of sabots goy Zanuck who had been a good boy for a long long time before his lousy 20th Century Productions was allowed to acquire William Foxââ¬â¢s gigantic and magnificent studio.
I like the entertainment aspect too, and the extraordinary level of craftsmanship in movies of the 20s, 30s, 40ââ¬â¢s and 50s. But for me, itââ¬â¢s so wrapped up in brainwashing propaganda that Iââ¬â¢m very uneasy with most of the major films. Underneath the stories are always little lessons to be learnedââ¬Â¦and they are always about ââ¬Ëtoleranceââ¬â¢ ââ¬Ëwe are a nation of many culturesââ¬â¢ etc. By way of consistent progressive design, and all the techniques and the talents of the directors and performers we are always compelled to identify with the poor victims. By the same formula, we are always compelled to oppose the evil villains. The values of victims and villains always fits with the jew agenda. I wonââ¬â¢t anymore look at any movie even remotely centered on the war or Germans and once you start looking for thatââ¬Â¦it is really amazing how many Hollywood products manage to somehow drag that crap into the story somewhere, somehow.
By this point in time, I have a better time with fringe products from Hollywood, movies so minor that it wasnââ¬â¢t worth managementââ¬â¢s trouble to insert the incessant mind control messages that are everywhere in the major pictures. Westerns through the 1930s are usually quite legitimately conservative in their messages and itââ¬â¢s really refreshing ââ¬â films like Walshââ¬â¢s really impressive epic The Big Trail, and lots of the better B Westerns say things that I can not only stand, but like hearing. They (the management guys) quickly took the A Western the same route that they took all the other big pictures ââ¬â into jew psycho babble telling us (us means white males) how sick, conflicted, dangerous, hateful, etc, we are. The Anthony Mann Westerns with Stewart, for instance ââ¬â wonderful works of art/entertainment - but total jew propaganda aimed at destroying white cultural cohesiveness and sense of community.
Yeah, Garland is impressive. Singers donââ¬â¢t do a lot for me unless they are singing Italian or German opera (which takes really extraordinary virtuosity), but she is a very fine example of a popular music singer, I agree. The iron discipline of all the real stars then is so different from today. The jews were busy dismantling the value system upon which such discipline and application are founded, but they eagerly took advantage of it while it still survived. Fred Astaire is 50 years old in The Band Wagon for instance and he still dances like a god. Garland, who was anything but graceful or physically attractive with a very ungainly body, is a fantastically good dancer in Easter Parade (jew Irving Berlin taking the Christianity out of Easter and replacing it with a hat). She willed herself to be a good dancer. And even though she could never control her weight with that not so hot body that nature had given herââ¬Â¦look at most of the great women stars like Irene Dunne, Joan Crawford, Margaret Sullavan, Loretta Young, Constance Bennett etc. etc. they kept their incredible figures all their lives ââ¬â because of their iron discipline.
2003-09-05 16:42 | User Profile
Underneath the stories are always little lessons to be learnedââ¬Â¦and they are always about ââ¬Ëtoleranceââ¬â¢ ââ¬Ëwe are a nation of many culturesââ¬â¢ etc. By way of consistent progressive design, and all the techniques and the talents of the directors and performers we are always compelled to identify with the poor victims. By the same formula, we are always compelled to oppose the evil villains. The values of victims and villains always fits with the jew agenda.
I saw an absolute "classic" of this type yesterday: Crossfire (proudly presented to a grateful American public by zhids Dore Schary, Joseph L. Mankewicz & Edward Dmytryk). This steaming kosher log is about a Poor, Poisecuted Choo named Samuels who meets 4 soldiers in a bar and gets snuffed back at his apartment by Montgomery, The Evil Anti-Semitic One (Robert Ryan). Naturally, they attempt to make the ewww sympathetic by showing us how kind, compassionate & soft-spoken he is. He takes a "humanitarian" interest in a young soldier who's having wife trouble (this is how they all act, eh?). Then there are numerous pious sermons from the "world-weary" cop trying to catch the killer (Robert Young): "There are different kinds of jew hate. There's the kind that keeps them out of the country club. Then the kind that won't hire them. Finally, there's the rare kind of hater like the one who killed Samuels....."; the inevitable White sympathy-establishing comparison of logic-based jew loathing with the rough time many Irish Catholics experienced when they first arrived in the 19th Century, etc.
One rather interesting twist is the depiction of Leroy, a Tennessee country boy who "jew-hating nut" Montgomery bullies as a "dumb, shoeless hillbilly". Young's character works on Leroy to get his cooperation by reminding him of this, saying that Montgomery's kind go after the chews first, but that it just may be Southerners' turn under the Gun of Hate next.
This from the tribe of ticks who've viciously portrayed Southerners as murderous, inbred "racist" vermin without letup for the last 60 years and with no end in sight......
Unfortunately, Robert Mitchum also lent his presence to this turkey. Well, maybe it can be chalked-up to a rising star's desire to ingratiate himself with the Picklesnootzim.
If you enjoy a good sneer as I do, this abortion may be worth a viewing. Don't rent it: watch it for free on TCM, like me.
2003-09-05 18:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by DakotaBlue@Aug 26 2003, 20:06 * ** As to Judy Garland. I believe she was one of the best and brightest entertainers to ever grace the silver screen. Her talent was unmatched. She could do it all and had a voice no coach could help obtain.* Her father was a homosexual and left his family early in her life. ** **
DBlue, I do believe Judy Garland also married a homosexual, Vincent Manelli, which produced Liza Minelli and then he and Judy divorced some time afterwards. Takes nothing away from Judy's amazing talent. However, whether she was a jewess or not, Judy, as well as her daughter Liza, seemed very jewish to me.... I dunno.
And darn, the homos just love Liza and those damn show tunes :wub:
2003-09-05 20:05 | User Profile
I always felt the reason Hollywood of the 30's and 40's was so in tune with the American public was because they were being forced to watch their Ps and Qs. But the bottomline was still the driving force behind movie making, although some were better than others in separating the winners from the losers. I thought they gave this country one hell of a great time and a tremendous legacy. Whether I agree or disagree with their politics seems almost insignificant compared to the thousands of hours of entertainment they provided. In the book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, it's clear to anyone that they dominated the landscape not because they were smarter or better at it than anyone else. It was because they were inherent risk takers and cheats with an unspoken but fierce tribal loyalty. But you can't deny they produced magnificent entertainment.
My own feeling was the bloom began coming off the rose with the end of WW2; it was the beginning of the crucial change in dynamics: where, previously, Hollywood had provided entertainment that reflected the dreams and fantasies of the audiences, it now began to lecture those audiences and began exclusively reflecting the worldview of the (Jewish) filmmakers. The pendulum has yet to swing back.
