Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 67 of total 67 in this topic |
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 9, 2013 - 09:00pm PT
|
I am a big Tarantino fan but was disappointed with Django Unchained. Some very good parts but overall I think it is a low point in his career.
Anybody agree/disagree?
|
|
Michelle
Trad climber
Toshi's Station, picking up power converters.
|
|
I loved how it was nearly impossible for the other actors to remain in character when Samuel L talked.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
I am a big [insert name here] fan but was disappointed with [insert movie here]
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
I had a chice to see it or the hobbit a scond time the other night. I figured h hobbit gained more on the screen and Django would look just as good on Netflix....
I'm a Tarantino fan but "Not as good as Inglorious basterds" (not one of his best) is not the kind of glowing reviews that makes me want to drop coin.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
t*r,
The same could be said for "Inglorious Bastards."
|
|
Dapper Dan
Trad climber
Menlo Park
|
|
I enjoyed it , you get a hell of a lot of movie for ten bucks.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
I gave the gape to Jack Reacher, but I'm reading The Affair by Lee Child as it is, and I can't stand the thought of being in the same theater as the dickhead who's cast in the role of Jack, so Django U. will have to wait till later or until I find some other excuse not to pay body parts to see a film and hear it as loud as it should be heard, which is the only good reason to go to a movie theater any more, unless money's no object...
|
|
Cole
Trad climber
los angeles
|
|
First half had moments of greatness. Second half got self indulgent and went too far over the top which was a betrayal of the great pacing and tone that started the film.
Wasn't a huge fan of Inglorious and I feel the same about Django.
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
thought it was a great movie. Jamie fox did great.
|
|
susu
Trad climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:04am PT
|
Totally agree w/you word for word Tiki-Ger - and love the poetic justice in a Tarantino film. Christopher Waltz & Jamie Foxx are the best!
Also cool seeing Alabama Hills and Owens range w/ Mt Whitney as the set for many scenes.
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:28am PT
|
"django unchained" seems like an excuse for gratuitous use of violence and the n-word... yawn.
+1
It was a first time I went to watch a movie in a theater in 2012. Might skip this activity altogether in 2013. AND it was as long as it gets. Damn, I wish I went to my dentist instead.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:32am PT
|
If the job of a movie is to entertain then it did perfectly. I really liked it, and I'm not much of a Terantino fan.
Saw a behind the scenes thing where DeCaprio questioned Terantino about how graphic it was, but was convinced to play the part as written because it demonstrated the reality of some of the racism back then.
Go see it!
Edit: don't listen to Vitaliy, he thinks trail running is a good idea!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:59am PT
|
Tarantino can be simultaneously at his over-the-top best and worst at any point in a film. Both he and Oliver Stone just seem incapable of restraining the worst of their idiosyncratic excesses. With so much ham-handedness this time around the result was dubiously mixed, though entertaining enough in a B-movie sort of way.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 01:08am PT
|
I didn't see it but hated it...probably won't see it again...RJ
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 01:33am PT
|
Here's some drift... didn't see it (Django) but did see Le Mis... my girlfriend insisted... thought I'd be bored but absolutely loved it! When Ann Hathaway sang that song I was blown away! I know pathetic romanticism, silly sentimentalism... don't care, what a stirring, sublime experience that movie was even though Hugh sounded just a bit like one of the Gibbs brothers, still, I highly recommend it!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 01:38am PT
|
I'm with RJ, only I saw the trailer and knew enough to stay away.
Maybe Tarantino needs to do a film on the 'Death Slabs' for gratuitous violence.
|
|
YosemiteSteve
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 03:26am PT
|
I liked Don Johnson's role...
|
|
BuddhaStalin
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 05:02am PT
|
Tarantino movies have been awful since Kill Bill. Django was terrible. I will not be visiting the theater again for a Tarantino movie. Jamie Foxx was good, but the rest was largely bad. His overly gory/kung fu movie/blaxploitation movie formula seems universal to whatever type of movie he makes. It worked in jackie brown and kill bill, but not again since in my opinion. i want my ten bucks back.
I would also like to know how folks feel about his using the n word in the script eleventy billion times. That and the whole movie felt like a huge insult to my intelligence and sense of humor.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 07:24am PT
|
I would also like to know how folks feel about his using the n word in the script eleventy billion times.
