I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Shorter Greg Easterbrook:
A movie no more powerful than an episode of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is just the type of thing that causes Holocausts.
My first "shorter"! Boy, is it fun!
I don't see how being a jew in hollywood allowing a violent movie is any more dangerous to the moral fiber of the country than the christians in the whitehouse sending our men and women in uniform to kill for oil and empire then vindicating it because of the religion and/or skincolor of those being killed?
Be well.
MYOB'
.
Um, not to defend an asshole but anyone that's religious has a responsibility to promote the values of that religion both personally and professionally. Maybe those studio executives aren't practicing Jews (or Christians for that matter) but for those that are, yes they should take that into account when deciding which movies to make.
Not that I want to watch the crap a devout Christian would produce though. 
You mean like the violent crap I make?
Easterbrook needs to stop hitting the pipe so hard. The Jewish argument was downright ridiculous. But there was even more.
In the same post, Easterbrook also delivers this bizarre comment:
"Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers."
Yes, Gregg. It was Scream that caused those kids to kill. Please pass this man a Michael Moore Idiocy Award.
The reason the so-called 'jews in hollywood' make these movies is because of the market demand.
We have violence in our media because we have violence in our homes through religious bigots who demand the servitude of our women, the arming of our children, and the right to kill anything gay or non-christian.
These people are hypocrites.
MYOB'
.
What the fuck. What does religion and ethnicity have to do with movie making?
I'm waiting for Easterbrook to resign from his ESPN column in disgust. I'm sure he doesn't want to be associated with such a company that allows such violent fare.
Easterbrook writes:
"Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?"
And we know Hollywood means Jews to him so is he by any chance saying the Jews brought 9/11 on themselves?
Nah. Tarrantino's not Jewish, right?
But then what is he saying? Aside from not liking Tarrantino's movies - which is fine, not everyone will - I can't figure out what he's talking about.
Easterbrook: And what of American Jews who continually flirt with that whole panoply of modern American fascism that is the republican party? Any advice?
There are Jews in Hollywood? Holy cow, has D.W. Griffith been informed of this madness?
(This joke may be a bit obscure for some of the trolls...just do a Google search on the name.)
Where the hell is the ADL. I wonder what the collective responsibility of the wealthy is? Wealthy WASPs in the Banking industry (Neil Bush, I mean you), Irish, any definable group.
I'm still trying to figure out how he could make the leap from complaining about the violence of a Quentin Tarantino film (which is expected in his films--jeezus, Easterbrook, what did you expect? Merchant&Ivory?), to saying that because they're Jews, Eisner and Weinstein shouldn't allow these films to be made. I'm trying to figure out how he made this leap and doesn't see the disconnect between what he was arguing about--whether Kill Bill is even worth seeing--and the ultimate conclusion that Jews are making these films, and they should know better.
Doubt he'll complain when The Passion comes out...
The Old Testament is violent as all get-out. I don't see the problem.
What's more, the violence in "Kill Bill" is an imitation of the violence in Hong Kong martial arts movies.
And I don't think Jews dominate the Hong Kong film industry.
Holy crap.
Somebody needs to let the Anti-Defamation League know about this. This was after Easterbrook said it was OK to rape women, right? Why are liberal groups not going after this guy?
You mean like the violent crap I make?
Mel Gibson | 10.13.03 - 2:23 pm | #
Yes, how does Mel reconcile those Lethal Weapon killfests with his devote Christian ethics?
Oh, yeah. All that money . . .
devout, even . . .
John Woo is a devout Christian, and I don't think anyone ever topped his Hard-Boiled in the "killing of the innocents" department.
I don't know what my point is, but anyway.
I'm sure that Mel has a very pious attitude when it comes to money.
Remember Jesus said you can't serve both God and Mammon, he didn't say it was just really, really hard.
Ironic, isn't it, that when something that the right wing doesn't like (violent crime movies, say) is hugely successful & makes an obscene amount of money, then suddenly the Divine Marketplace is no longer responsible? Instead, something called "Liberal Hollywood" is to blame. Funny how that works out...
