 
|
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 |
216.196.176.121
In Reply to: You miss the whole point by a cannon shot posted by Victor Khomenko on May 17, 2006 at 13:08:28:
Well, the original point was how Speilberg treated the Holocaust. Your reply was critical. I asked for examples. You cite SPR, which is not about the Holocaust. Sounds like an offtopic response. But I responded in any event.You replied that the invasion scene did not "do much for you." Which is fine. But then concluding that it was not well done "because it did not do much for you" is conceit. Spielberg's goal in that scene was to bring to the audience the experience of the Normandy invasion, not to satisfy some stodgey definition of "art." The experts have pretty much concluded that he satisfied his goal. Hence, that scene was, in fact, well done because it attained it's purpose. Whether another director would have done it differently is another matter. Veterans for years have complained that films from every country sanitized war. There is no art in war, in killing people. Ultimately, your critism boils down to Speilberg's scene being too realistic. You want art, look elsewhere. But what have you learned?
With respect to Schindler's List, which was the subject, I have not yet read an anwser to my query. Schindler does not contain any gore of any real substance. And the final scene in which the real life descendant's of those Schindler saved is brilliant, and touching. And, undoubtedly, a poignant fact apparently lost on virtually every other film maker who has covered the Holocaust. That you apparently were not moved by that scene says more about you than Spielberg.
Follow Ups:
***Well, the original point was how Speilberg treated the Holocaust. Your reply was critical. I asked for examples. You cite SPR, which is not about the Holocaust. Sounds like an offtopic response. But I responded in any event.That is not how it was.
But more to the point, you constant attempts at making Spielberg's problems into mine are laughable. Big problem with staying with subject? To refresh your mem, the subject was Spielberg, not me. Too bad you didn't get it. If you like him - defend him, but not by attacking those who don't.
"If you like him - defend him, but not by attacking those who don't."Victor, you need to re-read the discourse. Since you seem to have difficulty doing so, I'll cut and paste so you not have to do too much work. Here goes:
(1) Townsend writes: IMHO, Schindler's List is one of his best movies ever. Unfortunately, the public has been oversaturated with holocaust books, movies, history channel specials, etc. This situation has created "holocaust" fatigue among viewers. But Schindler's List is the best holocaust movie I've seen. Its Fiennes' best performance, and Neeson is also brilliant (Kingsley does a fine job, but his character isn't as prominent as the other two aforementioned).
Me: Not a single mention of SPR. You see it anywhere Victor.
If you do, put down the Vodka, you have had too much.(2) Victor replies: Like in his other fims, he simply reaches for the most trivial "shocking" effects in his tool box, things we hate him for, and rightly so, things he elevated to the unfortunate "cult" status with his ridiculous SPR.
Of course one can treat the subject that way, and perhaps this is what some need. But one can also express the horrors in a much more subtle, but more grabbing ways. Spielberg is unable to do any of that.
Me: You bring up SPR, which was never mentioned. The original film discussed was SL. You write "like in his other films", certainly implying you recognized this to be the case. You wrote that in SL Speilberg "reaches for the most trivial special effects." You then add "one can also express the horrors is a much more subtle way."
Me again: I assumed that you knew what you were writing about, and had some specific ideas in mind, or at least some concrete examples.
(3) I replied asking you to provide some concrete examples. Seems simple enough.
(4) Victor replies: Just two polar examples. The "horror" landing scene in SPR does absolutely nothing to me, but that open door leading to the empty starecase in the M is gripping.
Me: Great. But SL is the film that began the thread. And your statement that "like in his other films" clearly denotes that SL, according to you, contained trivial shocking effects, and trearing horrors in more subtle ways. You make a statement which, when asked to support, you bail and change the subject. Which leads to the conclusion that that emperor has no clothes.
You then suggest that I re-read the thread. Then suggest that rather than "attack" you, I should defend Speilberg. You are the one who suggeste SL could have, and has been done, better. That Speilberg resorted to trivial effects. You have failed to support your argument beyond "I think." If I challenge you to support your statements which you cloak as fact, that is hardly a personal attack.
(5) Scott posts: don't recall any "trivial 'shocking' effects" in SL. What exactly are you refering to? Certainly there were shocking scenes but they were shocking in their excellent representation of the real horrors of the holocaust. can't say that I saw anything cheap and manipulative in this one.
Examples? I can't say that I recall any movies on the holocaust that had moments that were more grabbing than the ones in SL. But if you can offe some examples it would be interesting to see your points illustrated.
Me: Still waiting.
Perhaps instead of embarking on yet another nagging expedition you seem to be so fond of, you should simply try to see some good films mentioned here... perhaps that would change your perception more than silly arguing here. Perhaps seeing the Waterloo would open your eyes on how a good war movie could be created. And the others - how one can be powerful without being hysterical.But on the positive front, I noticed you dropped your two favorite strikes - the one about the vets (that was truly a weak argument par exlellence) and about me not getting Spielberg's great art (so sorry about that!). I say that is progress.