I walked out of the theater alongside a black couple and they were grinning ear-to-ear...
|
|
ddriver
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 10:50am PT
|
Tarantino has sucked since Pulp Fiction. Kill Bill was overly gratuitous sword slinging, turned it off. Was dragged to Basterds, meh. Why would I want to watch baseball bat skull crushing? Sorry, too much sickness. Will not see Django based on reviews of more overly gratuitous violence. Tarantino seems to think he's too cool for school, but he's really not that creative.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 10:55am PT
|
I can't wait for the new Ahrnold movie - "Depends Unchained".
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 10:59am PT
|
This was the best movie I've ever seen.
GOD FORBID A MOVIE HAS VIOLENCE AND USE OF THE "N" WORD.
|
|
tiki-jer
Trad climber
fresno/clovis
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 11:02am PT
|
Toadgas said "sharp, campy, clever, horrific, tragic...and one badasss tale of EPIC REVENGE!!!"
I agree!!
|
|
Travis Haussener
Trad climber
Salt Lake City
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
|
"GOD FORBID A MOVIE HAS VIOLENCE AND USE OF THE "N" WORD"
Thank you! it takes places in the 1850's people used that word copiously all the way to the 1980's...hell there are still plenty of racists in America and I guarantee they still use that word.
And over the top...lest we forget the rape scene in Pulp Fiction or the Ear Scene in Reservoir Dogs...or From Dusk Till Dawn, I mean vampires killing bank robbers and vica versa. Django is my favorite of the Tarantino's.
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:14pm PT
|
Exactly. It's a Tarantino movie. What'd you guys expect going into it?
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
|
Great movie, and definately another Tarantino classic.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
|
Just checking - after seeing this violent movie does anyone have an urge to shoot up a room full of people? :)
|
|
frank wyman
Mountain climber
helena montana
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 02:20pm PT
|
Have not seen movie but It could not possibly be as good as "Operation Dumbo Drop"...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
|
When I lived in Chicago as a kid we lived in a very poor neighborhood.
The school I went to was over 90% black.
Every other word we said was nigger this nigger that and it meant nothing since all my friends were black.
Only stupid Americans who never lived in such an environment cry about the word.
It's not the word itself but how it's used in it's context according to exact moment in time and circumstance.
Since most Americans are stupid (:-) they get all bent out of shape over this word and make this huge blanket generalization about it.
Go live in the ghetto and learn something stupid Americans ..... :-)
|
|
Nobacon
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 02:51pm PT
|
Steve and I were at Alabama Hills when they were filming. Movie Flats Rd. was closed, but we like the climbing across the street just as well. Some climber guys that we met were climbing in Tall Wall area, and got bribed out of their shots by dinner in the gourmet food trailer. Missed out on that one! We did not see any movie stars.
|
|
Nobacon
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
|
See? You knew it would get back to climbing...
|
|
tiki-jer
Trad climber
fresno/clovis
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
|
Hey Toad you are correct.....I posted a thread called 'Lone Pine in the Movies' a while back. Also some scenes were in Wyoming and Colorado I recall.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
|
Spike is just mad because Quentin's bizarre entertainment has trumped Spike's deep meaningful stuff so many times.....
|
|
Edge
Trad climber
New Durham, NH
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 05:52pm PT
|
I saw Django in Denver over the holidays. My 21 year old son and I watched it and enjoyed it for what it was, classic Tarantino.
My wife and daughter went next door and watched Les Mis; both movies had similar run times and show times... Coincidence? At least the dozen people in line in front of us split on similar lines.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
|
Werner: When I lived in Chicago...
Now that finally explains a lot. And talk about unchained...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
|
It was entertaining and well done in a distorted sort of way, and perhaps a reasonable portrayal of the depths of slavery in the US. How representative it was may be another matter. US movies are frequently ahistorical, sometimes greatly so.
It seemed a stretch that the protagonists were a German dentist/bounty hunter, who teamed up with an escaped and recaptured slave on a somewhat quixotic quest. Not a likely scenario. The martial abilities of Schultz and Django also seemed a considerable stretch, with Django apparently able to use firearms of all kinds at all distances, and score a "kill" each time, but never be scratched by the numerous opponents. Not likely.
The fight scene in Pulp Fiction, where the punk empties a revolver at point blank range toward Travolta and Jackson, and misses, seemed a bit more like reality.
|
|
Dapper Dan
Trad climber
Menlo Park
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
|
as for historical innacuricies...
Dynamite was patented in 1867 , the beginning of the film says they're in 1858 ...
Still loved it .
QT will get my $$$ again .
