Movies

[irishjayhawk]

Yeah, so I saw a lot of movies this weekend.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Mediocre, at best. Slow and dragged on. Shorten it to 2 hours and it's golden. It's not, so it fails.

Michael Clayton - Amazing. Everything about it is awesome. However, it's VERY complex and mind bending. You have to think, so be prepared. I still feel like I'm missing key details of exactly what happened. Gotta see it again.

Across the Universe - Perfect is one word that comes to mind. It just works. And, contrary to many people I bet, the movie is best viewed sober. Trust me.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

**** An Education. Carrie Mulligan's performance is mitigated by the hatred of Jews all over the movie. Hateful film.

An Education is probably the best film of last year. Mulligan's performance is definately the best of last year.

Hateful? We saw different films.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

An Education is probably the best film of last year. Mulligan's performance is definately the best of last year.

Hateful? We saw different films.

How does that shit not posit that Jews are dirty, unseemly, horrible people that ruin young women?

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

How does that shit not posit that Jews are dirty, unseemly, horrible people that ruin young women?

Not even a little bit. At all. I've never heard a single person make that claim besides yourself.

I think you're seeing something that isn't there, or you're blinded by some sort of personal bias or prejudice or something, man. I don't know. But that thought never once crossed my mind while watching it or while discussing it until you brought it up. Seems like a reach. A big one.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

Not even a little bit. At all. I've never heard a single person make that claim besides yourself.

I think you're seeing something that isn't there, or you're blinded by some sort of personal bias or prejudice or something, man. I don't know. But that thought never once crossed my mind while watching it or while discussing it until you brought it up. Seems like a reach. A big one.

When I asked "how does it not posit..." I wasn't looking for "because it doesn't." That isn't an answer. I could sit here and type up a long list on anti-Semitic shit in that movie. I could only imagine how long the list would be if I could watch it right before writing it.

[Reaper16]

I mean, a Google search of "an education anti semetic" turns up only 724,000 results. Yup. No one is making the claim of anti-Semitism in this film. My bad.

[Red Brooklyn]

What do you want me to say? You made (what I think is) a fairly absurd accusation. You provided zero evidence for your claim. Rather than fight/debate with you, I just said that we obviously saw different films.

I provided the same amount of "evidence" for my opinion that you did. But really, isn't the burden of proof on you?

My "because it's doesn't" response is just as valid as your "because it does" accusation. I did not get that message or picture or feeling or whatever from the film. Not at all. Not once at any time. You obviously did. I'm sure you can list all the instances you have for why you feel the way you do. And I'll disagree. And you'll tell me I'm inferior (and/or wrong) in some way, or that my response wasn't detailed enough or valid enough because of some whim or semantic twisting.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. But I think it's inappropriate and irresponsible to just go around calling artists hateful and anti-semitic.

I'll say it again, we obviously saw different films.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I mean, a Google search of "an education anti semetic" turns up only 724,000 results. Yup. No one is making the claim of anti-Semitism in this film. My bad.

I didn't mean to say that no one else was making the claim. Just that yours was the first that I'd heard.

I've read a few others now... and those are just as absurd to me.

[QuikSsurfer]

Watched "Ip Man" last night and HOLY SHIT... This ranks among the best kung fu movies I've seen... Just watch this clip from the movie:
After seeing his friend slaughtered in front of him -- he takes on 10

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

What do you want me to say? You made (what I think is) a fairly absurd accusation. You provided zero evidence for your claim. Rather than fight/debate with you, I just said that we obviously saw different films.

I provided the same amount of "evidence" for my opinion that you did. But really, isn't the burden of proof on you?

My "because it's doesn't" response is just as valid as your "because it does" accusation. I did not get that message or picture or feeling or whatever from the film. Not at all. Not once at any time. You obviously did. I'm sure you can list all the instances you have for why you feel the way I do. And I'll disagree. And you'll tell me I'm inferior (and/or wrong) in some way, or that my response wasn't detailed enough or valid enough because of some whim or semantic twisting.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. But I think it's inappropriate and irresponsible to just go around calling artists hateful and anti-semitic.

I'll say it again, we obviously saw different films.

