[Hawkeye_a]

whats with all these movies on the haulocaust n nazi Germany lately ?i mean it's like not a month goes by without some new movie based on some super-heroic survivor of the haulocaust.... it's really getting annoying. There are other tragedies that took place, like Stalin during the same period, Pol-pot or whatever (from Cambodia), etc, etc.... history is full of these kinds of stories. But the friggon media is fixated on Jews n Nazis.

(i knoe there was a thread 'Jews in the media', and i apologise if this thread introduces the same idea again)

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

You're dissing "Private Benjamin?!"

[ringo]

C'mon, man...relax. The Nazis are the perfect villans, great for black and white tales of morality. Don't like it, don't watch it.

[daimoni]

.

[rampant]

There's a new movie comming out about young hitler, looks great.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by ringo:
C'mon, man...relax. The Nazis are the perfect villans, great for black and white tales of morality. Don't like it, don't watch it.

yeah i guess so. just too many movies about the same thing though... getting kinda boring over and over again....resources could be spent elsewhere to tell other equally tragic stories.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by rampant:
There's a new movie comming out about young hitler, looks great.

So, this would be a pre-kill?

(pre-kill...prequel...get it? Oh...never mind...it was funnier in my head...)

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I usually go to the Jewish Film Festival in San Francisco every year. Lots of good movies from around the world.

And no, it's not all about the holocaust.

Yeah the Jewish Film Festival kicks ass. My friend's family is jewish and they get vip passes to the shows so I get to go for free a lot

[putamare]

If you can name more American major release Holocaust movies than the total number of Jason & Halloween movies, I'll refrain from farting in your general direction.

[Monique]

Well if it doesn't pleased your antisemitic views do not watch them.

And there is plenty of other movies out there for you and your little very little racist crowd.

At least you could spell Holocaust correctly. I am sure you think it did not happen to 17 million victims plus all those who went through that nightmare and survived.

Of course, it is extremely important to remember it so it would not happen again. If the people who are responsible for the massacres in Rwawanda and Bosnia would have taken the time to educate themselves on the evils of that war; maybe just maybe millions of people would not have died.

Also, do not forget that war cost the lives of 55 million people you of little mind.

[mo]

Yeah, who would want to see a movie about the pivotal event of the 20th century. ... Hey, what movies are you talking about? I might want to rent one.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Monique:
Well if it doesn't pleased your antisemitic views do not watch them.

And there is plenty of other movies out there for you and your little very little racist crowd.

At least you could spell Holocaust correctly. I am sure you think it did not happen to 17 million victims plus all those who went through that nightmare and survived.

Of course, it is extremely important to remember it so it would not happen again. If the people who are responsible for the massacres in Rwawanda and Bosnia would have taken the time to educate themselves on the evils of that war; maybe just maybe millions of people would not have died.

Also, do not forget that war cost the lives of 55 million people you of little mind.

The question being asked is: Why are there not as many movies covering other just as tragic events in the world history. Get over yourself. Why not movies about what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda.

Knee jerk.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The question being asked is: Why are there not as many movies covering other just as tragic events in the world history. Get over yourself. Why not movies about what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda.

Knee jerk.

my point exactly. how dare u call me anti-semite ? i did like Shindler's list, in fact it's one of my favorite movies. but having the story told from the view of every other survivor is kinda over-kill especially when more russian troops were killed by Stalin/Nazis than the number of Jews by Hitler. And there are many many more genocides that could have been made into movies (example Ararat) which until recently id never even heard about.

So watch your mouth before you spew your ethnocentric mind on the rest of us Monique.

[putamare]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
i mean it's like not a month goes by without some new movie based on some super-heroic survivor of the haulocaust....

Then it should be quite easy for you to name the last twelve, no? How about the last six? If it is such an overwhelming problem, you should be able to name at least six.

Looks like I'm going to have to eat a big plate of undercooked beans for that fart you so genuinely deserve.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by putamare:
Then it should be quite easy for you to name the last twelve, no? How about the last six? If it is such an overwhelming problem, you should be able to name at least six.