Americans proved susceptible not because they were stupid but because they were genuinely good: altruistic, and generous in spirit. Nobody knew, back when FURY or CROSSFIRE (to name two films that irked the General) were made, that they were the first steps towards cultural disaster. Like many woefully wrong turns, they seemed like good ideas at the time.
As it was, Hollywood continued to mostly cater to audience tastes until The Decade Of Doom, the 60s. And I think even NB will grudgingly admit that the majority of Hollywoodiana circa 1915-1960 provided agreeable, non-lethal entertainment. Often great entertainment. And that raises one more point too seldom made.
Hollywood film is one of the few entertainment mediums where the content is wholly ascribed to those people who had the least to do with the quality of the finished work. Ie, the moguls and producers. If a publishing house controlled by Jews publishes Schiller, or Shakespeare - if an art gallery owned by Jews schedules an exhibition of Waterhouse paintings - nobody refers to Shakespeare, Schiller or Waterhouse as Jews, or their work as Jewish.
While there are many, many Jews at all levels of filmmaking, why are we so quick to dismiss the work of Ford or Capra or Howard Hawks or even Buster Keaton as secondary to the moguls and financiers who middle-man their finished products? Even the Jewish scenarists and directors who worked for those studios tended to despise the men signing their checks as artless parasites.....so for me to categorize John Ford as a lackey for Jews is not only foolish, it's self-defeating. It's like saying the presence of Jews in the financing of a commodity trumps and utterly negates the efforts of the gentile who is 99% resonsible for the finished work, good bad or indifferent. The Jews didn't "invent" Hollywood, they merely swindled their way into a position of capitalizing on the hard work of the men who actually did all the inventing, from Edison to Griffith to Chaplin and beyond. And i choose to prioritize talent over bookkeeping in the arts. Yes, without working capital, nothing gets made...but capital has always been a necessary evil that art has labored under - and too often compromised and defeated by - but once the capital has been raised, the financier becomes a mere detail in the production notes. Without the artist, that capital might just as well go into the manufacturing of zippers.
And if you're about to note the fact that the majority of movies are tripe, well, the majority of every art form is trash - there are always more bad books, recordings, paintings, etc than works of lasting value. People who instinctively buy that malarkey about film being a Jewish medium...let alone their exclusive 'invention'...are just buying Jew-supremacist twaddle and selling themselves short.
2003-09-06 03:21 | User Profile
Recluse,
Odd the Black Legion was real group.
The Commies did not like them much
Morris, George The Black Legion rides. Workers Library Publishers, New York. 1936, 47p., wraps. "A communist pamphlet exposing the fascistic Black Legion of Michigan, the northern equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan." *Seidman M379
Looks like the history channel is doing the The Black Legion
**Terror in the Heartland: The Black Legion (February 15): In the 1930s, a secret society comprised of pro-Nazi, KKK members and other extreme right-wing groups proclaimed themselves the guardians of Christian values. Calling themselves "The Black Legion," they terrorized the Midwest with a series of bombings, murders and hate crimes. Follow the exhaustive police work undertaken to expose this internal terrorist group and how it was finally brought to justice.
Airs: Mondays-Thursdays at 8 pm ET/9 pm PT Length: 1 hour per episode Host: Arthur Kent
[url=http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/ontv/listings/02/mysteries.html]http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/fram.../mysteries.html[/url]**
Black Legion (1937) [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003XAMX/002-5062269-2265618?v=glance]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...265618?v=glance[/url]
FBI on Black Legion: [url=http://foia.fbi.gov/blackleg.htm]http://foia.fbi.gov/blackleg.htm[/url]
Searched the web for "Black Legion" . [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Black+Legion%22+&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8]http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Black+Le...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8[/url]
2003-09-06 14:57 | User Profile
Oh but the jews did indeed invent 'Hollywood' - the industrialization mass production of films (which they did and do refer to as 'product'). Edison paid for the inventions (Dickson and Heise) while Griffith invented the syntax and grammar and Ince pioneered in the industrialization of movie making. But the jews made Hollywood the center of it all, and created the studio system that controlled both inventions and the techniques by which movies can be made.
I agree that some non-jew directors, within very circumscribed limits - could do their own thing under the jews. Hawks was quoted numerous times as disliking jews - he once pointed to Leo Forbstein (music) in the WB commissary and said to his companion (Lauren Bacall - not realizing, or playing with the fact that she was a jew) 'just look at that - the minute one of them comes in it gets loud and vulgar' or words to that effect. Yet, even though I am quite familiar with Hawks' films, I don't recall a single instance of a jew character in any of those movies that is not positive (except one in Scarface -written by very jewish Ben Hecht, and that character merely and briefly exists to say that shyster Jew lawyers are really errand boys for WASP judges). So, how come Hawks' movies don't reflect his real views on jews? Because, even though the jew bosses valued his work (the best action director ever) he would have never been allowed to communicate views contrary to those of Jack Warner or Harry Cohn (Hawks' best 30s movies are at WB and Columbia). John Ford was lucky in that for a long time he worked for William Fox who was by far the best and least jewish of the moguls. However, Ford also produced many of his best films through the independent company (Argosy) he created with a few other non-jews. The great Ford films without social agendas - or even better - with the RIGHT social agendas - Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande, The Quiet Man, etc. - were made independent of the jew system and for the very reason that only by doing so could they be made without 'progressive' messages. My proof of this? When Ford went back to working for the jew studios, his westerns quickly take on exactly those progressive social views - The Searchers, Sgt. Rutledge and Cheyenne Autumn for WB, Two Rode Together for Columbia, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for Paramount. Now some of these later pictures are among his best - but they all have anti-racist, 'we are all the same' sentiments, evil white villains and noble, suffering indian or darkie victims. Liberty Valance shows the falsity of heroism and the inevitable low and pitiful end of all dreams, etc. In other words, Fordââ¬â¢s later works for the studios communicate thematic material quite at odds with the Argosy films. Keaton also - was entirely independent until 1929, and while his first two films for MGM (The Cameraman and Spite Marriage) are very nice movies, the others that follow are just mass produced garbage.