It isn't absurd. Not at all. You've apparently never heard of the "wandering Jew" stereotype popularized by Nazi propaganda film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew
Not only is explicit mention made of Peter Sarsgaard's character as a Jew (with ostensibly no real impact on the plot) but specifically a wandering Jew. Sarsgaard's character is morally detestable - he lasciviously goes around and seduces proper young women and ruins them. He corrupts British girls and acts as a sort of social Svengali for them. He makes money in reprehensible ways: obtaining valuable works of art from dying or dead or elderly people, corrupting property values by manipulating both aspirant middle class blacks and the phenomenon of white flight, etc. He's always using this royal 'We' (which obviously refers to the Jewish people) to justify his behavior. There are plenty of examples that others have seen; one site review talks about the inability for Sarsgaard to be sexy in seduction, for example. Then, of course, there is the undeniably anti-Semetic headmistress of Mulligan's school. Mulligan tries to defend her Jew but is shot down with a line about Jesus being a Jew is a fiction. The film proceeds to justify that anti-Semetic screed by making Sarsgaard's character even less appealing that he already was; he is revealed to be cheating on his wife. Sarsgaard's character essentially goes through every terrible, racist stereotype against Jews that there is.

What you are doing right now is the equivalent of calling absurd the idea of a film that depicts black people as monkey-behaving, gang-raping, watermelon-eating, too-dumb-to-work-anything-except-a-cotton-field being a racist film.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by QuikSsurfer

Watched "Ip Man" last night and HOLY SHIT... This ranks among the best kung fu movies I've seen... Just watch this clip from the movie:
After seeing his friend slaughtered in front of him -- he takes on 10

That is unreal. I need to watch this.

[TrickyNicky]

Ip Man is very cool. Definitely the best Kung Fu movie in the last decade. The sequel isn't as good, but the first was just awesome. I also recommend True Legend, which was directed by Yuen Woo Ping and should be coming out before years end.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It isn't absurd. Not at all. You've apparently never heard of the "wandering Jew" stereotype popularized by Nazi propaganda film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew
Not only is explicit mention made of Peter Sarsgaard's character as a Jew (with ostensibly no real impact on the plot) but specifically a wandering Jew. Sarsgaard's character is morally detestable - he lasciviously goes around and seduces proper young women and ruins them. He corrupts British girls and acts as a sort of social Svengali for them. He makes money in reprehensible ways: obtaining valuable works of art from dying or dead or elderly people, corrupting property values by manipulating both aspirant middle class blacks and the phenomenon of white flight, etc. He's always using this royal 'We' (which obviously refers to the Jewish people) to justify his behavior. There are plenty of examples that others have seen; one site review talks about the inability for Sarsgaard to be sexy in seduction, for example. Then, of course, there is the undeniably anti-Semetic headmistress of Mulligan's school. Mulligan tries to defend her Jew but is shot down with a line about Jesus being a Jew is a fiction. The film proceeds to justify that anti-Semetic screed by making Sarsgaard's character even less appealing that he already was; he is revealed to be cheating on his wife. Sarsgaard's character essentially goes through every terrible, racist stereotype against Jews that there is.

What you are doing right now is the equivalent of calling absurd the idea of a film that depicts black people as monkey-behaving, gang-raping, watermelon-eating, too-dumb-to-work-anything-except-a-cotton-field being a racist film.

That is absolutely not what I am doing. Not at all.

The film certainly deals with anti-semitic themes, but that does not make the movie hateful. Many of the film's characters are ignorant and racist, but that doesn't make the film so.

Hornby has talked openly about how he struggled with the idea of changing the truth. There was talk of changing Sarsgaard's character so that he wasn't Jewish. Ultimately, it was decided that changing the facts would be more offensive and insulting to the audience and to the Jewish community. This was even discussed with the films original director - a Jew. It's a period film. At that point in British history antisemitism was prevalent. Would you rather they sugarcoat the truth?

I'm sorry if the movie made you uncomfortable. If you dislike the movie because of it's themes, I understand and I can't blame you for that. They are tough themes. But that's the same reason why I don't recommend Happiness to everyone. The movie portrays a pedophile in a human, (at times even) compassionate light. Does that mean the film is advocating pedophilia? Absolutely not!

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

That is absolutely not what I am doing. Not at all.

The film certainly deals with anti-semitic themes, but that does not make the movie hateful. Many of the film's characters are ignorant and racist, but that doesn't make the film so.

As I'm sure you know, the film is based on true events. In real life Sarsgaard's character was Jewish. It's not racism or antisemitism, it's a fact of life. They didn't choose to make the character Jewish to make some point - to propagate hateful sentiments or anti-semitic messages. If a black man robbed a 7-11, would you call the nightly news racist for reporting that a black man robed a 7-11. If a white man murdered his wife and kids would you call the news racist or bigoted for reporting that a white man murdered his wife and kids?

Hornby has talked openly about how he struggled with the idea of changing the truth. There was talk of changing Sarsgaard's character so that he wasn't Jewish. Ultimately, it was decided that changing the facts would be more offensive and insulting to the audience and to the Jewish community. This was even discussed with the films original director - a Jew.