Looks like I'm going to have to eat a big plate of undercooked beans for that fart you so genuinely deserve.

i havent watched them all ..... i did appreciate Schindler's List, and thats cause it was very realistic, and had some genuine soul to it. Since then i watched that TV Movie with Andy Garcia and david Schwimer then Band of Brothers, U-571, Das-Boot(spell?), Enemy at the Gates, Beautiful Life(Italian, good movie too btw),numerouse movies and TV shows based on Anne Frank's diary, Saving Private Ryan , The Last Days, and apart from that anytime i see a 'concentration camp scene in europe' or the swastica or the star of david, i just flip the channel.

My point being, The Nazi regime is probably the most documented genocide even though it's nowhere the largest. People to this day are being persecuted for the religious beliefs, etc... but their graves will go unmarked, while we see WWII-Germany over and over again.

I wonder if it's some sort of ego-booster for most Americans, seeing how we won the war and all..... just a thought.

Personally, im looking forward to Ararat (and i hope it plays in my area). Something about the Israeli-Palestine conflict would be interesting, but seeing how most of the media companies here are run by Jews, i doubt we will get an unbiased opinion on that...... The Rawanda story would be great. The Crusades would make for a great movie (especially since i dont know much about them), and im sure there's a movie out there about the Romanovs and Lenin's rise to the throne, but i havent found it yet.... THAT WOULD BE AN AWESOME MOVIE. I remember watching 'The Last Emperor' & 'Braveheart' and was just wowed by the history telling involved, even '7 years in Tibet' and 'Stalin' were great..... stuff like that..... more diversity, thats what i want. not this WW2 stuff over and over and over again.

[putamare]

I didn't say you needed to watch any of them, just name them, since they're apparently forced down your throat every month, it should be easy to pick a few. Hmmm, Schindler's List and some TV movie with David Schwimmer, that's quite an impressive list. And by the inclusion of Band of Brothers, I suppose it is your assertion that you should be able to watch a nice WWII movie without having to see any of that messy concentration camp stuff.

I've yet to hear of a single film featuring the exploits of a "super-heroic" survivor.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by putamare:
I didn't say you needed to watch any of them, just name them, since they're apparently forced down your throat every month, it should be easy to pick a few. Hmmm, Schindler's List and some TV movie with David Schwimmer, that's quite an impressive list. And by the inclusion of Band of Brothers, I suppose it is your assertion that you should be able to watch a nice WWII movie without having to see any of that messy concentration camp stuff.

I've yet to hear of a single film featuring the exploits of a "super-heroic" survivor.

grow up you baboon. im not dissing Jews here, just voicing my opinion on the way resources are allocated in the movie making buisness. Now pull that bottle you got lodged up your arse out and loosen up.

[suhail]

Well� I'll have to agree that the media is somehow fixated on one moment in History. It almost seems like a brain-wash.

But every now and then I do watch documentaries about other points in History. Like tomorrow on WETA "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" is showing, now that is different and should be interesting.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
yeah i guess so. just too many movies about the same thing though... getting kinda boring over and over again....resources could be spent elsewhere to tell other equally tragic stories.

Your original post is a bit of a troll, since the reason is rather obvious; there are so many WWII-centric films because big-budgets and wide distribution are made primarily by A) White Guys, B) Americans, C) White guys who know Americans. Last time I checked, WWII is a pretty influential subject to those groups. Try looking into films from India, China, etc, you may have a different point of view.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
i havent watched them all ..... i did appreciate Schindler's List, and thats cause it was very realistic, and had some genuine soul to it. Since then i watched that TV Movie with Andy Garcia and david Schwimer then Band of Brothers, U-571, Das-Boot(spell?), Enemy at the Gates, Beautiful Life(Italian, good movie too btw),numerouse movies and TV shows based on Anne Frank's diary, Saving Private Ryan , The Last Days, and apart from that anytime i see a 'concentration camp scene in europe' or the swastica or the star of david, i just flip the channel.

You're not making any distinction between WWII movies set in the German theatre and Holocaust movies.

Schindler's and Anne Frank are Holocaust movies. Saving Private Ryan is not.

A movie can be set during WWII in the German theatre without being a 'Holocaust movie.' Even if a movie shows the yello stars on the sleeves, it doesn't mean it has to be a 'Holocaust movie' if the story is about soldiers in the field, a particular battle, or liberating a city, not the victims, camps, or survivors.