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
|
And what the f*#k was the deal with the aussie accents in the going-to-the-mine scene (and did he really have to do the infantile and terminally hokey I's-got-to-blowed-myself-up bit)?
|
|
Michelle
Trad climber
Toshi's Station, picking up power converters.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
|
It's really disappointing how people botch about the violence. Couldn't even compare to the life those people had to live.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2013 - 09:53pm PT
|
It was kind of illustrating why the US fell into a civil war - there was no other way to resolve the differences.
The "Australian" characters were perhaps intended to suggest that a few Australians found their way to the US south, and fitted in there. It seems possible, and the Australian treatment of their aborigines was as bad or worse as blacks were treated in the US.
It would be interesting to hear the views of someone knowledgeable about the historicity of the movie.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 06:34pm PT
|
Why Django Unchained is One of the Most Important Movies of the Year
Bob Cesca
Posted: 01/11/2013 3:33 pm
I don't usually get into movie reviews here, but I wanted to take some time with the new Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained; partly because racial issues and the American Civil War are two areas that I discuss quite frequently, but primarily because it took me several days to fully grapple with my reaction to the movie.
Let's start with the obligatory qualifier: I'm a huge Tarantino fan. Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds are two of my favorite films, and True Romance is one of my favorite screenplays. But more that any particular favorites list, I just really dig the fact that he has so much fun making movies, and it absolutely shows on screen. Even though he's been making movies for more than two decades, he's managed to retain the exuberance of a first timer -- only with lots of really big toys to play with. This can lead to self-indulgence, and Tarantino is absolutely self-indulgent, but in a good way because he rarely fumbles the creative latitude he's earned and therefore he rarely disappoints. Say what you will about him (derivative, too-wordy, etc...) but he's no slouch and he knows how to craft a movie.
Over the last several months, we've been treated to a lot of great films: Lincoln, Argo, Flight, The Hobbit and so forth. But I can say without hesitation that of all the movies I've seen recently, Django Unchained confounded me initially, and that's saying a lot considering how I've also seen and enjoyed Cloud Atlas and Life of Pi -- a pair of brain-benders to say the least.
Django Unchained is set during the two years immediately prior to the Civil War. Jamie Foxx plays Django, a slave who's offered his freedom by a German-American dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz, played by the extraordinary Christoph Waltz (Waltz deservingly won the Academy Award for his role as Col. Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds). Dr. Schultz is interested in Django because the slave has information about a particularly lucrative bounty, and so Dr. Schultz buys Django in spite of his hatred of slavery, and in exchange agrees to help Django track down and rescue his wife who we come to discover is owned by Leonardo DiCaprio's exceedingly creepy southern dilettante, Calvin Candie. It turns out that Django possesses a natural talent for bounty hunting, and the duo become close friends. Once they encounter Candie, things get ugly. Really, really ugly.
I won't spoil any more of the movie's plot. Yes, it's billed as Tarantino's take on a Sergio Leone spaghetti western. And yes, Tarantino mashes up a spaghetti western (actually a "spaghetti southern" since much of the film takes place in Tennessee and Mississippi) with the utter brutality of the American institution of slavery.
That's what tripped me up.
On one hand, I thought it was a really solid Tarantino movie. It was beautifully shot and the performances made me really, really love the characters who we're supposed to love and viscerally despise the characters who we're supposed to despise. DiCaprio is easily becoming one of my favorite actors and with each of his films it becomes increasingly evident why directors from Eastwood to Spielberg to Scorsese want to cast him in everything. And Waltz was so completely likeable, I'd love to see a prequel featuring Dr. King Schultz's transition from dentist to bounty hunter. By the way, even though I'm not a prude when it comes to movie violence, I could barely get through two of the more harrowing scenes of slave abuse (without giving too much away, the dog scene and the "mandingo fight" scene). Beyond those seriously uncomfortable bits, the rest of the violence was typical Tarantino: lots of quasi-cartoony geysers of blood. No surprises there. Oh, and I loved the soundtrack, particularly the classic Jim Croce track "I Got A Name."
On the other hand, Tarantino seems to have mashed-up a revenge-driven spaghetti western with slavery.
After leaving the movie, I felt off balance, unable to peg the content of the last 165 minutes of my life. I really wanted to love the movie but what kept nagging at me was the treatment of slavery in the context of badass Tarantino romp. Should I really be laughing at the gaggle of proto-KKK rednecks complaining about the eye-holes in their hoods (it was a really a funny scene)? Should I be rooting for a character, Dr. Schultz, who, even though he hates slavery, still bought a human being and owned him for a short period of time? Ultimately, should Tarantino expect us to have so much fun while watching a movie about the most grotesque chapter in American history, and in doing so does he dishonor the memories of those bound by slavery?
