RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 6, 2009 3:26:42 GMT
Try arguing with someone who keeps bringing up irrelevant points and see how long you last...
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 6, 2009 3:46:24 GMT
Try arguing with someone who keeps bringing up irrelevant points and see how long you last... What is irrelevant? A rather subjective and capitalist notion if you ask me. Besides, the last such epic argument you've described that I've witnessed here, was a mutual jerk-off that ended when one conceded, but the other went off on a pissy rant before realizing that the concession of argumentational defeat was already posted by the time his rage escaped onto the keyboard. Not that I would know anything about this personally... ;D
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on May 6, 2009 4:12:25 GMT
Where did this "mutual jerk-off" happen? Specifics please.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 6, 2009 5:02:51 GMT
Where did this "mutual jerk-off" happen? Specifics please. Check out the FRIDAY THE 13TH thread, where I must admit, a certain guy who reviewed GYMKATA admittedly used an excuse and some filmsy logic to bash Michael Bay up some more, and after many destructive days and postings that killed millions of lives, finally surrendered. Then to get a Wounded Knee.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 6, 2009 8:28:17 GMT
Try arguing with someone who keeps bringing up irrelevant points and see how long you last... What is irrelevant? A rather subjective and capitalist notion if you ask me. Not only is this irrelevant, but quite inaccurate. I would call repeated requests for definitions, as a defence for one's own increasing irrelevance, The Meandering Technique. (I'll post on-topic later.)
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 6, 2009 13:26:39 GMT
What is irrelevant? A rather subjective and capitalist notion if you ask me. I'm pretty sure argumentative relevance can be demonstrated logically, and also has nothing to do with capitalism. Pretty sure.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 6, 2009 13:52:46 GMT
What is irrelevant? A rather subjective and capitalist notion if you ask me. I'm pretty sure argumentative relevance can be demonstrated logically, and also has nothing to do with capitalism. Pretty sure. Pretty sure?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 6, 2009 14:30:07 GMT
Yes. Pretty fucking sure.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 6, 2009 17:45:13 GMT
Yes. Pretty fucking sure. That's not sure enough for me. I need a near 99% guarantee here. Instead, say "Pretty fucking Goddamn Sure." Then I'll be happy.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 6, 2009 18:11:33 GMT
How about "pretty motherfuckin' sure"?
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 6, 2009 19:12:55 GMT
How about "pretty motherfuckin' sure"? Good enough for me, a true socialist because I was once a Republican, much like the losing side on the Spanish Civil War. And before someone says they're two different ideologies, how can they if they share the same name?
|
|
Blib
Ghost writer
Posts: 623
|
Post by Blib on May 7, 2009 8:19:25 GMT
Did you just use the Spanish Civil War as an argument?!
LMAO!!
Seriously, I have no idea what is being discussed in this thread anymore.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 7, 2009 21:00:02 GMT
Did you just use the Spanish Civil War as an argument?! LMAO!! I would say yes, but that would then make my point wrong, thus I must type irrelevant.Seriously, I have no idea what is being discussed in this thread anymore. Its just us socialists chillin like a villain.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on May 7, 2009 21:43:23 GMT
Ronnie, stop trolling please.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on May 8, 2009 0:33:25 GMT
Ronnie, stop trolling please. Thus concludes my trolling.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 12, 2009 0:09:22 GMT
Firstly, the Holocaust by its very nature resists and denies sensationalism. It's a unique event because of the historical factors that led up to it, and yet it's not aberrant because the Final Solution might be seen as the attempted conclusion to a long history of global anti-Semitism. Spielberg's film ignores these issues; in it, the reality of the Holocaust is not even a subtext, but a mere backdrop to its individual-character story. If you'll forgive the poetic wording, I'd call it a pornographic film before a period film. There are historically accurate details of course, but these are only to combat easier accusations of exploitation.
Schindler's List is guilty of kitsch. Its sentimentality dwarfs everything else. The aesthetic decisions - the black-and-white cinematography and the four moments of colour - are badly judged: why film it in black-and-white? Is it a question of blurring morality, of making traditional notions of "good" and "evil" problematic? It might seem so, in the fact that Schindler's initial reaction to the genocide is frustration at his factory being empty (and thus losing money) and not at the killing of fellow humans; but we're asked to side with Schindler, ultimately, not because of his "good" but because of the insistent juxaposition against "evil" - Goeth.
Is it, then, a question of distinguishing dramatic moments? It opens with colour flame of the Sabbath, which de-colourises as it burns out - an aesthetic representation of the distinction of the Jews? Maybe, but then why undercut it with text describing the financial measures Schindler took to save the Jews ("his Jews", the film reminds us)? Spielberg shifts the focus from the unspeakable death of millions to the few that survived. Not only this, but we're told (from the start and throughout) that they survived because of Schindler. That's right: all survivors in this film are related in some way to Schindler, and the title alone elevates him beyond banal altruism. He's a hero, despite being roused to heroism in the first place due to monetary concerns. What's Spielberg trying to tell us here?