Sure, if you add up all the WWII movies, you can come up with a large number. If you separate out all the WWII movies from Holocaust movies, you'll find a smaller number of Holocaust movies.

As for why there are no movies on Rwanda, look to three problems.

1) Screenplay writers. The script has to be good, so that it can be subject to problem number 2.

2) Every executive in Hollywood secretly wants to be a writer, and hates the writer because the writer actually has time to do so. So, every script gets submitted to the writer's session, where they re-write until the story is no longer recognizable from the first draft. This is why stories from Hollywood go quickly from good, to bad.

3) Most movies based on real life events take eight to ten years after the event to make it to screen. Black Hawk Down is a good example. Exceptions happen when execs think they can capitalize (make a quick B.O. buck) on a recent event, and if time passes, they figure they'll lose out. In fact, if they need a story quick to capitalize on an event, they'll use problem 2 as a way to take a script about one event, and twist it to be close enough to the event to sell. Need an airplane dogfight that wasn't in the movie? Add one! Need to change settings from Somalia to Rwanda, and add a massacre? See above!

Independant films tend to stay truer to their stories- but lack the large budgets for effects or cast that some stories need to be told.

Or, want your story about Rwanda told? Put up the cash, have a compelling story to tell, and get a Producer's title. That's how Debra Allen got Spielberg to make "Amistad."

Hollywood isn't a good indicator. Hollywood is about producing large amounts of crap, and releasing it simultaeneously so that word-of-mouth can't travel fast enough to kill it. If word of mouth still manages to kill the first two weekend B.O. earnings, they'll change the ending for non-North American releases.

Hollywood used to release good stories, and knew they released good stories. They'd release in one or two cities, and let word of mouth travel, until they released in wider distribution, and movies would stay out for way more than two weekends before hitting peak. Now they have to release quickly, get their money and get out- because much of what is released isn't worth seeing.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Your original post is a bit of a troll, since the reason is rather obvious; there are so many WWII-centric films because big-budgets and wide distribution are made primarily by A) White Guys, B) Americans, C) White guys who know Americans. Last time I checked, WWII is a pretty influential subject to those groups. Try looking into films from India, China, etc, you may have a different point of view.

hmmm .... good point....didnt think about movie industries elsewhere.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You're not making any distinction between WWII movies set in the German theatre and Holocaust movies.

Schindler's and Anne Frank are Holocaust movies. Saving Private Ryan is not.

A movie can be set during WWII in the German theatre without being a 'Holocaust movie.' Even if a movie shows the yello stars on the sleeves, it doesn't mean it has to be a 'Holocaust movie' if the story is about soldiers in the field, a particular battle, or liberating a city, not the victims, camps, or survivors.

Sure, if you add up all the WWII movies, you can come up with a large number. If you separate out all the WWII movies from Holocaust movies, you'll find a smaller number of Holocaust movies.

As for why there are no movies on Rwanda, look to three problems.

1) Screenplay writers. The script has to be good, so that it can be subject to problem number 2.

2) Every executive in Hollywood secretly wants to be a writer, and hates the writer because the writer actually has time to do so. So, every script gets submitted to the writer's session, where they re-write until the story is no longer recognizable from the first draft. This is why stories from Hollywood go quickly from good, to bad.

3) Most movies based on real life events take eight to ten years after the event to make it to screen. Black Hawk Down is a good example. Exceptions happen when execs think they can capitalize (make a quick B.O. buck) on a recent event, and if time passes, they figure they'll lose out. In fact, if they need a story quick to capitalize on an event, they'll use problem 2 as a way to take a script about one event, and twist it to be close enough to the event to sell. Need an airplane dogfight that wasn't in the movie? Add one! Need to change settings from Somalia to Rwanda, and add a massacre? See above!

Independant films tend to stay truer to their stories- but lack the large budgets for effects or cast that some stories need to be told.

Or, want your story about Rwanda told? Put up the cash, have a compelling story to tell, and get a Producer's title. That's how Debra Allen got Spielberg to make "Amistad."