Put another way, it's difficult to imagine cheering and laughing along with a buddy cop movie about the Holocaust, or at an improvised mockumentary about the Native American genocide. We're talking about the unforgivable enslavement and torture -- both physical and psychological torture -- of an entire race of people for the sake of both propping up the southern economy and the socioeconomic status of its entitled gentry. Simply put: slavery was shockingly despicable nearly beyond description and, as such, should it be the centerpiece of a movie with such a cheeky tone? That's the conundrum.
However, it's becoming clear to me that Tarantino made something far deeper than a spaghetti western -- or at least deeper than the spaghetti westerns I've seen. I've come to realize that his chosen homage/genre was simply a launching point into a much more substantive story about an unlikely friendship, joined in a quest for an unlikely love story. But more than anything else, Tarantino has duped a lot of movie-goers into seeing a film about the monstrous, cancerous true nature of American slavery, and I'd wager that a considerable number of people who saw Django Unchained probably didn't see Spielberg's Amistad or The Color Purple or any other historical drama about slavery, many of which were sanitized for mass appeal.
In that respect, I find myself squarely in Tarantino's camp as he faces criticism from various circles. I understand why he frequently used the word "nigger" in the dialogue. It was historically accurate, after all, and part of the aforementioned brutality of slavery. I also understand the slavery side of his mash-up formula. Look, I've read hundreds of volumes about the Civil War -- research which naturally includes texts about the true cause of the war, slavery, as well as texts about the century-plus aftermath of the war, and I can tell you with all honesty that I've never been this affected by any other description of slavery, printed, filmed or otherwise.
Even if Tarantino exaggerated the horror of slavery and even if it were only half as awful as he portrayed it, shame on United States and shame on the framers for not eradicating it from the very start when they had the chance. Maintaining the institution only pandered to a mentally ill demographic of lazy, cheap, sadistic white aristocrats. Tarantino absolutely nailed it: DiCaprio and the other southern landowners, say nothing of their drooling, toothless hillbilly henchmen, were mentally deranged serial killers hiding under the threat of secession. And they were allowed to get away with it because no one dared undermine the southern economy.
The abomination of slavery in the United States and especially the psychopathy of slave owners is what will lastingly stick with me about the movie, and I'm strangely grateful for it. I'm grateful to have been reminded of the shocking truth that half of this nation as recently as 150 years ago treated African Americans as livestock to be abused and exploited however they pleased, and why, until 1861, the other half did nothing to stop it. In the end, perhaps Tarantino sought to make us all want to be Django and Dr. Schultz -- to inflict justice and retribution upon the purveyors of that loathsome, nightmarish endeavor.
The memory of slavery can never -- and should never -- be erased, but for three hours in a movie theater, we felt like we weren't helpless observers of its history. For three hours, we could vicariously attain vengeance against the maniacs who stained our country with their greed and their incomprehensible malice towards millions of innocent human beings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/django-unchained-movie-of-year_b_2458521.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 06:45pm PT
|
I'd rather rub sh#t on my head than watch one of his movies.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
|
Prove it.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 07:08pm PT
|
BWA HA HA hahahaaa!!!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 07:56pm PT
|
Speaking of which, for a movie supposedly set in Mississippi and east Texas, there were an awful lot of mountains and snow.
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
|
Excellent analysis ec . . . you really know your cinema and history.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 11:56pm PT
|
Tarantino sucks.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
|
Hahahaha LOL
The movie is a comedy, just plain Hollywood entertainment you over analytical crazy people.
I was laughing my ass off at some of the lines
"Who gave a nigger a gun"
Then he kills them all.
Hahaha
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
|
It's very good, if sometimes disturbing. Go see it.
One of the last credits is thanks to the state of Wyoming where much of it was filmed.
And yes, I thought of uncle Ruckus every time Samuel l was on the screen.
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2013 - 12:07am PT
|
It will be interesting to see if a second or third viewing gives a different perspective. I will wait until I can see it at home.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2013 - 09:15am PT
|
I couldn't get anyone interested in seeing this movie with me--too violent--so last night I went by myself. I think it is a great movie, but I view Tarantino's movies the way he writes and shoots them. Django Unchained and Inglorious Bastards would be very hard to watch if you thought you were going to a regular movie.