Next step up would be you taking to task this sentence:
"I can't say that I recall any movies on the holocaust that had moments that were more grabbing than the ones in SL."
Just how one responds to that is not clear to me, so perhaps you should take a stab. But as far as your mysterious:
"Me: Still waiting."
...my answer would be "For what exactly?" Have you seen the ones that Patrick and I mentioned?
"Next step up would be you taking to task this sentence:""I can't say that I recall any movies on the holocaust that had moments that were more grabbing than the ones in SL."
Now I am being impeached with something I never wrote. Read again, Victor. I never wrote that, and so do not understand how I can be expected to address a question posed by another poster.
"But on the positive front, I noticed you dropped your two favorite strikes - the one about the vets (that was truly a weak argument par exlellence) and about me not getting Spielberg's great art (so sorry about that!)."
Not sure why that is a postive note. But let's clarify, shall we? I never complained about you not "getting" Spielberg's art. You made a critism that SL reduced to trivial shock value. I, and later Scott, asked a very, very, very, and one more time, very simple question, to wit: cite a specific example, in SL, not SPR, that was of a "trivial shock value."
There may be other Holocaust films you like more than SL. Fine. I can't argue with that. But that is not the issue, nor the query I raised. I do not believe I ever asked you to name another Holocaust film you like more than SL. You made a declarative statement, cloaked in fact, and I simply asked you to name the specific "trivial shock" in SL. No more, no less.
That you still cannot provide support for your declarative statements leads to the only conclusion possible, which is, that you have none, and your statement was made based solely upon your opinion of Spielberg. Which is fine. But trying to portray your opinion in a "fact" which you cannot produce is misleading.
"Me: Still waiting."
...my answer would be "For what exactly?"
And you suggest I need to re-read a post?
"you should simply try to see some good films mentioned here... perhaps that would change your perception more than silly arguing here."
Translation: You caught me with my hands in the cookie jar, now can we get on to something else.
it's never a true discussion. More of a diatribe. Better tact is to ignore him..I do
But we humans (well, some of us) have the ability for analysis. Being able to back up allegations with proof, examples, something. On the other hand, there are some who simply like to spew opinions cloaked as fact, and then either refuse, or take offense, when asked to provide examples, proof, something. Something in me relishes challenging such people. Something about watching them dance entertains me.
***...my answer would be "For what exactly?"> > And you suggest I need to re-read a post?
Not any longer. I respectfully withdraw my suggestion - one can only lead a horse to the water.
nt
I think it would be a good idea to stop now, you take time to see those other movies, to get some idea how the subject can be handled, then it would make some more sense.If all you know if Spielberg then many statements one sees here begin to make sense. If, after studying the great directors, you still conclude that Spielberg is the greatest, at least that opinion will carry more weight.
You write that Speilberg resorted to "trivial shock" in SL. You made an allegation. An accusation. Please provide the scenes in SL that qualify as "trivial shock." Please support your argument. Please do not write anything else in response. Please read the post. Please try to understand. Use a dictionary if you must. Grab a friend. A business associate. Try divine intervention. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. Or admit you make up an allegation, take your toys, and go home.
You seem to be under an impression that you somehow have some mysterious right to demand something from me, or to tell me what to do, including telling me pack my toys.Truth is, you have not set yourself up yet as such an authority, so you will just have to accept that some of your screams are met with ridicule.
Like everyone else here, I have an absolute right to express my opinion on any move I wish, without your kind permission. It matters about zero to me whether you will consider my statements "facts" or "opinions", while in fact ALL statements expressed by all participants here are opinions. It also matters zero to me whether you consider my statements "allegations" - if you do, I guess you will simply have to learn to live with that.
I know you missed my reference to Analog Scott's quote, but in reality it was important, as it demonstarted your hypocrisy in these matters - giving one opinion (expressed stronly and without any justification, BTW) a complete clean pass, while latchin on like a pitbull on another. If you consider yourself some sort of a watchman of opinions vs. facts, at least try to make your ridiculous statements in some consistent fashion.
So I do not feel like I owe you any further explanations. However, you seem to be fixating on what you call "scenes", while to me it is more the whole movie. Frankly, I got such a bad taste from SL that I am not too inclined to go into deep analysis of that marvel, much like his SPR - both films placed extremely low on my totem pole - another thing you will apparently have to learn to live with. I was talking about SS's consistent approach, as examplified by several of his works, not a particular scene.
Furthermore, during this discussion, you had commited several severe fallacies, for which you refused to take ownership - including the rather ridiculous references to veterans and repeated claims of my "not getting" something in SS's works. But as, unlike you, I am not prone to tantrums, you do not owe me any explanations in those regards, I am simply noting them here.
As I stated before, you position on SS and his films would have gained a bit more weight if it was supported by knowledge of great films that tackled the same subjects - namely the war and the Holocaust. Without that demonstrated knowledge your "opinion" (or "facts" is you wish) take on a rather shallow nature.
nt
Just go watch some good movies... will ya?