Or, as in this case, the Fuckin' Jew Media is to blame. Is this Easterbrook jackass best buddies with Mel Gibson or something? After years of lying low, conservative anti-Semitism seems to be making a bi-ii-ig comeback...
As a jew, I do wish we were better than we are. Turns out we're no better or worse than anyone else. Who knew?
Tlachtga sez: "Doubt he'll complain when The Passion comes out..."
"The Passion" will just emphasize that Jews have a responsibility not to kill Our Saviour. And when they fail in that responsibility, they must be blamed for it and preferably barred from country clubs, if not killed, once we have our Rapture.
BTW, Tlach, we miss ya over on E2...
Rev. Moon, owner of the Washington Times, preaches Jewish collective responsibility for the Holocaust and the killing of Christ.
I actually went to see Kill Bill (twice) this weekend, and, apparently unlike Easterbrook, I actually watched the movie instead of just passivle sitting there while colors and lights floated in front of me.
I liked it. It's catchy, engaging, got a great soundtrack. It's a fine homage to the blood-drenched kung fu revenge genre.
But the mosty important point Easterbrook seems to have missed is that all the people killed by the main character are bad people. Villains. You know, like at least some of the people the governor-elect has pretended to kill in his movie career. Like some of the people actually killed by the real, non-Hollywood invasion of Iraq.
Tarantino made a film about a woman out for revenge, or justice, or whatever, and dozens of people get fake dead.
Georgie Whistle-Ass orders the invasion of another country, and thousands of real people die.
Now who's really promoting a culture of violence?
Gregg's Spice Channel must have been out this weekend.
Some questions:
If Tarantino is such a hack director, why did every indie film director spend the decade of the 90s trying to clone "Pulp Fiction" and failing to do so?
When Easterbrook asserted that film-school students in the future would never study a frame of Tarantino's work, this assessment was based on asking exactly how many film school professors? (I'm guessing none, because, as we all know, Gregg Easterbook is THE SMARTEST MAN IN HUMAN HISTORY, thus rendering interviews with actual experts superfluous)
If Tarantino can only make ultra-violent gore-fests, what was "Jackie Brown"?
If Hollywood Jews are responsible for poisoning our minds with violent films, can't they jut stop making people pay to see them?
Easterbrook has a problem with Hollywood Jews pushing films that have a "non-Jewish" agenda. Presumably, the alternative would be for Hollywood Jews to switch to pushing films with a largely "Jewish" agenda onto the market (like, say, Barbra Streisand). Question: would Easterbrook think this option would be preferable to the former?
Follow-up: it follows that Easterbrook is advocating that Jewish film producers turn down a proposed film by a non-Jewish director on the grounds that it is not "Jewish" enough in it's outlook. How would Gregg Easterbrook, Constitutional Scholar, feel this decision would be viewed legally?
What other behavioral recommednations for American minority groups does Easterbrook have that he'd like to enlighten them with?
etc. etc.
Why do you think Easterbrook actually saw the film? There is nothing in the piece to infer that. He basically is going by what he remembers from Pulp Fiction.
For what it's worth, Easterbrook did slam Gibson for his violent movies in a piece on The Passion.
The rest of his article, is hysterically wrong though.
Scooter! Or should I say, Jet-Poop! Damn, I didn't think you'd remember me! I still check your weblog everyday.
And besides KILL BILL borrows its premise from THE BRIDE WORE BLACK ie Truffaut, Hitchcock, William Irish. Easterbrook is an ignorant asshole.
Uma Thurman's father is a professor at Columbia and one of the leaders of the Buddhist Community in the USA.
So, let's get this straight.
An (presumably) Italian American rips off a bunch of Chinese filmakers from the 1970s and puts the daughter of a famous Buddhist in his film and it's the fault of the Jews.
My head hurts.