From the start, Hollywood was designed intentionally to produce either mind rot or propaganda in exactly the same way that Television is. Movies had a vastly greater artistic element as the early jew managers did seem to love the medium, or maybe were just into showing off/prestige in making high class ââ¬Ëproductââ¬â¢. The point is, they maintained the highest technical standards imaginable - with all those great European import cinematographers, art directors, and performers. You might think the ASC was a subsidiary of UFA from looking at Hollywood credits in the 1920s and 1930s. And what do they do with that unprecedented concentration of the greatest film talent in the world? MAKE TRASH with it, that's what. John loves Ellen but Ellen loves Ben so John tells lies about Ben and Ellen is so disillusioned she becomes a sexy whore and sinks low, low, low, ETC. ETC. One of the things that make Ed Woodââ¬â¢s Plan 9 from Outer Space so genuinely delightful is the artlessness with which he parades the standard Hollywood formulas and stereotypes. The characters and material of Plan 9 are actually not an iota different from the typical studio trash, they just lack the tricks, bells and whistles that the major system is designed to provide. Woodââ¬â¢s personal simplicity in the handling of these conventions results in amused reactions from the spectator. Just look at the average Hollywood movie then and now with sharper vision and you will be seeing the same baloney ââ¬â only tricked up so you will be ââ¬Ëentertainedââ¬â¢. Without those bells and whistles - you can see the total poverty, the painful simplicity, and the intellectual bankruptcy very clearly. The artlessness, which reveals these pathetic formulas, makes them charming in the Wood picture. The slickness, which hides them, makes them criminal in the studio pictures that do the same thing. 'Entertainment' in this context is simply a jew euphemism for brain washed or mind rotted.
And then for the 'prestige' productions - the social reengineering goes into action. It was all entirely intentional and the only difference between the pre/wartime and the post war moguls is 1.) the first group had more experience and was subtler (which is often much worse/dangerous) and 2.) the later guys quite rightly felt that they could afford to ratchet things up a few notches by the 1950s as the system had worked so fabulously well in selling a wholly fictitious and genuinely absurd bill of goods about evil Germans and all that during the war that Hollywood so outstandingly played a central role in creating - see jew Curtiz garbage like Casablanca for corroboration. Just beautifully made - a gorgeous series of despicable clichés and common assumptions with the intellectual depth typical for a work made by superficial and vulgar jews, and based on total lies. I suggest to you all Curtiz's Janie (1943 or 44) - my favorite of his movies and really charming and funny. But, the reason I recommend it is because it is a very rare instance of the jews dropping their mask for a moment. The film is about a 'typical' American wartime family and the cynicism with which the entire war shtick is presented, is just breathtaking. Mom and Dad having silly squabbles about the most inconsequential issues, Mom being obsessed by uniforms in the various woman's groups she joins (out of boredom and to show off, it seems), the baby antics of the kids - kids, the boys of whom are going off shortly to fight the war and be shot at and maybe killed. The entire directorial(jew) and production (jew) attitude is total contempt for the 'useful idiots' who so agreeably do the jew's dirty work for them. Well work checking out.
The jews owned the entire works - so you played ball by at least ignoring all subjects that might offend them, or went along with the stereotypes they demanded, or didn't work - that is then and that is now in Hollywood.
If people know that what they are watching leads to cultural disaster and actual physical extinction - then the propaganda in question is badly done. No one watching was or is supposed to know these things. That's why the jews go for the movie making apparatus as soon at they can - it makes the best propaganda imaginable.
I don't care if it is tripe - sure most works in all mediums are bad - art is the hardest thing to create. I care that Hollywood, which is very high-grade (technically) tripe - incessantly propagandizes for a cultural agenda that is making everything I care about in the world EXTINCT.
2003-09-06 16:08 | User Profile
Gott:
Interesting stuff you wrote. I'm in my 50's and going to the movies had always been absolutely enjoyable escapism for me until the last 10-15 years where I find that neither the subject matter nor the alleged "stars" in them, entice me to spend the $8.50.
I'm old enough to remember seeing 2 movies for the price of one. Sometimes the "B" became a classic, like Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. But the "A" was almost always worth the price of admission.
As to Capra, I enjoyed his films although through a more mature prism I can see the schmaltz, but I happen to like that kind of schmaltz...in small doses. But some of his stuff I just can't watch anymore like, It Happened One Night, the movie that put Cohn on the map. But that's true of a lot of movies coming out of Hollywood in the 30's and 40's. Some hold up better than others. I was wondering about that the other night. I rented Gay Divorcee. When I was a kid, I loved watching Rogers and Astaire and the Gershwin score was out of this world. I can't remember how many times I watched Top Hat, so mesmerizing were the dance routines. The story line was silly even then, but tolerable if you knew any minute they were going to break out into a delicious tune. But even with all that going for it, I still can't sit through those movies today, so corrupted I've become by cinema verisimillitude.
As to the Jewish angle, I was quite surprised to learn that Harry Warren a Berlin contemporary, and an unheralded song writer, was of Italian descent. He wrote the score for 42nd Street among other wonderful popular songs. As a matter of fact, more of his songs were sung by the American public and the world than even Berlin's. Yet he got scant recognition because, according to thos in the know, he wasn't a Jew. This brings me back to a rumor that has circulated for years, that Berlin stole most of his songs from unknown songwriters of the day when Tin Pan Alley was really a bunch of tough, unscrupulous song pluggers. Makes you wonder.
The problem with having one ethnic group control anything, is that they can't resist putting their own slant on things. So it is with the Jews. There hasn't been one movie that depicts the Jews as they are. Jew portrayal is predictably formulaic and was at the heart of Marlon Brando's criticism when talking to Larry King, afterwards having to apologize to every Jew in the world if he wanted to ever work again. His honest remark went something like this, I'm paraphrasing...Hollywood has shown us the wop, the chink, the negro, the Jap, but when do we ever get to see the Jew? We don't. And that's just one of the problems with Jewish control. The other is that most, if not all, are radical liberals who push the party line, and not so subtly either, as in Spielberg's, Contender, a real piece of self-indulgence and a bomb.
Since most people nowadays get their values from movies and television, you can understand the concern that thinking people have with Jewish dominance of both. They've brought us to this precipice intentionally or not, and we're about to commit cultural suicide. I'd take Marx's statement one step further...religion and entertainment are the opiates of the masses. If we don't come out of this stupor, we'll lose another generation and then I fear the conversion will be complete and irreversible any time soon.
2003-09-06 16:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Sep 5 2003, 12:46 * ** DBlue, I do believe Judy Garland also married* a homosexual, Vincent Manelli, which produced Liza Minelli and then he and Judy divorced some time afterwards. Takes nothing away from Judy's amazing talent. However, whether she was a jewess or not, Judy, as well as her daughter Liza, seemed very jewish to me.... I dunno.
And darn, the homos just love Liza and those damn show tunes :wub: **
Yes, Vincent Minnelli was a homosexual, and so is Liza Minnelli's husband, David Gest. There's something painfully pathological there. Liza is nowhere near the talent her mother was, but that hasn't ever stopped an influential cadre of homosexuals and lesbians, including Liz Smith, from promoting her shamelessly no matter how poor her performances had been. Liza never had a voice and her acting ability was mediocre at best. She's just a garden variety entertainer who had the good fortune of having Hollywood royalty for parents. It opened all doors. I saw her live, in concert with Frank Sinatra and she was embarrassing.