It's a period film. At that point in British history antisemitism was prevalent.
Would you rather they sugarcoat the truth? Would you rather they change or ignore these facts of time and place? Is it wrong to include them in a period film based on actual events? If the make a movie about OJ Simpson should they gloss over the murder trial and forget to mention that he got busted for robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas because some people might find it racist?

There are terrible people doing terrible things in all walks of life. All shapes, sizes, sexes, races and classes of people do shitty things. The opposite is also true. All shapes, sizes, sexes, races and classes of people do wonderful, glorious, heroic things. By depicting one you are negating the other. By telling one story you are not surrendering all others.

I'm sorry if the movie made you uncomfortable. If you dislike the movie because of it's themes, I understand and I can't blame you for that. They are tough themes. But that's the same reason why I don't recommend Happiness to everyone. The movie portrays a pedophile in a human, (at times even) compassionate light. Does that mean the film is advocating pedophilia? Absolutely not!

The same is true of An Education. It is dealing with certain themes, and certain character ideals, but as far as I can tell the artists involved are in no way condoning such attitudes and behaviors. The movie is not advocating antisemitism. The movie is not hateful. The film is not in agreement with it's more ignorant characters.

Is Crash a hateful film? Is Schindler's List? Is Roots?

Just because a character behaves a certain way - a way that is true to life, that is based in fact - does not mean that the film advocates that behavior. If that were the case, then I suppose The Silence Of The Lambs is racist against Caucasians because it portrays all middle-aged white men as serial killers.

I'm not going to address the lecture because it is both condescending and irrelevant to my concerns with the film. The film, BTW, changed a lot of material from the memoir it is based on, so the "integrity of the book" defense doesn't hold water. I am also completely unconcerned with what the filmmakers intended to do. Caring about that is what's known as the Intentional Fallacy. What matters is what the film actually is.

So, looking solely at the film itself, I can't agree with you that the film isn't in agreement with its hate. Every ignorant comment made about the Jewish people as a whole in that film was fully justified when looking at Sarsgaard's character. Those ignorant characters looked pretty damn prophetic by the end of the film. He was a terrible person - a thief, a racist, a creep - who justified his behavior with his Jewness. He had numerous lines about Jewish behavior in which he used the royal "We," making him a representative for the entier Jewish people. What's worse is that there isn't a need in the film to have the character be 1.) Jewish and 2.) a ridiculous cornucopia of harmful stereotypes at that. The ONLY justification for his behavior was that he was Jewish. Of course there are terrible people of all races and cultures. No one is terrible simply because their race is inherently terrible - which is exactly what the film is suggesting, intentionally or not. I can't see how that doesn't make the film agree with its characters. Maybe you can help me understand how with another civics lesson.

I don't understand your last paragraph, either. There are no cultural stereotypes that portray the average middle-aged white man as a serial killer. There ARE old, pervasive cultural sterotypes that say the average Jewish man is exactly how Sarsgaard's character is.

[Red Brooklyn]

I apologize for my "lecture." I apologize for wasting your time with my "condescending" and "irrelevant" "civics lesson". My intent was never to lecture, to be condescending and/or irrelevant. Forgive me.

I retract the last paragraph of my previous post.

We saw different films.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

I apologize for my "lecture." I apologize for wasting your time with my "condescending" and "irrelevant" "civics lesson". My intent was never to lecture, to be condescending and/or irrelevant. Forgive me.

Though, I wonder if you understand the meaning of the words "condescending" or "irrelevant" since most people who respond to your posts are these things, but miraculously, you, sir, never are. Or perhaps I don't understand the meanings of those words. Probably I'm just not as smart, experienced and insightful as you. Probably.

It's become increasingly obvious to me that I'm willing to give you more credit, treat you with the intelligence you deserve, and treat you with more respect than you will ever treat me. Fine. I don't need validation or respect from a message board. It's a shame, though, because I really do think you're a smart guy. I really do think you bring a lot of value to the board.

No matter what I say you will dismiss it. Always. I will continue to be fallacious, or condescending, or irrelevant, or any of your other favorite labels. So I'll spare you.

I retract the last paragraph of my previous post.

We saw different films.

Favorite labels? How about words whose definitions match the situation. Also, I don't know where this idea came from that, suddenly, I'm infallible or something. Moreover, that line about me miraculously not being irrelevant or condescending doesn't make sense to me because I was not being either of those things with you. I was certainly snippy. Curt. A dick. But not condescending. Condescending was you giving me a rudimentary social studies lesson about race and behavior as if I were a child, and even worse, that lesson didn't address the film. You got onto me about burden of proof, which is well and good, so I provided numerous examples. You then gave me this lesson (when you weren't providing unsupported claims about the film).

If you want me to apologize for my tone towards you I will. I think you'd have realized by now with me that when I'm a dick to people it isn't personal.