More famously, the girl in the red dress... it's a (dis?)quieting moment in a furiously violent scene that we see this girl, but Spielberg insults his audience by pointing out her visual presence through colour. Not only is this cheap, but when we see her corpse later in the film, the tone and perspective shift once more, after Spielberg has lingered long enough (though not long enough) for us to remind ourselves that people actually died during this horrific event, back to the Schindler Jews.
Also, if we come back to the initial scene of the candles, and how their colour burns out (and with it, the Jewish faith...?), why does Spielberg conclude his film with colour images of the present-day Jews? (We needn't ask why they stage a memorial service to Schindler; the film's named after him, so they must!) There's an implication of happiness there. And happy they may be, of course, but the tone is equally uplifting and relieving for the audience. They've sat through some violent and upsetting scenes, and now here's their reward... the suggestion of hope. This is all fine and swell, of course, but a) it's played out for people's emotional benefit, at the expense of actual intellectual and historical benefit; b) it's a fatally limited and narrowing perspective of the Holocaust. Schindler "saved" 1,100 lives and we celebrate; we've little time to mourn the six million destroyed. That Spielberg ends the film with a dedication to the latter means very little; the preceding narrative has been so focused on (and named after) the individual arc of its Nazi-turned-selfless-Saviour, that we're not compelled to explore the historical reasons behind this mass horror, nor the moral/ethical questions of representing it.
No: Spielberg takes for granted that a fantasy film parading as a historical film can be enjoyed and not questioned. Lamentably, he's right. He takes it upon himself to re-create the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust through a shamelessly fictionalised account that demands that we see events not through the eyes of the victims nor even the survivors, but the man who came to save them. This isn't necessarily objectionable, but for the fact of the fantastical heroism with which Schindler is presented. He's mythical from the outset. The way Spielberg exposits him, visually, from behind (I think) and through cigarette smoke (and the way in which Neeson carries himself as an actor), gives an air of mysticism not dissimilar to Coppola's exposition of Don Corleone. We're drawn in immediately to the character, to the individual, and how he might come eventually to save a very, very small portion of the Jews. At best, the focus is a curious one. Curious because of the inevitable neglect of the wider reality, and because with it, the audience may view these events with neither guilt nor genuine sorrow.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 12, 2009 0:10:05 GMT
Oh, and for the record:The horror of Malick's film is man's destruction of the natural world, and I think it's captured very, very well. The destruction of the Jews is an entirely different question; for one, it's a lot more specific.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on May 12, 2009 1:26:16 GMT
I think that's an admirable job of explaining, because I thought we were just reading someone in a pessimistic mood. I want to counter you on so much, but I think I want to see it again before I make any definite statements. So, only two questions for now: what are your thoughts at the end because he feels guilty he didn't save more? Maybe he's feeling bad he used some sort of economic basis for his decisions. Second, what are your thoughts on that famous quote about saving one life saves the world entire, or something like that. I searched for the decision to film in black and white, and it was on wiki: The decision to shoot the film mainly in black and white lent to the documentarian style of cinematography, which cinematographer Janusz Kaminski compared to German Expressionism and Italian neorealism.[8] Kaminski said that he wanted to give a timeless sense to the film, so the audience would "not have a sense of when it was made."[8] Spielberg was following suit with "[v]irtually everything I've seen on the Holocaust... which have largely been stark, black and white images."[13] Universal chairman Tom Pollock asked Spielberg to shoot the film in a color negative, to allow color VHS copies of the film to be sold, but Spielberg did not want "to beautify events."
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 12, 2009 10:08:59 GMT
That the black and white cinematography "lends" to a "documentarian style" is both curious and arbitrary, and again, telling of Spielberg's serious but misjudged intentions. The "timelessness" thing is both selfish and unnecessary, firstly because every film is necessarily of its time and secondly because the Holocaust is a specific historical event. Spielberg not wanting to "beautify events" is total bullshit: here we have A-list, English-speaking, household name actors speaking in caricature accents. RRA mentioned earlier the film's "very nice budget" and its attention to detail. But Spielberg doesn't see the forest for the (very nice) trees.
I was going to post separately on the film's famous tagline, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire". Well, that's not the case at all, really, is it? I can see the appeal, and the romantic concept of token humanitarianism, but it remains just that: a tagline. And a problematic one at that; if nothing else, we at least need to question it, explore it - if we accept it without consideration (and the film embraces it entirely) we've fallen into the Veneer Trap. Also, the tagline also draws us to the concept of Schindler, of OneMan. The title could drop the "List" and content itself simply with "Schindler", like Polanski did with The Pianist. It would at least then be a more fitting narrative therein.
As for his breakdown at the end, I think the tagline actually answers it, or at least offers the makers' answer: Schindler might feel guilty (of what the film never says; of "not saving more" is quite vague), but the tagline exempts him from all further guilt. He needn't worry, having "saved the world entire". Like I said, at the very least this is very problematic; I don't buy into the quote at all.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on May 12, 2009 20:28:44 GMT
every film is necessarily of its time What type of time range are we talking here - something like decade or like 50 years? We aren't taking the "timeless" too literally to mean forever, right?
|
|