Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on November 13, 2007 at 10:41:59

In Reply to: RE: Jesus, do you read what you post? posted by tinear on November 10, 2007 at 15:28:37

"I don't know the truth behind the events in Black Book and I'd wager you don't, either."

Then perhaps you should stop calling it bullshit, if you do not know that it is bullshit. This is the difference between us. You do not know the facts, but are content to spout opinions about things you know nothing about - blaming a director for the content of the film without knowing whether it is the director making the choice, or the facts making the choice for the director. I, on the other hand, am willing to accept that the relationship did occur as depicted, as I do not know differently, and prefer to judge the director's merit on not what the film demonstrated, but how it did so.

You may wish to ponder why filmmakers say, "based on a true story," instead of just "a true story."
It's called artistic license."

Do you read any posts? Or remember them beyond the period of time it took you to type your mindless responses? I previously used the example of Passion of the Christ. I assume that Mel Gibson took some artistic license. But the underlying premise - that Christ was heinously tortured on route to his crucifiction, remains intact. Similarly, because a director or screenwriter uses some artistic license does not mean that the underlying facts are fabricated, or, to use a term from your voluminous vocabulary, "bullshit."

"I especially liked your film categories. Drama, no comedy films, Jim?"

Not only can't you read, you are apparently stupid as well. See, I used the word "drama" because it was clear that you were confusing "drama" with "fiction." If Black Book had been a comedy, then I would have used the word "comedy." I doubt that cleared things up for you, but there you go.

"At any rate, an SS top officer, who supervised and was present during years of torturing prisoners and responsible for the rendering of Jews, falls in love with an attractive Jewish girl and... my God! He's being fitted for a yarmulke!"

Ah, sarcasm. The last bastion of the empty headed. When you have nothing intelligent to add, throw out sarcasm. I know you are having difficulty in reading retention, but you should review another post in which I provided my opinion that he should have been executed with the rest of them. Missed that, did you? On the other, I am curious, what would a death penalty opponent such as yourself have done with him? Care to answer that?

"It's poor film making"

In typical Tinhead fashion, you are great at providing conclusions, weak at providing analysis. So far, we have a relationship (that the resistance instructed her to enter) between a Jewish woman and an SS Officer. Man, you are insightful. You like the Wizard of Oz because of Dorothy's red shoes?

Your entire argument against the film boils down to your opposition of a Jewish woman falling for an SS officer. It is clear that your mind requires, and cannot move outside, those boundaries. All Nazis are evil. All Nazis murdered innocent people. All Nazis are beyond human redemption, and cannot change. Any film that attempts to show the grey is bad.

I have, in the past, drawn attention to your hyprocrisy. One parting shot. Regarding "Dead Man Walking" you write: "Penn is Sean, of course. Have you seen "Dead Man Walking"? This is a very good film but contains an excellent performance---he should have received 2 Oscars."

A comment I agree with. Odd, though. Penn plays a sadistic killer of two innocent people, who spends 90% of the film denying he did anything wrong, whom Penn redeems into a human being with his performance. And you like it. Here we have an SS Officer, who we do not see, or know of anyone he killed, only that he was a member of an evil organization, and you condemn the film out of hand because it humanizes the latter. You love the human portrayal of the former.

With that, this discourse is over, for me.

Edits: 11/13/07