Hollywood isn't a good indicator. Hollywood is about producing large amounts of crap, and releasing it simultaeneously so that word-of-mouth can't travel fast enough to kill it. If word of mouth still manages to kill the first two weekend B.O. earnings, they'll change the ending for non-North American releases.

Hollywood used to release good stories, and knew they released good stories. They'd release in one or two cities, and let word of mouth travel, until they released in wider distribution, and movies would stay out for way more than two weekends before hitting peak. Now they have to release quickly, get their money and get out- because much of what is released isn't worth seeing.

good point..... i guess this thread seems kinda rediculious now.

Oh and i did mean WW2 movies in general, which usually have something or the other to do with the Holocaust..

I didnt pay enough attention to foreign movie industries and the time frame. but yeah, i do agree with you guys now.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

I think Roman Polanski is adding another film to increase the Holocaust Industry's profits next year.

And it's not just movies. There's new documentary or programme on the radio almost every week about the holocaust. Strangely, five minutes into these programmes, they always seem to start playing violins.

20 million people died as a result of Stalins regime. 6 million Jews died under Hitler. Half a million Gypsies were killed by the Nazis.

Why is it that only the Jewish story gets told? How many films have you heard of about Soviet peasants or Gypsies? Is there a reason for this bias?

[derien]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
I think Roman Polanski is adding another film to increase the Holocaust Industry's profits next year.

And it's not just movies. There's new documentary or programme on the radio almost every week about the holocaust. Strangely, five minutes into these programmes, they always seem to start playing violins.

20 million people died as a result of Stalins regime. 6 million Jews died under Hitler. Half a million Gypsies were killed by the Nazis.

Why is it that only the Jewish story gets told? How many films have you heard of about Soviet peasants or Gypsies? Is there a reason for this bias?

Perhaps you should drop your rhetorical questions and learn a little.

It doesn't really matter what you think of the value of these works. You seem to feel that these films are an annoyance that prevents you from fully enjoying life. Why don't you just turn off the tube or the radio and take a walk--you can think about anything you want. If you're intellectually honest, you might want to try to work through your ridiculous antisemetism.

The Holocaust is a horror the world cannot forget. It can be told and retold, but never will the final word be said. There may be other events in history that rise to a similar level of evil, but just because they don't get equivalent airtime is no reason to reduce reinterpretation of the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with bias.

You might also want to consider how the Holocaust is qualitatively different from most other atrocities over the course of human history. Numerically, certainly, Stalin's purges rank among the worst. But the Nazis tortured and murdered with sadistic glee that is absolutely beyond comprehension. Stalin's terror was cold political calculus (mixed with a bit of insanity, perhaps), but Hitler's program was altogether different. The fact that it can't be explained makes it a darkly rich source of literature and philosophy.

Moreover, the sociological element must be considered. We perhaps oversimplify, but Stalin's machinations were carried out by a police state apparatus supported by the fear it created. Hitler's rise and rule were different; certainly there were resistors--and probably many were kept in check by fear--but there were enough who demonstrated genuine support that we can wonder how it came to pass. It was a modern, industrialized nation, supposedly cultured, where the horror was planned. People proudly saluted an insignia that was created by FLIPPING an ancient symbol of good luck. Can that possibly have a benign interpretation? The point is, the Holocaust went beyond the evil of one man, and was pushed by something stronger than fear or hatred. There was a joy in causing the suffering. That makes it different and noteworthy, not to mention incredibly frightening.

Of course, since you're so busy lamenting problems that don't exist and hating people you don't know, maybe all this will be lost on you. Who knows, maybe you'll be in the front row of the next evil demagogue's rally, cheering wildly. If there's hyperbole here, so be it. Maybe you'll get the point.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
I think Roman Polanski is adding another film to increase the Holocaust Industry's profits next year.

And it's not just movies. There's new documentary or programme on the radio almost every week about the holocaust. Strangely, five minutes into these programmes, they always seem to start playing violins.

20 million people died as a result of Stalins regime. 6 million Jews died under Hitler. Half a million Gypsies were killed by the Nazis.