Can I at least blame the Jews for my circumcism? Or should I just go back to loathing my parents?
Nevermind. My wife says she likes it this way.
Who set the Reichstag Fire
Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed
Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers
To stay home that day
Why did Sharon stay away ?
/
Who,Who, Who/
explosion of Owl the newspaper say
the devil face cd be seen Who WHO Who WHO
"Georgie Whistle-Ass orders the invasion of another country, and thousands of real people die.
Now who's really promoting a culture of violence?"
Oh brother. Some people STILL cannot at least admit that Iraq without the murderous Saddam is a better place than Iraq with the murderous Saddam.
Why do we love to watch pictures of people being murdered?
Like all those statues of that hippie who was nailed to a cross.
.
Collective responsibility is just the flip side of collective blame. Equally poisonous, equally bigoted.
Oh, does the same apply to the oft repeated liberal mantra, "your either part of the solution or your part of the problem"?
Frankly isn't all of the left's slogans rooted in "collective responsibility"?
You mean like the slogan "you're either with us or against us?"
i'm gonna have to disagree to some minor extent, and i voiced this same concern when moran opened up his mouth-- as a jewish person of strong moral conviction, i think that jews are to an extent responsible for the ire they draw. regardless of whether easterbrook or moran are antisemitic or merely voicing antisemitic rhetoric, the reality is that jews have no business making violent movies nor influencing governmental policy. these sorts of things are prohibited in the jewish faith. however, because these people are anything but religious, a) who gives a fuck, and b) why is their cultural heritage relevant? if they were doing business under the auspices of promoting judaism or just being jewish, it would count. but because it's likely these men barely identify with being jewish, why does their jewishness have to do with anything?
those are my 2 cents.
...what* does their...
Some people STILL cannot at least admit that Iraq without the murderous Saddam is a better place than Iraq with the murderous Saddam.
You're going to make me type this again, aren't you?
I'll use small words.
Saddam Hussein is a son of a bitch. We knew that. Everybody knew that.
But here's the part you're missing: We're supposed to be better than the bad guys.
Got it? If not by now, you probably never will.
Alterman's Friday blog explains all this. Peretz has been taking money from the Saudis. The Israelis can't afford him any more.
Next week in TNR: "What's in those matzohs, anyway? Things the Jews don't want you to know"
If Tarantino can only make ultra-violent gore-fests, what was "Jackie Brown"?
A really shitty movie?
Tlachtga sez: "Scooter! Or should I say, Jet-Poop! Damn, I didn't think you'd remember me! I still check your weblog everyday."
/me blows air-kisses. Mwah! Mwah! Mwah!
So how long until the Likudniks realize the NeoCons don't just want a nice, Corporate Israel, they want a nice, Corporate, Christian Israel?
And exactly HOW are the Iraqis better off now than with Saddam? Oh, yeah, the next butcher of Baghdad will keep the oil fields safe for Halliburton. The next butcher won't try to trade Euros for oil credit. And he'll let the Saudis run the anti-semitic show.
It's such a better world. It's all good!
I just figured it out: Easterbrook is trying to pull a Limbaugh--he wants ESPN to fire him.
Next week, he'll announce that he's addicted to something (porn, presumably). I hereby patent the phrase "the Grenis™," after Gregg's second favorite subject, after Gregg and just before football, with Jesus a distant 4th.
p.s. to Mat: Amen on that. But a "gore fest" it was not, and that was Gregger's point, one of many wrong ones, all apparently based on evidence Gregg couldn't be bothered to actually acquire. Tarantino's made, what, 4 movies, at least 2 of which Easterbrook hasn't bothered to see?
Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including Scream, whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. Scream was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
Was he watching the same movie?
Oh brother. Some people STILL cannot at least admit that Iraq without the murderous Saddam is a better place than Iraq with the murderous Saddam.
From what I can tell based on reports from Iraq, the chaos unleashed by dissolving Iraq's government and the clashes between the occupiers and the resistance has at least matched Saddam in negative impact. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq before we invaded? How many after?
