Speaker: How to Look Good as a Nazi
457 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19 Newer→ Last
-
I want what Joe's having.
-
'Get over it' *and* 'can't you take a joke' in one post! Win.
-
“I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, where rumours, true or false, can be so revealing.”
Colonel Landa
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Bastards
As a historian, I find war films intensely disturbing. Not because of their 'historical inaccuracies', but because of the intense fidelity to detail and minutiae that has come to characterise war film making - getting the uniforms right, the accents, the what when and where. I find this tendency extremely dangerous, when compared to earlier films on war like Casablanca or The Guns of Naverone for example, that puported to be set in the war, but did not purport a high degree of accuracy.A man I know (Hank Nelson), a fine historian, was employed as the historical consultant to Kokoda. His work was on making sure everything was right, and he did a very good job. Yet the very first seconds of the film compare the Japanese people to a virus, and the film continues this subhumanisation by having Japanese appear as swamp creatures that only appear from the darkness to enact animalistic acts of violence. And, of course , the Kokoda campaign was of very little strategic importance for either Australia or Japan.
Kokoda grossed extremely highly at the box office, and is now part of the Australian consciousness. Kokoda is now huge as a symbol of national identity. Gallipoli before it was screened in Australian high schools for a generation, and more than any other film has contributed to the Anzac Myth, which in turn has had very real bearing on how that country acts in the world. The recent interventions into East Timor and the Solomon Islands, and Australia's internal intervention, have all been characterised by a particular view of the military and how it acts (which is only partly accurate).
Tarantino is right that rumour and myth reveal more than 'facts'; that is facts stripped of context and meaning. Having established with the opening scene of the that Nazis are subhumans and evil, we can watch two hours of extreme sadistic violence and people (including many civilians) being burned alive without a glimpse of sympathy. What Tarantino very dangerously implies (something he obviously can't say openly), is that we have more in common than we think we do.
-
What Tarantino very dangerously implies (something he obviously can't say openly), is that we have more in common than we think we do.
We do. That's the terrifying bit.
-
what grown-up things this movie has to say
Since when have movies had to say grown-up things? It's entertainment, FFS!
-
On the interesting discussion on the Pacific War, the key point to me is that the Japanese could never have managed an invasion of the US mainland. Without this, the US had unlimited time to rearm.
As someone said, their belief could conly be that they could force a stalemate and a compromise outcome.
-
On the interesting discussion on the Pacific War, the key point to me is that the Japanese could never have managed an invasion of the US mainland. Without this, the US had unlimited time to rearm.
They didn't need to invade the US mainland, they just needed to force the US out of the Pacific for a reasonable time. With the Pacific fleet out of the way the door was open to Hawaii and the US would be forced to withdraw to the West Coast. They were aware there were very strong and loud isolationist forces at work in the US, and that the US would not have been ready to come back into the Pacific until 1943/44 at the earliest. Remember, they agreed with Britain that Hitler took precedence.
Firstly the US would've had to retake Hawaii which was a huge task given the distance from San Diego and the force that would've been required.
They were well aware of the US industrial might, hence the need for a Pacific knockout, which would have given them the breathing space to take Burma and India without a major threat from the East.
I do think that Japan gambled and lost but from their POV (and this is not to justify anything they did as a nation) it was the smart thing to do.
-
Having established with the opening scene [that] Nazis are subhumans and evil
Tarantino just can't win. In the in the review by Philip Matthews, he gets criticized for humanising Nazis. For example, Landa - the Nazi in the opening scene you mention - has "redeeming features" according to Philip (which, in the sense he meant it, I accept) . In support of this case on his blog, quotes are provided from critics claiming Tarantino's Nazis are sympathetic, persuasive and intelligent. Yet you criticize the portrayal of the Nazis as subhuman, a point you say is established in the opening scene.
Tarantino is right that rumour and myth reveal more than 'facts'; that is facts stripped of context ...
What Tarantino very dangerously implies (something he obviously can't say openly), is that we have more in common than we think we do.
If we look at acts (including acts of violence) stripped of context, then yes.
-
How many other countries do you describe in terms of the 40s? Modern pop-culture references like Rammstein for example don't get a look in.
But the title of the post is 'how to look good as a nazi'. And we're talking about an event where a good number of students thought it was appropriate to turn up dressed as nazis.
So whilst I'd love to talk about Rammstein (who I think are the badger's nadgers, BTW), or possibly the new BMW HP2 megamoto (BMW make interesting motorcycle shock!!!), that isn't the topic.
Edit: but yes, we've swerved somewhat off-topic and into armchair general territory.
-
They didn't need to invade the US mainland, they just needed to force the US out of the Pacific for a reasonable time.
They were well aware of the US industrial might, hence the need for a Pacific knockout, which would have given them the breathing space to take Burma and India without a major threat from the East.
That was what I was getting at.
According to the wiki article, the Japanese were after the Battleships , not the Carriers.
