|Lef - 2013-06-19 |
Never saw it, but the yt comments make me want to, seems like a very deep scene.
Here's a compound allegory SAT question:
Stephen Spielberg is to the Holocaust, what Spike Lee is to inner city issues, what a pretentious, dripping sentimental horsecock is to ______________ ?
... pretentious centipede filled vaginas?
It wasn't a real SAT question.
The point was that there are certain people that do not have to ability to make certain kinds of films even though they think they should be entitled to based on their standing within their ethnic community.
Roman Polanski, a man who lost everything to the Holocaust, is not Stephen Spielberg. They don't make the same kinds of movies and they made their respective "Holocaust films" for completely different reasons. One was genuine, the other was an offensive farce. I love Stephen Spielberg, I just think he should stick to fictive spectacles and not dirty his hands with historical biopics. It's not his thing. Spike Lee has a considerable larger stake in African American marketshare, which is why he spends so much of life trying to market 0 basketball shoes to them made by debt peons in other countries.
Okay, I misunderstood your post, although I think you should bear some of the responsibility on that one.
Now I want to take issue with your opinion that only people who have some family connection to the Holocaust can make Holocaust art.
Definitely not my point, either. Culture is a fluid thing that can and should be looted, borrowed, copied and stolen from. The accusation of cultural tourism is something all artists who are turned on by things outside of their personal experience have to grapple with.
It's the entitlement complex of mediocre filmmakers that I am talking about. This kind of conversation can lead to "well what is the role of art, anyway?" or "who made you the judge of who is entitled to make a film about a certain subject?"
I am guilty, I do not and probably should not lambast Spike Lee for being a over-stylized, misogynist, greedy, racist fraud, but that's just the way I feel. There are many other people making films about the African American experience that perhaps are not sentimental, not stylish, not mainstream (T. Perry) not outrageous enough to gain his following, but that's the story of art in America.
One day, Spielberg woke up and said, "You know, I'm getting in touch with my Jewish roots as I get older. I should make a Holocaust film that is accessible to gentiles while paying tribute to what my relatives went through, which will give me cred and probably win me Oscars." This is not what should motivate people to make films about genocide, and being "the greatest voice of black American advertising in contrast to the traditional dominant voices of white American advertising" should not be the motivation for making films about historically oppressed people in this country, either.
Okay. I'll just accuse you of being too cynical. Spielberg is probably accused of more Hollywood fluff filmmaking because, more than anyone else since the 70s, Spielberg has created all the templates for fluff. That his oeuvre seems so superficial is at least partly because he has been so influential in creating how Hollywood makes their producer-drive movies.
I think any time you get into the what-someone-was-thinking-when-they-made-something, you're getting far too cynical. Spielberg maybe was motivated by what you present, but I don't really get that impression. I also, despite not caring for nearly all of Spike Lee's work, get the impression he has tried to set up a new way of marketing to people. More importantly than all that, though, is that I've found that when people get into speculating on someone's motivations (and I've done it as much as anyone), those people are usually trying to reach a conclusion they want to get to, so they have to make up some other person than the person they're talking about to get there.
As far as Schindler's List as a film goes, whatever someone's opinion of it is, it has undeniably raised the understanding and importance of the Holocaust in popular culture. Even if it is a bad film, it's a good piece of art for that reason alone.
All those fucking oppressed people and their goddamned expression!
I wish Mel Brooks had made a holocaust movie so you'd have seen how bigoted this whole tirade of yours sounded before you typed it and posted it.
Well, if wealthy Jewish people can't make movies about the Holocaust, then who's left? Hi-yo!
His name is Stephen? This whole time I've been calling him Steven.
|13.5 - 2013-06-19 |
I think this is a dupe, if only because I remember all the jokes last time along the lines of "Jesus, Wes, I don't think you can bargain her any farther down no matter how loud you are"
|Simillion - 2013-06-19 |
(NEXT 10 SECONDS)
"...by which I mean..
|Jet Bin Fever - 2013-06-19 |
He's holding her a little tight for a "No"
|poopy - 2013-06-19 |
No one understands subtlety like Spike Lee.
|Oscar Wildcat - 2013-06-19 |
Gay men can be _so_ dramatic sometimes...
|Killer Joe - 2013-06-19 |
Poor girl. If I made a sales pitch for a service and the customer response was a tight embrace and screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" I might be too stunned to move, too.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|