Oh brother. Some people STILL cannot at least admit that Iraq without the murderous Saddam is a better place than Iraq with the murderous Saddam.
Let's talk hypothetically for a moment. Shouldn't Bush be assassinated today? Why should we look for another way to prevent chaos and maintain the rule of law when we can just have the change we want now? Sure, there will be a small upheaval after the assassination--nothing we can't control--but don't you think America without Bush is better than America with Bush?
the oft repeated liberal mantra, "your either part of the solution or your part of the problem"?
This is the liberal mantra? I've been trying to figure out how to use this decoder ring for years.
"Georgie Whistle-Ass orders the invasion of another country, and thousands of real people die."
Word. Here's what I sent the doofus:
Mr. Easterbrook,
Speaking as one who hardly has both feet in Tarantino's camp--I can admire much about PULP FICTION's verbal wordplay and technique while being every bit as appalled as you by its nihilism--I found your rant to be one of the dumber things I've read lately. Which means it's certainly one of the dumber things that's been written lately. But as the "killing of innocents" on celluloid obviously disturbs you more than the killing of innocents abroad, I hope this puerile exercise in catharsis was useful to you.
Adding the phrase PK probably would like to quote:"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
LowLife at 3:06,
At multipe highly informal and unscientific surveys of women the vast majority of women do prefer it your way.
Thank the Jews. Loathe your parents for other reasons.
Of course, these same type of non-arguments have been used for years against black hip-hop artists and producers. White liberals have generally agreed with the shrill conservatives on this one (except for Eminem who of course, like white basketball players was "smart", ironic, etc..). I remember when I was in high school and the whole cop killa thing was in the spot light. Real music journalists unearthed many songs rock and country (even folk) which expressed the same sentiments. This however was never mentioned by the morally outraged pundits. It was clear who needed to be kept in line.
Rev. Moon, owner of the Washington Times, preaches Jewish collective responsibility for the Holocaust and the killing of Christ.
John G | Email | 10.13.03 - 2:55 pm | #
If only I read the Washington Times, I could boycott it.
>>Sure, there will be a small upheaval after the assassination--nothing we can't control--but don't you think America without Bush is better than America with Bush?
Diane,
Yeah, that's pretty much the problem: no one actually subscribes to the Washington Times, since it's a wholly subsidized outlet of the Unification Church and the Right.
>>Sure, there will be a small upheaval after the assassination--nothing we can't control--but don't you think America without Bush is better than America with Bush?>From what I can tell based on reports from Iraq, the chaos unleashed by dissolving Iraq's government and the clashes between the occupiers and the resistance has at least matched Saddam in negative impact. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq before we invaded? How many after?
Aargh. Comments keep getting cut off.
To the person who asked about suicide bombings before and after I ask the following:
How many Iraqis were tortured to death by the goverment before the war? How many after?
How many Iraqi school girls were shipped off to be raped by government officials before the war? How many after?
How much mone and effort was put into building roads, infrastructure and education before the war? How much after?
David Cavalier,
Maybe Haloscan is trying to tell you something.
Sincerely,
To the person who suggested that Bush should be killed (after all, we invaded Iraq and turnabout is fair play!!)
We have elections every four years for his office. You can vote him out. I intend to vote against him. The guy drives me nuts.
But comparing his "evil" effect on America to the indisputably evil effect of Hussein on Iraq is just pure nonsense and you know it. We laughed at this kind of thing when it was the right bashing Clinton. We should not succumb to it now.
arguing that people have some collective responsibility in society has nothing to do with someone, based simply on their bloodlines, having a collective responsibility towards their rather amorphously defined relious/ethnic group...and that such individuals are required to achieve a higher level of moral responsibility than do members of other ethnic groups.
Whatever one thinks of the former, they just aren't the same thing. One is an equal opportunity "we're all in this together," and one is singling out individuals in particular groups.