"Articulating a challenge" - that is a good one. I articulated a challenge, which you clealy understood, as demonstrated by your response stating that you did not feel compelled to respond to my challenge. So, lemme see if I understand this. You explicitly refuse to respond to my challenge, which you clearly understood, then claim I am not capable of articulating a challenge? Do you know what the word "articulating" means?Well, I probably should not come down too critically. English is not your native language.
When I write, I tend not to spell out the small details, expecting the correspondent fill the blanks... at least that is what I do with people I respect.You started making fallacies early in this exchange, jumping from one to another, unable to express your own feelings, hiding behind the vets here, SS's back there, not stating even your own feelings, just attacking mine.
All that set a rather low intellectual tone, I must say. During that time you had difficulty articulating your question - with all those side moves if there ever was any focus to your thought, it certainly did not come across, but what did, was the obnoxious demand at explanation... of what exactly did not matter, and as the subject of your behavior meant little, I kept ignoring it, running circles around you with faint ridicule, hoping you would suddenly realize the futility of your rather silly attempts, but you persisted, apparently angied by my rejection of your overtures, which, undoubtedly, fell flat on the far less than fertile soil of our relationship.
So while all the answers you have been trying to pull out of me with yout hot iron pliers have been in plain view all this time, your anger blinded your eyes, better than a fistful of sand, and with that sand still in your eyes you kept charghing, pushing forward like a mad bull, instead of simply reading what's already there, on that dirty table covered with broken teeth and tears, unfinished legs of lamb and spilled wine, and instead of simply stepping back, wiping the table clean and allowing your mind some simple exercise you insisted in the very kind of obnoxious behavior that's got you where you now are in the first place. The drunk hooker under the table is smiling at you with her broken tooth smile, she is lifting her skirt, inviting you to an orgy the likes of which you have probably not seen in your life, and I am sitting here, smiling from my corner, sipping my cheap beer and fantasizing about life among smart, intelligent and sensitive people who take their time to learn subject and create their own scale of values before jumping with both feet onto the shaky table with that hooker under it, in order to do their dance, with the sole goal being letting out their frustration, the frustration that the hooker could have cured in five long minutes, and that yoru hot irons could do nothing about.
Ну ни хера не понял...
You obviously do not know what logic means either. I did not attack anything. You attacked SL with a blanket condemnation. Moreover, you attacked another poster's opinion, and apparently feel no responsibility to support your critism of that poster's opinion. The playground must have been a lonely place for you growing up.Had you simply stated "I did not like SL", then the conversation is over. For while any moron can simply utter an opinion devoid of any explanation or basis, that statement would not invite further discourse. On the other hand, you wrote that SL resorted to "trivial shock." That is not a statement of opinion, rather one of fact. I innocently believed you to be something of an intelligent human being capable of supporting a statement of fact with the actual fact, or scene, or something. It appeared to be a simple enough question. Not difficult to answer.
While you may know circuits, you seem to have difficulty with understanding words. You, then, question me with another poster's comments, incorrectly ascribing those words to me, berating me for writing that SL was the best film on the holocaust ever made, and that I should see more holocaust films. Problem is, I never wrote, or even intimated, that SL was the best holocaust film ever. Please re-read your responses, because the heading of your first post bearing those words under this diatribe is a response to a post by TWB.
Victor, you show me where I wrote that SL was the best holocaust film ever made, and I'll drive to my nearest BAT dealer tomorrow and purchase, unheard, a BAT VK3-ix. If you can't, how about you send me one. A bet I do not expect you to take.
Re-read my first response, which succintly read "care to provide examples." An attack? If you think that is an attack, you need thicker skin. Picked on as a kid, were you? Fallacies? Unable to express feeling? You made a statement. I asked for support. You have refused to support your statement. Rather, you interjected other films, SPR, and a litany of other nonsense. Off topic. Re-read your meanderings. Perhaps in your circle of friends or colleagues no one questions Victor. Well, you are not there.
I could ask you to show me where I attacked you. What "fallacies" I wrote. I could ask you to show me where I wrote that SL was the best holocaust film ever. I could ask for you to show me where I, as opposed to you, brought SPR in this discussion. But why bother, Victor. Details, proof, evidence are not important to you. Keep with your mindless, baseless, empty opinions.
хорошо, этот xepa понимает совершенно хорошо.
Funny, for a man so stuck on details you missed that one by a long mile. If instead of expending all these words on different ways of saying "I never said SL was the best Holocaust film" you simply took pains in re-reading the exchanges, you would have **possibly** discovered, much to you horror, that I never stated you did.Bummer... so much verbal water down the drain.
So - this is what you have been arguing all along? No wonder your argument has been so incoherent, as you were simply lost between two posts. Not that I am too interested in analysing your blunder, but that was something truly unexpected to me, as I do expect some reading comprehansion from my opponent.
Do they really speak English in Ohio?
You almost surprise me. I don't know what is wrong with your logic skills, but I thought it was all stated as clearly as was possible.
PS. No need to play with on-line translators... most of the time they just get you in trouble... like this time.
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 ]