One of the most interesting scenes is between Candie and Stephen, in the library, where Stephen tells Candie he is being played. The scene shows the difference in the public and private relationship between the two.
The use of a German character, Dr. Schultz, to free Django and Broomhilda has a historical ring of truth. The German immigrants in St Louis were instrumental in keeping Missouri from joining the south in secession. Also telling the story of the German legend of Broomhilda and Siegfried and equating Django with Siegfried works really well. Dr. Schultz even tells Django the reason he is helping him is because he is Siegfried. Dr. Schultz' fussy obsession with paperwork is pitch perfect as a send-up of German stereotypes. The movie is full of these sort of cross references to history, literature, and movies, all working like a great novel.
Good movie.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2013 - 09:31am PT
|
Loved it!
|
|
hootowl
Mountain climber
VA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2013 - 11:38am PT
|
Saw Django and Zero Dark Thirty on consecutive nights, Zero is waaaay better
Django's only good when Samuel L's on screen
Saw both on consecutive nights too, and was blown away by both. Very hard to sit through Django, very hard to fall asleep after the tension and suspense created in Zero. Both movies show directors at their best, IMO.
sharp, campy, clever, horrific, tragic...and one badasss tale of EPIC REVENGE!!!
Agree completely. I also loved the revenge against the Nazis in Inglorious Basterds.
|
|
Some Random Guy
climber
San Franpsycho (a.k.a. a token of my extreme)
|
|
thought it was a great movie. Jamie fox did great.
of course jamie fox did great. i bet he loved playing that part. he's a reverse racist. an ex girl friend worked in his office and she said that he would sit around with his homies and just slam white people all day. i guess i can't really blame the guy though.
|
|
Regan
Big Wall climber
|
|
The best Tarantino's movie since Pulp Fiction.
"The D is silent"...
:)))
|
|
dee ee
Mountain climber
citizen of planet Earth
|
|
I enjoyed it, flawed but classic Tarantino. He can do whatever he wants.
Ps. Did not enjoy the Kill Bill bs.
|
|
Some Random Guy
climber
San Franpsycho (a.k.a. a token of my extreme)
|
|
"The D is silent"...
i'm such an idiot. i thought the j was silent. man, i've been sayin' it wrong this whole time.
|
|
Chinchen
climber
Way out there....
|
|
Great frickin' movie. One of the best I have seen in years. The lynch mob hood scene was funny as hell.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
If Tarentino was a rock musician, and his roadie rigged his amp so it would only go up to six, and he also striped a string or two off his ax, so he was playing with some limitations, he just might make the greatest music ever heard. As is whatever melodic line often gets drowned out by noise and too much damn soloing and mugging.
A great musician rarely gives the impression of taxing his instrument. Rather he plays it, with a masterful, disciplined and respectful touch, knowing as most artists know that with rare exceptions, more is less (it took me many years to understand this). For that reason, Jackie Brown remains his best narrative, IMO.
JL
|
|
Some Random Guy
climber
San Franpsycho (a.k.a. a token of my extreme)
|
|
^ sounds like ur talkin' about django reinhardt
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
|
So Jonny yz posts a link that he knows is a trojan virus.
Isn't that grounds for dismissal from the site?
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2013 - 09:17pm PT
|
Spielberg v. Tarantino
Hollywood and the Past
By Gilad Atzmon
February 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.
Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism? But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a century of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.
The Guardian vs. Athens
The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism. The Guardian wouldn’t mind offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’ but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.
But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher – an essentialist – a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.
Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem. Athens — the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem — the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian, or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.
Spielberg vs. Tarantino
Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender – the ‘essentialist’ public enemy. On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the ‘essentialist’.
Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.
Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’. But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact. Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse – being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.
Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated. Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for and eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.
Abe’le vs. Django
What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.
The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.
In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.
http://youtu.be/KJVuqYkI2jQ
As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet. His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol. Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.
Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine. ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.” In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film. “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”
I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.
http://youtu.be/ztD3mRMdqSw
By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.
In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface. In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized. Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’. Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the far fetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it). By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.
Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence. Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.
If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said – we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33974.htm
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2013 - 01:58am PT
|
Saw the movie finally tonight - was on the fence, and was not expecting to like it...
Loved it! A home-run by Tarantino, even if it is reminiscent of Kill Bill 1 - hey, the story works.
Well done, Sir.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 67 of total 67 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!