Why is it that only the Jewish story gets told? How many films have you heard of about Soviet peasants or Gypsies? Is there a reason for this bias?

my point exactly... now im not sure what to think . but i just rented the movie 'Stalin' and look forward to watching it (for the second time). Also, it's annoying how , the Americans are always the heros, the Jews are always the victims(which they were), and the bloody Nazis are always the bad guys. I dont think so many people just suddenly become polarized to commit genocide for no reason. Not that im tying to justify anythingm but id like to know more about 'why' rather than 'they are evil'. Also i remember watching a movie to do with the NAzi bombing of englad, and was a refreshing change to the American macho-ism we are exposed to all the time. But i'd like to know more about the gypsies, definately more about eastern europe.

To educate myself a bit more, i even baught 'The Third Reich' which is a huge book...ive put that on hold while reading LOTR, but plan to read it ASAP. For now, im lokking forward to Ararat, but doubt it will have any profound effect on me, as even today i have friends from Armenia and Turkey(as always, i seem to have friends on both sides of ever conflict, which makes it so hard to choose sides, i guess im lucky ), but just to know what happened makes me feel better.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Also, it's annoying how , the Americans are always the heros, the Jews are always the victims(which they were), and the bloody Nazis are always the bad guys.

okay...
Is it annoying because the Americans in WW2 are the heroes, or because you don't like it that way?
Other Heroes: Brits, Aussies, and Soviets at Leningrad and Stalingrad.
Whipping boys: French, Eastern Europe.
Bad guys: Nazis, Fascists, and Empire of Japan.

There is no way out for the Nazis--the Nazis were always the bad guys.

[Face Ache]

Slightly on-topic: Being a blond bloke I get well and truly fed up with blond blokes being portrayed as baddies in movies. Are there any dark-haired baddies out there? When the Osama bin Laden movie finally gets made he'll probably have short, spikey blond hair.

[msuper69]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Slightly on-topic: Being a blond bloke I get well and truly fed up with blond blokes being portrayed as baddies in movies. Are there any dark-haired baddies out there? When the Osama bin Laden movie finally gets made he'll probably have short, spikey blond hair.

Well, Hitler would certainly qualify as a dark-haired baddie.

Here's an anonymous blond who would be considered by most of the world to be a hero:

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The question being asked is: Why are there not as many movies covering other just as tragic events in the world history. Get over yourself. Why not movies about what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda.

Knee jerk.

Because those weren't crimes





Truth: People feel sorry for the Jews because the crimes were done by western Europians (Germans). Which are a large group of people who are very spread out...

Rwanda and Bosnia, while many argue contained some of the cruelist forms of torture didn't have that connection...

so the world ignores...

If Israel, Western Europe, or parts of Asia had an AIDS epidemic like Africa... would we stand by?

How about famine?

[Atef's corpse]

Thanks


again

for the


spacing

Robert.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

Originally posted by derien:
Perhaps you should drop your rhetorical questions and learn a little.

It doesn't really matter what you think of the value of these works. You seem to feel that these films are an annoyance that prevents you from fully enjoying life. Why don't you just turn off the tube or the radio and take a walk--you can think about anything you want. If you're intellectually honest, you might want to try to work through your ridiculous antisemetism.

The Holocaust is a horror the world cannot forget. It can be told and retold, but never will the final word be said. There may be other events in history that rise to a similar level of evil, but just because they don't get equivalent airtime is no reason to reduce reinterpretation of the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with bias.

You might also want to consider how the Holocaust is qualitatively different from most other atrocities over the course of human history. Numerically, certainly, Stalin's purges rank among the worst. But the Nazis tortured and murdered with sadistic glee that is absolutely beyond comprehension. Stalin's terror was cold political calculus (mixed with a bit of insanity, perhaps), but Hitler's program was altogether different. The fact that it can't be explained makes it a darkly rich source of literature and philosophy.

Moreover, the sociological element must be considered. We perhaps oversimplify, but Stalin's machinations were carried out by a police state apparatus supported by the fear it created. Hitler's rise and rule were different; certainly there were resistors--and probably many were kept in check by fear--but there were enough who demonstrated genuine support that we can wonder how it came to pass. It was a modern, industrialized nation, supposedly cultured, where the horror was planned. People proudly saluted an insignia that was created by FLIPPING an ancient symbol of good luck. Can that possibly have a benign interpretation? The point is, the Holocaust went beyond the evil of one man, and was pushed by something stronger than fear or hatred. There was a joy in causing the suffering. That makes it different and noteworthy, not to mention incredibly frightening.