Judy Garland always felt uneasy about her looks but what average woman wouldn't be when she was shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Lana Turner, Hedy Lamar, Gene Tierney and Ava Gardner every day. But I thought she was pretty in her young days, very much a girl next door type, not a glamour queen. She was very pretty in Meet Me in St. Louis and what she lacked in looks, she made up for in pure, unadulterated talent.
2003-09-06 18:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Sep 5 2003, 21:21 * *Recluse,
Odd the Black Legion was real group.
The Commies did not like them much
**
Thanks, Faust. I read about 50 pages of the FBI transcript this morning and the Black Legion seems like kind of a silly organization, but this movie went beyond attacking just them and presented a completely one-sided pov that demonized everyone who was opposed to immigration. (And I'm sure it was "Polish" immigrants they were concerned about. <_<) That's the standard MO for the tribe, of course, whether it's Schumer demonizing gun owners, (Chuckie almost succeeded in getting the NRA branded as a hate group, enough so that Bush1 and Swarzkopf resigned, I heard rumors at the time that some gentile Dems grabbed him by the throat and told him that his anti-gun jihad was costing them too many elections), or Frum demonizing the traditional conservatives, or AIPAC/ADL attacks against critics of our ME policy, or NBC's [url=http://geocities.com/nstix/lawandorder.html]Law & Order defaming Whites,[/url] it's what they do. And it's disgusting, and we need to find a way to hold them accountable.
2003-09-06 23:58 | User Profile
Well folks, I didn't exactly write what just got posted. I guess there's a filter on this forum. Brando didn't say negroe, he said ngger, and he didn't say Jew, he said kke. I don't know if even this will make it through. Kind of surprised this would have gotten tagged. But if dems the rules, dems the rules.
2003-09-07 02:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Sep 5 2003, 10:42 * ** I saw an absolute "classic" of this type yesterday: Crossfire* (proudly presented to a grateful American public by zhids Dore Schary, Joseph L. Mankewicz & Edward Dmytryk).... **
Speaking of Dmytryk, he was villified by the Hollywood Ten because he along with Elia Kazan named names during the HUAC hearings. In the 1970's or 80's Albert Maltz, himself one of the Ten, in an interview, hurled insults at Dmytryk for selling out friends who were innocent of the charges. Dmytryk, much to his credit, responded that Maltz was full of sh*t, and that communists had infiltrated deep into the front and back offices of Hollywood and Maltz was not only one of them, but a liar. I know Dmytryk was Ukrainian but I don't know if he was a Jew.
2003-09-07 03:36 | User Profile
DBlue, I began a thread on that very topic here. You might enjoy perusing it.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=1007]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=1007[/url]
**In the Jew-controlled world of entertainment (prim. movies/tv), where every type of stereotype once flourished and every ethnic type has played villainous roles (especially every possible ethnic variant of white gentile, but also including plenty of blacks, Asians, Latinos & Arabs as well), try to think of THREE American films with a clearly-delineated Jewish villain. And I don't mean comic (thus lovable) villains, I don't mean minor villains dwarfed in evil by a gentile super-villain who enters the plot late in the exposition, nor do I mean villainous characters in productions where EVERY character is a Jew such as YENTL or FIDDLER ON THE ROOF.
I mean boo-hiss, evil-character villains in everyday dramas, comedies, thrillers, action films, romances, etc, where the explicitly-identified-as-Jewish villain interacts with mostly gentile characters. This must be easy, right? Gotta be at least 40,000 feature films made in the last 75 years alone, and if you add dramatic tv, made-for-tv movies/miniseries, etc, you can probably triple that number.
I'm not asking for twenty examples; nor ten; hell, not even five. Just three. Three despicable, rotten bad guys named Greenberg or Birnbaum. Three hateful baddies shown speaking Yiddish or Hebrew, or celebrating Passover, or attending temple. Three Jewish villains.
I'll give you one. Hyman Roth from THE GODFATHER PART 2: the most brilliantly-evoked and realistic portrayal of a Jew in movie history. It's so dead-on it's still stunning that Coppola was allowed to get away with the character! (BUGSY doesn't count - the Jews are the heroic gangsters in it...the real villain in it is Luciano!
So there: I'm only asking for three bonafide examples out of thousands and thousands of films, and I just GAVE you one! Just give me two more.
You can't do it. **
2003-09-07 11:36 | User Profile
Dymtryk was a jew
2003-09-07 15:26 | User Profile
il ragno:
I also posted this very topic on another Forum. I too challenged anyone to come up with a movie that realistically portrayed the real inventors of the Murder Inc. in a way the Italians have been connected with the Mafia. The responses were pathetic. The Jewish posters went ballistic and came up with such nonsense as Once Upon A Time in America, Bugsy and Lansky. They inadvertently proved my point. Hyman Roth was the most powerful portrayal of a Jew in a gangster movie, but it was a secondary role eclipsed by the Italians once again. A movie is yet to be made about Dutch Schultz, who was a murderous Jew in the same way movies have been made of Capone and the fictional Corleone family, and it ain't gonna happen. Anyway, we both agree, the Jews have escaped the spotlight. I know for a fact that the studio heads in the 30's and 40's had an unwritten rule that Jews weren't to be depicted as Jews per se unless they were engaged in something friendly, altruistic or inspiring, like Jolson in the Jazz Singer, or as an old couple being shunned by their "modern", (translation:assimilated) children who ultimately separate their elderly parents by putting them in separate nursing facilities. A real tear jerker with the Jew again as a sympathetic figure. I can't recall the name of that movie but it was produced in the 30's.
By controlling this industry, the Jews don't just tell us what and how to think, but when to think. If the industry was controlled by Palestinian-Americans, do you think the Jews would put up with it?
2003-09-07 16:14 | User Profile
I think you mean MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW, a Leo McCarey picture from 37 or so. Never saw it myself, though.
2003-09-07 18:32 | User Profile
The central couple in McCarey's (very great movie) Make Way For Tomorrow is as white/WASP as it is possible to be - the Coopers, played by Beulah Bondi (Lucy) and Victor Moore (Bart). When they are separated by the selfishness of their adult children, Bart goes to live with one of their horrible daughters and in that town, strikes up a friendship with the local general store owner, Max Rubens - who is ultra jewish with lots of eye rolling, shoulder shrugging, sighing, etc as played by...ultra jewish Maurice Moscovich. Max even makes some Jew jokes with Moore, brings some of his wife's chicken soup to Bart when the latter is sick and tries to make jokes about 'doing some business' with Bart's nightmarish daughter (Elisabeth Risdon).
Moore and Bondi have put nothing aside, trusting in life (and maybe their children) for the future, while Max has a store, his fiddle and the love of his wife Sarah, played by Ferike Boros (she only appears in a couple of shots) who is like Moscovich - ultra jewish in mannerisms. Max tells Bart that after sacrificing everything for their children, the kids are ashamed of their parents etc.
