 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.188.1.153
In Reply to: Re: Fake fake fake... posted by patrickU on March 29, 2005 at 07:48:04:
Ye of so little faith. I didn't see if you answered the question as to whether you actually saw the movie or not? Yes, my review was my impression. Was the film a little technical? Possibly, but I alluded to that in my "tying up loose ends" comment, n'est pas? But I wanted a critical study and this film fit the bill bigtime. The film was based on not one but two books. It certainly didn't present any of the known beasts in anything resembling a postive manner. Hell, the manner in which the "Palace intrigue" was presented was totally believable. Albert Speer came off reasonably well, but from what I've read of Speer, that isn't totally without factual basis. To the other poster who objected about the possible humanizing of AH, to the ectent he was humanized, it was slight. He did show a certain "charm" on occasion, in the scene set in 1942 (when the movie opened). But those occasions were few and far between. When the pedal hit the metal, he was completely the madman that we all knew and hated.
Follow Ups:
Ye of so little faith...
I do not answer question that are an affront. It is like coming home after twenty years of work and some one ask you: Where are you?
Unbearable.
The fuctual basis as you put it is as true as it may be. I never critisise that! ( Speer, if you read his autobiography, is well put with the feeling of his writing coming to you out of it, even his homo/ erotic relationship wit AH is described ( Hitler tear ) so as all the rest of what is know about him.)
The issue is a political one. Of course every human being has an " human side " even the mad man.
I do not want to know about. It is a choice.
just thought PERHAPS you had (the issue is a white-hot one) decided to trash the movie because of what you had read and not seen.
Now, to the larger point: it seems you are objecting to Ganz's portrayal as AH as a human being, which, quite obviously, he was. He was also a magnetic personality. Quite a few women (probably the entire German female population, actually) were in love with him, with several (Eva being the most known) his actual lovers.
He loved his dogs, it is reported.
What you are asking, it would seem, is what so roundly you criticize in Hollywood---sentimentality in service of truth.
I, for one, can "take" an accurate portrayal.
To me, AH being shown realistically is all the more horrifying. After all, if he truly had been as Hollywood has portrayed him, he would never have swayed the masses.
It is scary to think monsters are sometimes physically and socially indistinguishable from the "ordinary" among us. But that is the uneasy, terrifying fact about psychopaths.
I'll see the movie when it comes to my uncivilized part of the world. Once again, I apologize for causing you offense: none was meant.
I won´t bother, but for you I do.
Well I wrote more than two lines down yonder about this film, so one may think that actually I have saw it!
Actually I try to read as less I can before seing a film, not that I particulary distrust myself, but I like to be as virginal as possible when I envision a new film I do not need the trash of some one else, mine is burden enough...He-he..
You are right, I critisise his way of puting humanity in AH, first because it is dangerous in time with neonazism on the high raise in Germany, and secondly because HE did not deserved it. That is I am quite aware a political choice, you can accept & agree or not.
Well it is mine.
He almost killed my father and he did for millions. And in what way.
Yes I belong to the one who have memory.
I love Hollywood for its achievement I can not stand the souless cinema industry who ever it is.
Sentimentality? I never was against, but yes against stupidity in form of larmoyant pictures and all that dumbness, yes.
At the last pictures show you have to be crying, that is nothing for me. Not as an industrial product with the button to be pushed at the right moment, no, not with me.
The point was that this film was not a good one, in fact I found it mostly depictible, still not THAT bad. Still most of it was laughable, that is why I wrote for " US tourists " what promptly send me some arrogance calling...Well he don´t know me well....
Yes it is true and scary, as you wrote and also Bernardo, and that is ALSO why we must be very prudent.
That is my critic.
Have you seen it, has Audiophilander?
Thank you and, of course case, as they says, closed.
But not for the film...He-he. In case you have to see it or others....
One, I HATE knowing too much about a movie going in. The surprise element is lost. I make my choices based on critics overall impressions, newspapers articles (industry buzz in other words) and friends recs.Second, my father was almost killed by the madman as well. He spent Christmas 1944 in the Ardennes Forest.
By the way, you weren't suggesting this was a Hollywood epic eh? Quite the opposite I believe/
Yes I were. In the light on the new merger of Euro/ Hollywood money, mostly for getting subvention ( in France there is already two case in court ) the BIG productions are mixing together.