How many Iraqis starved to death because of the embargo after Gulf War I?
How many have starved since?
How many Iraqis have developed cancer because of the uranium they've inhaled since the first Gulf War? How many Americans and Iraqis will because of this one?
How many birth defects have been caused? Will be caused?
How many Iraqis will be tortured/raped/murdered by the future corporate/neocon sycophant the Bush administration finally installs? And how many are being killed/raped by DynCorp and the other oil field mercenaries now?
How many ruined roads/bridges/fields of food will be "rebuilt" by Halliburton for markups 1000 times what they are worth?
Don't give me litanies of injustice, Cavalier, you know not what you speak.
How many Iraqis will be tortured/raped/murdered by the future corporate/neocon sycophant the Bush administration finally installs? And how many are being killed/raped by DynCorp and the other oil field mercenaries now?
This silliness pretty much tells me all I need to know about what you know Kelley B. All I need to know. Good night.
Easterbrook shows how philo-Semitism (Jews generally adhere to a supposedly higher standard of ethics) can turn into anti-Semitsm (damn Jews ruining our culture). Scary.
However, I must say I find Tarantino's films offensive, and from what I've read about this one (the Slate review), "Kill Bill" seems pretty sick no matter to whom he is paying "homage."
In my book, Tarantino is simply Brian DePalma squared. Both may have talent in the most clinical sense, but their love of violence overwhelms their art. IMHO.
Signed,
Just another Jewish guy with an Italian Christian mom who converted
I'm confused. David Cavalier sounds just like a troll, he looks like a troll, he even bails when things don't go his way just like a troll, but he says he's not a troll. Now who should I believe, his Republican troll ass, or my lying eyes and ears?
We have elections every four years for his office. You can vote him out.
Difficult, considering we didn't vote him in.
Back to the boilerroom with you... best to Unka Karl!
Actually, Mr. Cavalier, while I don't know anything about DynCorp mercenaries raping or killing anyone, I think the question about Iraq's future leadership is a fair one. What evidence do you have, given our history and the domestic behavior of this administration, that our ultimate goal is to install a humane, representative government in Iraq, rather than one that (cosmetic facades aside) is simply more amenable to American business interests?
To the person who suggested that Bush should be killed
I'd just point out that threatening the life of the president is a fucking crime. For David Cavalier to suggest that someone did, when it did not happen (it was clearly an analogy) is trolling of the worst sort.
How many Iraqis were tortured to death by the goverment before the war? How many after?
After-the-fact rationalizations don't cut it for me, especially in light of the lengthy US record of purposefully ignoring Saddam's brutality (even against the US - remember the USS Stark?) when it was expedient or inconsequential to US interests. Oh, but if he invades Kuwait, whoa, now he's another Hitler.
What's that? A photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
We've got the same realist and neo-realist foreign policy establishment as we always have, tho it might be a little more evangelist these days. The US doesn't overthrow other countries because of humanitarian touchy-feelyness. Never have, never will. Oh, we might send a few thousand troops to Haiti now and then, but we're gone if anyone shoots at us. No, if we really invade, it's because there is some other vital US interest at stake.
Spare us the "Iraq is better off" riff. It's a vulgar, insincere defense for a ripoff war. Yes, in some ways they are better off. And now they want their country back. And we're not going to give it to them any time soon, even if they beg us to do so.
By Easterbrook's logic, don't Christians have an even greater obligation to teach the lessons of the Holocaust, having, um, you know, perpetrated it? Why do the Jews have to do all the work? Don't fiery simplistic denunciations of money-grubbing Jews have a little more to do with the Holocaust than post-modern violent movies? When self-righteous Christians start anointing themselves the guardians of "true" Judaism from the alleged sellouts who've polluted great Jewish traditions in acquiring power, does genocide ever *not* result?
Surely, the meme that Jews only worship money is much more responsible for the Holocaust than a parody of Hong Kong revenge kung fu movies.