The attack had several major aims. First, it was supposed to destroy American fleet units, thereby preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies. Second, it was a means to buy time for Japan to consolidate her position and increase her naval strength, before the shipbuilding of the Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory. Finally, it was intended as a blow against American morale, which might discourage further fighting and enable Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference.
Making battleships the main target was a means of striking at morale, since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time. Because both Japanese and American strategic thinking and doctrine was derived from the work of Captain Alfred Mahan which held battleships were decisive in naval warfare
The Japanese failure to recognise the shift in naval power from Battleships to Carriers is somewhat ironic, given the nature of the Pearl Harbour attack.
-
You have to wonder when we're going to get over the war. How many other countries do you describe in terms of the 40s? Modern pop-culture references like Rammstein for example don't get a look in.
Actually, now that I think about it, is Rammstein really the best reference for you to make your point? Given the controvosies over their supposed political inclinations?
I have one German friend who unequivocally thinks they are, and another (of impeccable liberal lefty credentials) who is a big fan.
-
3410,
Actually, now that I think about it, is Rammstein really the best reference for you to make your point?
How about Trio?
-
-
For example, Landa - the Nazi in the opening scene you mention - has "redeeming features" according to Philip (which, in the sense he meant it, I accept) . In support of this case on his blog, quotes are provided from critics claiming Tarantino's Nazis are sympathetic, persuasive and intelligent.
And back in the real world, Albert Speer was an intelligent, cultured and successful son of a wealthy, middle class family. He was also, not to put too fine a point on, a moral cretin and its hard to escape the conclusion that he lied his arse off (or at best, was very selective about what he chose to see) about his knowledge of the Holocaust. I know its a rather uncomfortable idea to get your head around, but perhaps the Nazis wouldn't have be as successful as they were without a few sympathetic, persuasive and intelligent people on board.
-
Craig, absolutely. In almost every sense, Germany and Austria were centres of Europe. Arendt, and the Frankfurt School brought this idea to the forefront - if it could happen in the most 'civilised' and developed countries in Europe, bringing with it many of the leading lights of the age, it could happen anywhere. My German friends have internalised the horror of this idea.
In Britain, with its triumphalism, and the US with its great moral investiture into fighting another enemy, this lesson washed right by, until the Holocaust was resurrected as a moral spectre in the 1960s. But by then, it was an abstract one, and its lessons for current and future persecutions and wars mired by the cultural politics of the age.
-
In Britain, with its triumphalism, and the US with its great moral investiture into fighting another enemy, this lesson washed right by, until the Holocaust was resurrected as a moral spectre in the 1960s. But by then, it was an abstract one, and its lessons for current and future persecutions and wars mired by the cultural politics of the age.
Also, I think it was Nancy Mitford who acidly observed that when war was declared the only sound heard in the best houses was Joachim von Ribbentrop's signature being razored out of visitor's books. It's one thing admitting that you were a pro-isolationist in the US or in favour of appeasement (which in my opinion was an understandable if indefensible position with 20/20 hindsight), and were proved horribly wrong by events. But pretending you were never any such thing? Moral cretinism of the first water.
-
It's one thing admitting that you were a pro-isolationist in the US or in favour of appeasement (which in my opinion was an understandable if indefensible position with 20/20 hindsight), and were proved horribly wrong by events. But pretending you were never any such thing? Moral cretinism of the first water.
Thank you. Yes.
I could only grimace in the build-up to Iraq when the political heirs to the US isolationists raged on about appeasement.
-
Candyman, Candyman, Ca......
-
I think our friend must be all teapartied out.
-
I'm all in favour of expunging criminal records, but I doubt it applies to everyone. Gotta have the cash to make the application and an Oscar...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/2939973/Mel-Gibsons-conviction-erased
-
Anyone who is in two minds about what to mock and what not should listen to the brilliant history-buff, Dan Carlin. His answer is simple: as long as there are still people alive who bear the number on their arm -- it's not a joke. That tattoo is real.
"I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
George Carlin.
-
...Nancy Mitford who acidly observed that when war was declared the only sound heard in the best houses was Joachim von Ribbentrop's signature being razored out of visitor's books. It's one thing admitting that you were a pro-isolationist in the US or in favour of appeasement (which in my opinion was an understandable if indefensible position with 20/20 hindsight), and were proved horribly wrong by events. But pretending you were never any such thing? Moral cretinism of the first water.
Honesty didn't do Nancy's sister much good though, did it. I can see why, in such a climate, people might take the pretending option.
(I mean Diana, not Unity, although honesty didn't end up doing Unity much good either).
-
-
Alot of sympathy for a guy being made to wear the shirt others had worn in Norway and lined his family up against the wall, as if to murder them on the spot.
I'm puzzelled by The Press coverage of 2006 cheating statistics. It was 3 years ago and I can't work out where the news is in the story.
Unless they're recycling old stories in an effort to fill the pages.http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/2946512/Most-of-Lincolns-cheats-foreign
-
Some compulsion towards an Arts Paper or Sociology might be a better long term decision.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2950094/Students-ordered-to-pay-fine-visit-museum
Post your response…
This topic is closed.