Of course, since you're so busy lamenting problems that don't exist and hating people you don't know, maybe all this will be lost on you. Who knows, maybe you'll be in the front row of the next evil demagogue's rally, cheering wildly. If there's hyperbole here, so be it. Maybe you'll get the point.

So, the Jewish Holocaust was 'qualitatively different' from other murderous campaigns? Can you give me a mathematical formula for how much a Jewish life is worth compared to a Russian peasant or Gypsy? According to the number of Hollywood film releases and various documentaries 1 Jew is worth a few hundred Gypsies or Russians. I think one life of one group is worth one life of another. Clearly, you have different opinions. And it's ironic that you accuse me of a form a racism when you feel one group of people has so much more value than others.

[Face Ache]

The difference between the holocaust and other mass murders is that the holocaust has a good storyline. It didn't drag on for 40 years. It has a start, a middle and a climactic end.

Duh!

[derien]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
So, the Jewish Holocaust was 'qualitatively different' from other murderous campaigns? Can you give me a mathematical formula for how much a Jewish life is worth compared to a Russian peasant or Gypsy? According to the number of Hollywood film releases and various documentaries 1 Jew is worth a few hundred Gypsies or Russians. I think one life of one group is worth one life of another. Clearly, you have different opinions. And it's ironic that you accuse me of a form a racism when you feel one group of people has so much more value than others.

Obviously you are just a belligerent, semi-literate putz. The only irony here is your cynical attempt to twist my words into something more closely resembling your own thinly veiled bigotries. I never tried to put a valuation on anyone's life, nor would I presume to do so. Unlike you, I have no agenda. Or rather, if I do, it's simply to counter nasty campaigns like yours.

There are many who are willing and able to try to make sense of the Holocaust. What they do is perfectly worthy, and I find it difficult to understand why you would want to suppress their work. It's a tragedy that other atrocities have escaped popular notice, and failed to precipitate the outrage they deserve, but I feel confident in believing it's not a Jewish conspiracy. You may well wish to argue otherwise, but in that case, your condition is beyond the range of my expertise.

As for crimes against humanity, I'm ambivalent about their use as entertainment to begin with. For their therapeutic and philosophical value, perhaps they are justified. But consider this: if you were to attempt to wring entertainment value out of historical horrors, might you not seek the events whose very context bore so plainly a literary quality? There are morbidly tantalizing stories in any terror, but let me reiterate, the Nazis struck out with a pure evil that went beyond any conceivable political aim, and in that was and remains noteworthy. Remember that if you are creating a work for the purpose of entertainment, you almost certainly have in mind the audience. People can watch a film about the Holocaust, and look at the Germans and say, "They are not so unlike us, these modern, cultured people."

Because, if you had read more carefully, you might have understood that my analysis focused not in fact primarily on the victims, but on the perpetrators. That is the context in which I raised the issue of "qualitative difference" to which you object. I'd like to believe you were intelligent enough to decipher this subtlety. The Holocaust points out so vividly that we are not so far from the creatures that inflicted so much pain. More cosmopolitan readers of history might be able to conclude the same thing from the lessons of the Armenians, the Chinese, the Kampucheans, the Rwandans, etc.--there is no shortage of examples in the past century or most most before it--but the Holocaust is so near and accessible, either by time or by culture. It's harder for you, I presume, to imagine yourself wielding a bloody machete on a dusty road in Kigali than it is to imagine yourself attending a rally in Nuremburg, or ignoring the dark acrid smoke issuing from Buchenwald.

I certainly am not trying to justify a lack of perspective. Do I think that there is much more worthy of being told? Certainly I do. But I hardly think the reasons behind the dearth of "other" stories (if it may indeed be called a dearth) is attributable to the nefarious forces you seem to believe are responsible. Nor do I believe that there should be a hiatus on legitimate stories simply so that some kind of quota can be filled. That is the ultimate lack of perspective--a completely unsupportable, unreasonable and paranoid outlook.