Someone should ask Mr. Eastrbook if, in his calculus, the artistic and business decisions of Michael Eisner et. al. are equivalent, in a moral sense, to the political and military decisions of Ariel Sharon et. al.
Someone should also point out to him that the screams of real, live innocents are also a message that is impossible to miss or misinterpret, and one that, in a number of the lands that comprise the unamusement park known as the Middle East, the young and impressionable receive, often live and in person, at no charge.
"By Easterbrook's logic, don't Christians have an even greater obligation to teach the lessons of the Holocaust, having, um, you know, perpetrated it?"
Well, Hitler himself denied the existence of both the afterlife and gods, though he often invoked the idea of god and divine providence in his speeches.
Certainly though he rejected a break with the Catholic church unlike the "true" socialists in the Nazi party (Otto Strasser's Black Front is an example). This decision served him well during the war and allowed the Austrian representatives in Vatican City to smuggle hundreds of SS officers to Argentina with impunity after the war was over.
Easterbrook's point of course, is nonsense.
Were he to stress that practicing, Orthodox Jews should be more 'true to their religious teachings' then perhaps his right-wing pals would have some ground to stand upon in defending him (of course, judging other people by religious principles you do not share with them is a generally suspect practice, particularly if you are religious yourself).
The problem is:
Is there some section of the Torah in which YHWH/G-d states that reproductions of violence in pictoral or written form are verboten?
I must have missed it.
Unfortunately, Easterbrook also appears to have confused the ethnicity of the movie execs with their religious beliefs. Are all people of Jewish ethnicity practicing Jews?
Absolutely not.
Are Jewish people bound by some eternal covenant to act more ethically than other religious or ethnic groups because of the oppression and genocide they suffered in Europe, Russia and other places for the last fifteen hundred years?
Absolutely not.
Does Easterbrook know anything about movies or possess a modicum of good taste?
Absolutely not.
To my knowledge, nobody except a few fanboys have alleged that Tarantino is the most significant filmmaker of our time. He's known mostly as a guy who made two really popular movies and wrote a couple more (True Romance, Natural Born Killers--ironically, one of the best movies about media violence that could ever be made) that were also popular. He also wrote and directed "Jackie Brown".
If someone fitting that profile had also had a 6-year hiatus from filmmaking and come back, it might warrant a special profile in Time, but Easterbrook is hailing this as evidence that people think QT is a significant filmmaker (you know, like the Farrelly Brothers). Tarantino doesn't even deny that his work is derivative of others'.
Ironically, Easterbrook starts out the article by calling Tarantino a phony. Anybody who's followed his career knows he's pretty much the exact opposite: a motormouth ex-video clerk who rather than subjugate his personality to find success, just decided to write and direct the types of films he likes, not what studio or test markets like. Audiences, for the most part, agree. Easterbrook is angry not at Tarantino or his films, but at their popularity. His view of human nature is sad.
Someone already did it, but I would like to offer this up:
Shorter Greg Easterbrook: Having never (apparently) actually seen any of Tarantino's films, I am going to declare him an awful blight on our culture and I proclaim that the four films he actually made in the past 10 years have destroyed the world more so than any number of films or real-live events that were viewed far more often.
Oh, and for some reason Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein are bad Jews for letting Mr. Tarantino do his work.
I think Tarantino's way overrated, and frankly a junk director. NBK is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, for example, same with Dusk til Dawn. However, Easterbrook deals him a low blow in calling him phony. And the last paragraph is pure lunacy. He gives no convincing reasons why the Jews in Hollywood should have more responsibility in movie content. I think his argument that Hollywood movies are too violent is valid. However, that must be because it's what the market states is popular. I don't like it when people blame movies/tv/music for violent acts committed by others ala Columbine.
A small business point Easterbrook seems not to know. Harvey Weinstein has made clear on numerous occasions that the only reason Miramax exists as a company is because of the success of Pulp Fiction. He therefore gave Tarantino carte blanche to make any film he wanted. This is what the guy made. It was payback. He had complete creative control.