The Rubens story is only in a little part of Make Way For Tomorrow and is McCarey's way of saying to trust only in the one you love as your children will always let you down. Rubens is 'old fashioned' and very ethnic...and the Coopers are as anonymously 'American' as possible, yet both men have only their wives as their children are worthless.
So the sentiment is legit (McCarey says the same thing about the primacy of a central couple who love each other in a lot of his movies) but at the same time, it shows jews as just the same as everybody else - in the same boat. All in all, the price (the jew stuff) was a small price for Zukor to extract in exchange for agreeing to produce the movie at Paramount in the first place as it was a foregone conclusion that a movie with such a subject and which ends as tragically as this one does would be death at the box office.
Anyway, it is quite a wonderful movie and Bondi in particular is awe inspiring. You can't help crying it is so sad and moving. But it doesn't really deal with the jew thing except in this one minor way.
2003-09-07 19:51 | User Profile
Apropos of nothing, it's interesting that both Moore & McCarey were veterans of silent comedy, Moore starring in his own series of shorts in the late teens and McCarey the man responsible for teaming Laurel with Hardy when they all worked for Hal Roach.
I think Moore was also famous as the voice of "Duffy" in radio's longrunning DUFFY'S TAVERN, but I my be mistaken.
While everyone's making valid points, in all honesty I've always shrugged off what mild mind-melding agitprop was present in films of that era. I'm not expecting reality from them, but a stylized and idealized fantasy-reflection of everyday reality. I enjoy not just the artifice but the craftsmanship of the artifice: set design, black & white photography, unapologetic slapstick, adventure (as opposed to 'action') films and their promulgation of the heroic ideal, and those ubiquitous civilized touches that were neither story-conferenced nor story-conferenced against: they were just there because Western man was more civilized. Our cities were livable and cultured, our countryside bucolic and beautiful. People looked forward to the future, if you can believe such a thing. No fiber-optic networks and strip malls had yet turned us into 3000 miles of interchangable facelessness....there was still the romance of distance between two points on a map.Of course, WW2 carved the coffin for all that and the 60s drove the nails in. But I don't think it does any harm to still have a John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart kicking around on cable for people to detoxify from the current 'culture' with.
No, those old movies weren't reality, but without the type of fantasy that ennobles people, or at least offers them a well-crafted harmless diversion, you end up with.... with....well, what we have now: the black best buddy, the tough-and-smart-as-any-man-but-still-foxy lady commanding officer and the ponytailed, cultured-but-evil European/South African terrorist supervillain in possession of stolen Russian nukes.
2003-09-07 21:10 | User Profile
You are waxing pretty nostalgic there, il ragno, in that elegant and eloquent post of yours. I agree that some of the movies back then certainly had class and most were awesomely well made, while they don't have any class now and are so badly made it's almost funny sometimes.
But, I have a strong suspicion that the movie industry actually played the pivotal role in how - in 50 short years - the world has changed from the decent place it used to be to the current nightmare. I guess it comes down to whether one believes that movies reflect or create values.
I'd be a lot more inclined to buy the benign film industry argument if it had not been (and still is) almost 100% owned by jews. That's a 'coincidence' a little too neat for me.
2003-09-07 23:25 | User Profile
Oh I agree with you in principle, but you're, I think, discounting that fear of the goy that used to go hand in hand with contempt of the goy. You know, back then a little Charles Coughlin on the radio used to go a long way towards tempering their boldness. :D
And it was a better world! For a while....
2003-09-08 01:32 | User Profile
Gott:
Yes, you're right. I didn't remember Beulah Bondi because of her appearance. She must have been youngish at that time so the make-up had to be appearance altering. I remember Thomas Mitchell as the son...I think. I always enjoyed Beulah Bondi, (is anyone named Beulah anymore?). The Jewish couple you described were transposed by me onto the Coopers. How's that for decompression. Something I read long ago gave a snapshot of McCarey and how he worked. He was a lawyer before he became a writer, producer and director and he had a flair for comedy. He would simply bring a few people into a room and begin to throw out crazy ideas that were disjointed and without substance. From there he'd take the implausible and come up with a theme in a matter of minutes. He'd throw in a couple of sight gags, flesh out a few spots and then say, OK we've got something to build on. He came up with his best pictures that way, no doubt a carry over from his 2-reeler days with Roach. This is the way he developed the story line for A Cowboy and a Lady.
This entire Jew-run industry is a double edge sword for me. They produced great entertainment on a scale not seen in any other country, that's undeniable. Could it have been done equally as well or better by an almost entirely gentile cast of characters? We'll never know. But it's also true they informed our dress, thought, actions and words. That's a tremendous amount of power to reside in just a handful of people who's loyalty is continually in question and whose attacks on the culture of this nation are well-documented. I don't believe the movies were this partisan and overtly contemptuous of white, Christian America in the 30s through the 50s.
2003-09-08 04:09 | User Profile
I concur with the Spider that the turning point in Hollywood was the aftermath of World War II. "Pinkey"; "Intruder in the Dust" and "Gentleman's Agreement" (in addition to the afore-mentioned White-bashing agit-prop) would have been unthinkable tinsletown product up to 11/41.
But, deferring to Il Ragno et al--to what degree to the A). Busting of the Studios' monopoly on local theatres for guaranteed distribution ; and B). Dat Debbil Tube solidify or diminish the Tribal stranglehold on US collective consciousness?
2003-09-08 12:32 | User Profile
Bondi was just 10 years older than Thomas Mitchell, who is playing her favorite son in the movie. It is certainly her movie all the way - McCarey gives her great scene after great scene throughout. The scene in which Mitchell's character tries to tell her she has to go to the old folks home, but she stops him and says she wants to go (to spare him having to tell her, but also, to punish and shame him a bit) is agony for any man who loves his mother. Myself, being brought up very Italian...I'm quaking just writing about it. And the ending - it's just so sad and beautiful to watch her. If the AAs meant anything she certainly should have won that year.
Actually, there are a lot of very entertaining movies made outside the jew system. Some American films too minor for the jews to bother controlling, particularly the better of the B westerns can be very nicely made and with positive, life-affirming messages. And, German films of the National Socialist, and Italian films of the Fascist eras (the most modern and well equipped studios in Europe were built be Mussolini outside Rome) are often really fun and extremely well made. Nobody ever made better technically worked out movies than the Germans - half the technicians in Hollywood were imported from Germany (well...a lot anyway), and a number of very fine cinematographers were Italians too.
The jews here in the states saw to it that it was (and still is) very difficult to see any non 'American' movies that might show any approach other than their own. There was a world wide boycott of German movies put in place by the jews from the mid 30s on for precisely this reason - to destroy Germany too, of course.