We call it here Euro trash. More and more films here look like their Hollywood counterpart.
In the way of making it, this film, in my view bear a certain similitude, more the same spirit.
I wonder how was Alec G. interpretation of the Führer even with his own manierism...
Band of brothers.
$425
I think that there is some confusion between humanizing Hitler and educating people about Hitler. Hitler had a life outside of the public spectacle. I, for one, want to see what he was like when he was not giving the speeches, and not giving the orders to exterminate Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc. That is part of the education process. We ridicule as being closeminded and afraid of the truth those who do not want to see depictions of Christ in any way other than doing the greats things that he was supposed to do. I think that the same applies here.Acknowledging that Hitler liked dogs, women, cleaniless, music, etc. provides us a window into how a madman can have two personalities, and that one does not necessarily influence the other. There is a good lesson here. A madman can be any shape. Looking for a madman, or someone with those tendencies, requires more than looking for someone who advertises as such. It can be the meek guy in the corner. Suggesting that there is something dangerous about "humanizing" Hitler is wrong.
I saw the documentary with Hitler's secretary, the name of which I do not recall. I found it to be very illustrating. I do not have access to German television, and so have not been able to watch the hours of tape over those airwaves. So, to us gringos, that material is fresh and largely unseen.
Have you seen "Max", with John Cusack, who plays an art dealer that befriends a young Hitler, who had aspirations of being an artist. That film also "humanized" Hitler. The filmmakers make the point that had Hitler's art been taken more seriously, maybe he would not have found his outlet in racial politics. Who knows? But it is certainly something to think about, and does not diminish what Hitler became. Very good film.
This dialog reminds me of Mel Brooks depictions of Hitler. I remember seeing an interview where he explained that members of his family had been exterminated by Hitler. He was in the United States military stationed in Europe at that time. He recalled his frustration at not being able to kill Hitler. After the war, he decided that the only way for him to get back at Hitler was to make the world laugh at him. So he decided that when he made movies, he would use Hitler as the butt of his jokes. You may or may not agree with Brooks. But he certainly did not reduce Hitler's reputation as being a madman. Rather, I think he may have contributed to the view that Hitler was rather pathetic.
Knowledge is a good thing. Even when it does not comport with our world views, and with our prejudices.
I think that AH had only one personality as we all have ( maybe some real mad people have two, in the clinical sense...) He had different aspect that is certain, and again, as we all have.
Yes I have seen " Max " and post here. I did absolutely not like it. So different people different point of views.
The only film with real genius is Chaplin´s one. No one to my knowledge did go further down in AH mentality. And at the time Charles had not the knowledge and insight we have today. With it he would have been even better or like he said he would not have made the picture at all...
Of course knowlege are primordial, it is only the way it is presented that I critisise...That makes all the difference.
...at least in my opinion, it´s better to be aware of the most evil enemies being not so different from average people than having a wrong image of them as endowed with horns and hoofs, and smelling of sulfur...And I won´t go any further, as otherwise I´d end up talking of those banally evil ones doing their banal evil these days.
Regards
BF
Yet there is a barrier. Most of us won´t tell their truth.
Can you forsake AH? I could but I would not. I could for every evil in the God forbidden world, but I wouln´t.
Would Mr. Bush and AH made a nice couple?
No way cher ami, no way....
I end up...
... but I'll leave it to Michael Moore to connect all the dots! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
...to point what I thought you were seeing as a danger: that some people would absolve him and his bunch just because they "understood" them.That phrase "Tout comprendre..." is not mine, as you know. And of course, its meaning is to be applied to normal relations between decent people, like lovers, parents and their children, friends..., but never in cases like Hitler and his gang´s, as we are talking of people who murdered millions of people, in cold blood.
Regards
BF
Well when you cited, I must taken as granted that you place it under your wings, so no matter from where it came...Now it´s yours.
It could be lightly missunderstood as it stands.
But I got it rightly.
In the context of a Nazi " renaissance " here in Germany, one has be very cautious, not to be caught in in the new wave of " Nazi intellectual chic "...Ganz interpretation may bear a similar attitude...Under the wing " Now we can paint a picture with more shades.
But in the end it is a very weak film, I wonder how was Alec.G. in his role as AH?
But there was one guy as "Anti Hitler" who was made for the part
I wonder how Chaplin would have parodied George Bush?Grins
*
----------
General Sherman sucks.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