No great fan of Weinstein, Miramax, or ... for that matter... Tarantino. But I defend to the death his right to make and their right to distribute this.
This all quite aside from asenine remarks about Jews in Hollywood.
I think Tarantino's way overrated, and frankly a junk director. NBK is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, for example, same with Dusk til Dawn.
Oddly enough, neither of the two movies you listed were actually directed by Tarantino.
No, but they were written by him. He also acted in Dusk til Dawn.
"Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?"
Heh, heh. The Japanese and Chinese martial arts movies on which "Kill Bill" riffs have always been distributed to parts of the world that Hollywood has ignored. That's the whole reason for Hong Kong cinema's existence- because there was a market, particularly for action movies that don't need much translation, that Hollywood wasn't satisfying.
To say that people in far-flung regions are just now seeing movies that glorify violence is ignorant. To suggest that terrorists think it's ok to kill innocent people because of those movies... well, that's just out of touch with reality.
"Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?"
Heh, heh. The Japanese and Chinese martial arts movies on which "Kill Bill" riffs have always been distributed to parts of the world that Hollywood has ignored. That's the whole reason for Hong Kong cinema's existence- because there was a market, particularly for action movies that don't need much translation, that Hollywood wasn't satisfying.
To say that people in far-flung regions are just now seeing movies that glorify violence is ignorant. To suggest that terrorists think it's ok to kill innocent people because of those movies... well, that's just out of touch with reality.
I, for one, hold a much higher opinion of Jackie Brown than most here. Interestingly, I think much of the reason for its commercial failure was that folks were disappointed that it wasn't a "Tarantino movie" -- i.e., not enough blood & guts & mayhem.
Obviously he's a fairly crappy actor. Indeed, he himself seems aware of that. In "Pulp" he gave himself a role that basically required him to be annoying, and nothing else. He did great.
From what I understand about how films are made, I don't think it's quite fair to judge him by his screenwriting credits--lots of that happens by committee, and the Director is rightly held much more responsible for the end product. The director of NBK was the excreble propagandist Oliver Stone. 'nuff said. Though my ex loved it.
The interesting thing to me is, that the violence and drug use in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (haven't seen Kill Bill) actually has risks and consequences, even if it's something semi-comical like having to clean the car or stab Uma Thurman in the heart with a needle...contrast this with the violence (& much higher body counts) in your average Arnis movie, or Bruce Willis vehicle, or hell, any number of old Westerns. I find it interesting that conservative moralizers tend to object alot more to movies where it is depicted frankly, in all its ugliness and occasional beauty, rather than simply the cartoonish running through bullets and bloodlessly slaughtering hundreds of bad guys that is the stock-in-trade of their favorite alpha-male stars from Arnold to Bruce to Mel.
If "Jackie Brown" didn't have enough violence for you, "Kill Bill" will make up for it. It's fitting that there was a long cartoon sequence in the middle -- there was so much blood and guts (well, lobbed-off limbs) that the violence seemed almost cartoonish.
For those of you who might take the scoffs of NeoCon plants like Cavalier seriously, check out
http://whoresofwar.blogspot.com/
for a little insight on how mercenaries work, and
http://www.insightmag.com/main.c...yid/
163052.html
For a record of their sexual abuse (known as rape and murder to Democrats) of young women while in Serbia.
Of course, now they're working under the mantle of National Security, fighting for the Right Cause, and ethical as the Christian Coalition.
After all, 9-11 changed everything.
"contrast this with the violence (& much higher body counts) in your average Arnis movie, or Bruce Willis vehicle, or hell, any number of old Westerns"
But Bruse Willis is a REPUBLICAN!
You can't criticize Republican actors!
They'll get cross and go on O'Reilly and cry!
"Collective responsibility is just the flip side of collective blame. Both poisonous. Both bigoted."
But, is that not just where affirmative action/quota systems fail ethically?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