A number of sites have some of the German fiction films, but unfortunately mostly in bad picture quality copies. Still though, it is pretty illuminating to see how much more adult and frank (about sex and life in general) are the attitudes in a lot of German films of the era. They often are more original and quirky in the use of story telling formulas, but the structuring is usually on the inept side relative to Hollywood 'streamlining.'
In the silent era, European films are very often decisively superior to what Hollywood was doing. Just check out Murnau's Faust - the effects alone are awe inspiring and the adult, intelligent, thought-ful nature of the material simply vaporizes the mind-candy 'our' side was mass producing.
Riefenstahl's Olympia ** is better than about 90% of Hollywood put together...no accident at all that the film was not distributed in the US - the Hollywood jews went out of their way to see to that. Olympia ** totally disproves the jew's simplistic lies about National Socialist 'racism.' And it shows the reality of German deep into the NSDAP era as a paradise on earth. Riefenstahl is such a great artist - the movie would have been very effective in answering much of the jew anti-German propaganda so it had to be stopped. Therefore, though there was a German, a French and a British English version, there was never a American English dub of the movie. Olympia is a documentary, not a fiction film, but it is better than most fiction films put together. If you have not seen it, go and rent a good quality copy (Criterion put out a tape, I think).
2003-09-11 00:34 | User Profile
Gott:
Talking about Beulah Bondi got me thinking about another great movie she and Thomas Mitchell starred in, Thornton Wilder's, Our Town. It included some great performances including those of Faye Bainter. Guy Kibbee, Martha Scott and William Holden. Loved the entire movie from start to finish. It made an indelible impression on me and I forever longed to be born in another era in a place like Grover's Corner, NH. But the director was Sam Wood and I wondered why we don't hear much about him. Then I came across this on the net and everything fell into place. It underscores the point we're all making, which is when the Jews get control, leftist politics plays a covert but powerful role in every bit of business that goes on. The following explains why Wood never got the recognition he deserved:
ARTIST BIOGRAPHY
Sam Wood
When American director Sam Wood first reported to Cecil B. De Mille as an assistant in 1915, Wood had already dabbled in real estate and acted on-stage under the name of Chad Applegate. A solo director by 1919, Wood worked throughout the '20s directing some of Paramount's biggest stars, among them Gloria Swanson and Wallace Reid. He began his long association with MGM in 1927, working with personalities as varied as Marion Davies, Clark Gable, Marie Dressler, and Jimmy Durante. He guided the Marx Brothers through their two most profitable films, A Night at the Opera (1935) and A Day at the Races (1937), and turned out one of the most accomplished sentimental dramas ever made in Hollywood, Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939). Hopping from studio to studio in the '40s, Wood directed Ginger Rogers through her Oscar-winning performance in Kitty Foyle (1940), successfully transferred Thornton Wilder's highly theatrical Our Town (1940) to the screen (even the studio-imposed happy ending worked), and assembled the quintessential baseball biopic, The Pride of the Yankees (1942). The list of Wood's successes would seem to assure him a niche in the ranks of all-time best Hollywood directors, yet his reputation has tarnished since his death in 1949. Most detractors insist that Wood was a hack, citing his habit of shooting each scene an average of 20 times, his only verbal direction in each instance being "Go out there and sell 'em a load of clams." In truth, this technique was invaluable in wearing down such mannered performers as Walter Brennan, Dan Duryea, Frank Morgan, and Wallace Beery, until they were tired enough to behave like human beings instead of play-actors. The 20-take habit also enabled the more limited actors to re-think their interpretations until they'd found nuances that they would never have considered on the first take: Ronald Reagan, who was certainly no Olivier, was never better than in Wood's Kings Row (1942). Taking into consideration all the complaints about Sam Wood, the biggest bone of contention seems to be his reactionary politics. Wood was active in a number of right-wing organizations, and in 1947 he virulently condemned Hollywood's "left" before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Those whose politics are diametrically opposite to Wood's dwell incessantly upon this aspect of his life, embellishing the facts by painting him as a bigot and (in the words of Groucho Marx) a "fascist." But just as it is fitting and proper to separate the performances of a Jane Fonda, Shirley MacLaine, or Paul Newman from their political agendas, so too would it be fair to extend the same courtesy to Wood. No matter what sort of man Sam Wood was personally, his string of Hollywood hits should be his true legacy. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
2003-09-11 01:23 | User Profile
In fairness, Wood (a fine director) worked mainly for MGM, along with a number of craftsmen who never got much attention: Clarence Brown, Woody van Dyke, George Seitz, Victor Fleming, Jack Conway...even when a recognized director like Vidor worked there, the work was perceived as more Metro than Vidor.
It was, I think, the critics' way of levelling the field, since Metro was, year after year, the biggest earner of the Big 7. So the directors got subsumed into what was characterized as the MGM 'style'.
2003-09-12 01:29 | User Profile
That may be true, but I'm referring to the kind of recognition given to some directors today as we appreciate more than ever the Golden Age of movies. We've come to know those directors because they're credited with fine movie making and A&E does their bio. They're paraded around like the only really good directors at the time. Cukor, Wilder, Ford, Wyler are certainly among those vaunted luminaries who are kept in front of the public, yet I'm sure each has directed his fair share of dogs. I've heard of Victor Fleming because whenever Gone With the Wind is mentioned, so is he. King Vidor is another who has managed to get the attention of today's movie buffs cum critics. But I never hear of Sam Wood, never saw any mention of the man for any of his work and judging from the list of films he directed, I find that to be a glaring omission. The answer to "why is this" I believe has less to do with leveling the playing field, than with his politics. It's a total blackout of this man's existence. Once Adolph Menjou confirmed the reason for the red scare in Hollywood, he was shunned by the Hollywood community. Ronald Reagan was continually subjected to ridicule by the pseudo-intellectuals in Hollywood ostensibly for his lightweight acting ability but I suspect it had more to do with his anti-communist stand as President of the Screen Actors Guild. It even spilled over to Nancy Davis Reagan's acting career, as if they couldn't contain their joy in piling on. Still today, Reagan is subjected to snide and viciously clever remarks from the leftists. Certainly there were other mediocre actors worthy of their scorn, but no, Reagan was singled out for all time, or so it would seem. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. We've got Jane Fonda aiding and abetting the Viet Cong, and she continues to enjoy a movie career. The environment that controls which movies get made and which don't, has the same control over careers and legacies. They can make or break you.
2003-09-12 04:25 | User Profile
Dakota & Spider--
You guys both raise some superb points. But speaking of Blacklisting, cabals and taboos, here's a quandry for Hollywood "Progressives":
Historically, Tinsletown has tilted well to port. You brought up Jane Fonda vs. Reagan as examples...but how about those Actors who publicly opposed the current War--say Martin Sheen, James Cromwell, Ms. Garafalo?
What happens when a War, like the current one, is regarded as good for the Jews? Does being a genuine Anti-Imperialist lead to career suicide when that includes opposition to a concurrent (if unspoken) Zionist agenda? Vide Vanessa Redgrave.
I'd say Tribal vindictiveness will always trump political correctness...
2003-09-12 11:44 | User Profile
The irony is, of course, that the rightest crowd then (as usual) was quite correct about this - Hollywood was, and is, a center for the dissemination of leftist propaganda and during the war the bull crap they threw in support of that odious monster Stalin was really criminal. Also ironic that the people who were actually blacklisted (only a token few) were the most heavy handed and untalented of the crowd of jew commies who populated (and populate) that town.
I've always found Sterling Hayden to be the most interesting case (the best 'Hollywood') story out of that mess of merde. He tattled and so should have been dead and buried. But his public penance for having ratted was so melodramatic and extreme and long-lived that the jew commies who run the 'American' movie industry quickly forgave and used him (in more ways than one). Hayden became a life-long poster boy for the evil of the blacklist and the terrible suffering of the poor victims etc. So very jewish. Hayden - super Aryan ( early publicity on him from Paramount dubbed him the Viking Giant or something like that) cowardly bad guy crawls to apologize to the poor, loving, we-all-love-our-fellow-men Jew 'artists' victims.
Ford was very conservative and it didn't hurt his career. Even then, the jew commies who ran the studios had strong connections to both political parties with Mayer being quite an insider with the Republicans. They cover all the bases with, no doubt, some jew National Socialists in the wings, just in case.
The production set up in Hollywood is drastically changing, and so are the distribution and exhibition means. This all is very bad news for the Jews at the top and these changes are very much decentralizing this putrid industry. DV makes film making quite inexpensive - so the fancy toys in Hollywood are no longer needed to make professional movies. With broadband and the constant improvement of the Internet as a viewing venue...so too goes the distribution lock down. And, as everyone tells me, the movie theaters are basically deserted.
Hollywood as we know it may well be dying as we correspond here...and the only better news I can think of is if the same thing was happening to the parent parasite entity as well as the movie offshoot.
2003-09-12 13:13 | User Profile
Well, DBlue...in this one isolated case....I'd say it's proper to blame the French. Because much of the existing pecking order for old Hollywood's directors is based on the Cahiers du Cinema re-examination of American movies in the 20s, 30s and 40s, picked up and run with by their American acolytes like Andrew Sarris. And the French never considered the MGM 'house talent' to have crafted work with a uniquely individual imprint.
As far as Sam Wood's politics, he joins a few others who were roundly hated for their arch-conservatism, but none have slipped into obscurity the way Wood did. (Probably the most outspoken were Ward Bond and Menjou.) There's little doubt Wood would've continued directing had he not passed away in '49 (and his next-to-last film is one of his best: COMMAND DECISION). Although I emphatically agree he deserves rediscovery, I could say the same for dozens of 'house directors': Henry King, Clarence Brown, Anatole Litvak, Tay Garnett, Fleming, Charles Vidor (no relation), Roy del Ruth, John Cromwell, Archie Mayo, Henry Hathaway....all of whom have been punished with non-recognition for their consistent professionalism in one assigned project after another. If Curtiz had not made CASABLANCA he'd be as obscure as the others.
It helps, though, if you'd either begun as a screenwriter, exercised dictatorial control over the writers you were assigned, or arranged to work only with scenarists you already had a good relationship with. If you did the best you could with what you were given, without complaint, you are generally forgotten today.
2003-09-12 14:14 | User Profile
Well, of course it is all a matter of taste - and my personal taste (which I hope I can back up with objective observation) leads me to believe that the French and Sarris were basically quite right in who they celebrated and who they did not.
To me, a steady diet of Henry King or Anatole Litvak is suicide inducement, while I can look at John Ford or Fritz Lang movies all day if I have to. Watching sausages coming off the end of an assembly line would be more edifying and also more entertaining, in most cases, than a steady diet of King, Brown, etc.
I love Henry King's version of State Fair - which at 100 minutes is uncommonly to the point for him, but most of the time, his funereal pacing drags me under in the first 10 minutes or so. State Fair also has a spectacularly great cast headed by Janet Gaynor and Will Rogers, with really deluxe support and fantastically beautiful Hal Mohr photography. It is the best rural Americana movie, in my opinion. In general though, King was so very undiscriminating in his projects, particularly after Zanuck took over at Fox.
Cutriz was also prolific to the point of virtual insanity. If he didn't have anything better to do for a weekend, it seems he would direct a movie. Walsh is the only really good director who is as prolific as people like King and Curtiz, and I think the taking on of almost any project is one thing that keeps Walsh a bit below the Ford or Borzage level. Curtiz was a jew (Litvak also) and made that criminal monstrosity Mission to Moscow which would have landed him in the blacklist if said blacklist was anything other than the farce it actually was. The jew studios didn't need the guys who got offed - they were the tokens sacrificed to protect the rotten system. But the system did need Curtiz who was nothing if not professional. After his dozens and dozens (or is hundreds and thousands?) of movies at WB, he comfortably moved over to Paramount and made the first VistaVision movie, White Christmas (where jew Irving Berlin does to Christmas, what jew Irving Berlin does to Easter - take the Christ out of both replacing the first with snow and the second with a hat). White Christmas was a mega smash - they needed Curtiz.
The directors the French liked tended to make movies that were much more consistent in what they said and how they said it, and which were on average much better, than the movies of people like King, Mayo, Hungarian Charles Vidor, (who might have been a jew, but I can't remember for sure), deadly dull Clarence Brown etc. Most of the latter group are nonentities who make A pictures on the assembly line and whose movies do not reflect a personality. I think you can make an argument for Curtiz, but the personality is not that interesting (to me) and is mostly concerned with formal issues (his movies are often very nicely made) rather than human or social relationships which are almost always reduced to bathetic stereotypes and clichés in his work - Casablanca being a perfect example, with Mildred Pierce not far behind. The only movie of his that reflects a genuine take on life (as far as I can see) is Janie (1944), in which the honesty in communicating a truly jew point of view about gentile American society and people is probably accidental. The amused contempt at the antics of the goys, at the ease with which they can be manipulated by flag waving propaganda...in Janie, is pretty remarkable. Wonderful movie, but really cynical!
2003-09-12 21:19 | User Profile
Disagree - not on Ford, Hawks et al being deservedly first-tier, or King being a bit of a snooze. The others suffered for having too many mediocrities sandwiched between their best stuff. But they were all craftsmen, most going back to silents. Del Ruth's early stuff at Warners ranks with Wellman's, Clarence Brown and Jack Conway are unfairly reduced to ciphers because they worked on A-pictures exclusively, and Cromwell and Garnett (and others) had more than enough fine pictures on their resume to offset their bad days at the office. Nobody takes Hawks to task for the dreadful tail-off he had between RED RIVER and RIO BRAVO - he's not 'blamed' for I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE or LAND OF THE PHAROAHS the way MARY OF SCOTLAND or THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE aren't held against Ford.
2003-09-13 00:21 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Howard Campbell, Jr.@Sep 11 2003, 22:25 * ** Dakota & Spider--
...What happens when a War, like the current one, is regarded as good for the Jews? Does being a genuine Anti-Imperialist lead to career suicide when that includes opposition to a concurrent (if unspoken) Zionist agenda? Vide Vanessa Redgrave.
I'd say Tribal vindictiveness will always trump political correctness... **
You raise an interesting dilemma for the leftists and Jews. Have you noticed how the various anti-war elements zigzag around the Zionist/Israel/Jew issue without ever once touching it? It's a very selective, customized anti-war crowd we're seeing today. How can you avoid examining Israel as you try to understand the blowback from the ME. It's like talking about WWII without touching on Great Britain's last-ditch effort to save her Empire. Can't be done. Yet that's exactly the way the leftists treat the Israeli question and the only reason for it is that most of the leftists are Jews. So they're against the war, but see no reason to single out Israel as a provocateur.
The big anti-Iraq War rally in NYC was run by Leslie Kagan, a Jew, a radical leftist, with communist ties that go way back to the 60's. All the organizations she pulled in under her umbrella had similar sympathies. Not one speaker brought up the problem of Israeli and American foreign policy in the ME. In this anti-war climate you can be anti-Bush, anti-oil, anti-France and Germany, anti-UN, anti-American, but you'd better not be anti-Israel. That's why those clowns in Hollywood can spout off all they want and still remain in "the club". Just don't touch that third rail.
2003-09-13 21:53 | User Profile
Actually I like all three Hawks comedies at Fox (I'm counting Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as a comedy). Inconsequential material for which he had the smarts to lighten his touch make them in a style appropriate to what they are. I find it attractive that heââ¬â¢s a good sport with such lightweight stuff instead of getting huffy because the material is beneath his dignity. Though the sadism can become a bit much in all three, they all have good things and are really well made with excellent timing and really perfect continuity editing. And, The Thing From Another World is a tremendously good Hawks movie, even if Christian Nyby nominally signed it. After a good start, Land of the Pharaohs ultimately does bog down and become boring and bad, but then again, no one can ring the bell every time (and it is a WB picture).
I can certainly understand not liking those Hawks pictures, but I canââ¬â¢t understand not liking or appreciating The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance which for a lot of reasons seems to me to be the last really great Ford picture.
Beyond liking or disliking specific pictures though, men of Hawksââ¬â¢ and Fordââ¬â¢s stature have earned the right to make the occasional clinker because they took film making beyond studio system mass production and gave their works the personal stamp of the original artist. I know Hawks and Ford through their works while I donââ¬â¢t know anything at all about Tay Garnett from the films he directed. So, even when I don't like the work (The insufferable Mary of Scotland, The Fugitive and plenty of other Ford films when he is being pretentious and arty), I can still think of the movie as part of the worldview of the artist who made it. I just donââ¬â¢t see that at all in the films of Cromwell, Brown, Garnett, etc. Each made some good movies and some bad ones depending on the material, the writers, the casts, etc. But the filmmaker was never good enough to rise above the mass production system and impose his personal stamp on the material - whether good or bad. I could not agree more that Mary of Scotland stinks, but it is a Ford movie all the way. Turning on the TV in the middle of some mid 30s WB movie, I would never be able to tell if it was LeRoy, Curtiz, Bacon, Dieterle or Keighley.
2003-09-17 01:52 | User Profile
Gott:
Are you familiar with the book, Make Way for Tomorrow and is there a chance that the Coopers were originally written as a Jewish couple? The reason for my question is I remember seeing a documentary many years ago about early Hollywood movies that dealt with social issues and I distinctly recall the narration describing the Coopers as being Jewish. Just as in Gone With the Wind, Selznick rewrote the thief who broke into Tara as a white Yankee soldier when Margaret Mitchell had clearly written the character as a black runaway slave. Selznick felt that would have been too inflammatory and changed it.
2003-09-19 13:25 | User Profile
No, I've never read the original book - but you are certainly right in that Hollywood tends to radically change things when they translate words into pictures. Which is fine with me if you are talking about good film makers using novels or plays as source material for their own point of view. I never thought that Cooper was a jew name, but I see that it is or can be (the head slime rabbi at the weasel center is a Cooper).
The novel was written by someone named Josephine Lawrence and then turned into a play by two persons named Leary (one of whom is Noah Leary). Then the Paramount writers got to work, under the leadership of Vina Delmar who wrote few screenplays and whose work doesn't really fit the jew agenda very well (she wrote Borzage's second AA movie [B]Bad Girl [/B] which was a big hit in 32 and is about a young marriage trying to survive various pressures, and also McCarey's very next picture after [B]Make Way for Tomorrow[/B], [B]The Awful Truth[/B], also an AA movie and another big hit, but this time about a super sophisticated married couple who try to survive their own various pressures, characteristic though, of their elite class). So, [B]Make Way for Tomorrow [/B] really fits into the most celebrated of her other works as we again see a married couple trying to survive - this time old and poor and not managing to make it. With two AA movies (not for her, but direction), it is odd she didn't have more of a career.
Anyway, as we all know (we who are awake) one major way jews have prospered since the official end of the ghettos is by hiding themselves amid the host population by changing their names and externally adopting the culture of the host population or duplicitously pushing some of their own horrible ways on that host population - why else are so many non jew American males sexually mutilated at birth other than to allow jews to escape the traditional method of identifying them? So, using the fading in among the host population argument, you might be totally right about the original material for the movie being altered to remove as much explicit jew stuff as possible. And, even farther, it could be that the Coopers in McCarey's film might be jews too as I don't recall any religious denomination ever being mentioned. It's the contrast between modern, international, progressive, and ultra conservative non-assimilated, in which both sides see that their children have abandoned and betrayed them in the McCarey movie. So, the Coopers could be an example of 'race' or 'religion' doesn't matter and all that. But, the Coopers have absolutely no jew mannerisms in the movie, and in one scene, Max Rubens teaches Bart some jew jargon which he (Bart) is totally unfamiliar with, and at one point I think Bart says something about someone being 'a schemeal (sorry about the spelling, happily, my yiddish stinks), as you jews say.' Which if I remember it right, would definitely make the movie Coopers not jews, I guess.
The Bondi character is named Lucy - which is just an amazing Leo McCarey fetish as a remarkably number of the lead female characters in his films have that name. It must have been his mother's name is my guess.