[Sven G]

... I think that we all should just "forgive" the past generations' errors and move on - towards more universal ideals and practical goals...

Anyway, who cares about perverted/diverted religions and/or ideologies? The "peoples" - and, above all, the *individuals*! - of this planet should learn to coexist peacefully - which also means to unleash a positive, assertive "conflictuality", instead of repressing it (and, by repressing the energies of life, causing fascisms and wars of various kinds) - in everyday life: of course, with some shared, basic, ethical human values as the foundation...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
The difference between the holocaust and other mass murders is that the holocaust has a good storyline. It didn't drag on for 40 years. It has a start, a middle and a climactic end.

Duh!

Never thought about that... but good point.

Also well recorded. Video, accounts, historians. Lots of coverage.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

derien,
Well, it seems that our positions are clear and unyielding. You accuse anyone who doesn't put the Jewish Holocaust on a pedestal above all other tragedies of being an anti-semite. I have said I regard human life as equal, and you have said you don't value anyones life. I'm not sure what a putz is, though I doubt that it's a compliment.

Now, imagine for a moment that instead of Ashkenazi Jews , Hollywood and the media were instead dominated by Wahabbi Arabs. Would that effect the output of Hollywood and the media? Or would that be an unreasonable paranoid conspiracy? When movies were released with Israelis portrayed as comic book evil villains in the same way that WW2 germans are, would you rush to the defense of the Arab studio bosses? When endless movies and documentaries are released about the historical suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Jews (with the inevitable sad violins playing in the background), would you feel that their was some sort of bias?

Domination is dangerous coming from any group. It clearly leads to bias. Surely you agree...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
derien,
Well, it seems that our positions are clear and unyielding. You accuse anyone who doesn't put the Jewish Holocaust on a pedestal above all other tragedies of being an anti-semite. I have said I regard human life as equal, and you have said you don't value anyones life. I'm not sure what a putz is, though I doubt that it's a compliment.

Now, imagine for a moment that instead of Ashkenazi Jews , Hollywood and the media were instead dominated by Wahabbi Arabs. Would that effect the output of Hollywood and the media? Or would that be an unreasonable paranoid conspiracy? When movies were released with Israelis portrayed as comic book evil villains in the same way that WW2 germans are, would you rush to the defense of the Arab studio bosses? When endless movies and documentaries are released about the historical suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Jews (with the inevitable sad violins playing in the background), would you feel that their was some sort of bias?

Domination is dangerous coming from any group. It clearly leads to bias. Surely you agree...

You make very good points here...

But you are among the few, who like I think that a human is a human, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of this world has a whole ladder system setup rating humans based on race, religion, sexual orientation, opinions on certain topics. But these people aren't bigots.. "It's just the way things are"

[Atef's corpse]

get real, you antisemite losers. The Holocaust happened in all its gruesome and criminal details. As for Hollywood: only idiots believe everything they see in the movies. Just like that 'Beautiful Mind' flick recently. Full of historical holes, but that didn't stop it from becoming a blockbuster.

ODL--you're making excuses. You're just an antisemite humping the same rotten leg that has been humped for centuries, no different in your stereotypes and ill-begotten thoughts than many of the Arabs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
get real, you antisemite losers. The Holocaust happened in all its gruesome and criminal details. As for Hollywood: only idiots believe everything they see in the movies. Just like that 'Beautiful Mind' flick recently. Full of historical holes, but that didn't stop it from becoming a blockbuster.

ODL--you're making excuses. You're just an antisemite humping the same rotten leg that has been humped for centuries, no different in your stereotypes and ill-begotten thoughts than many of the Arabs.

True, Beautiful mind is full of holes, then again... there has NEVER been a motion picture that wasn't.


Summary of post: If your Jewish, it's phyiscally impossible for you to be a bigot

[derien]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
derien,
Well, it seems that our positions are clear and unyielding. You accuse anyone who doesn't put the Jewish Holocaust on a pedestal above all other tragedies of being an anti-semite. I have said I regard human life as equal, and you have said you don't value anyones life. I'm not sure what a putz is, though I doubt that it's a compliment.

Now, imagine for a moment that instead of Ashkenazi Jews , Hollywood and the media were instead dominated by Wahabbi Arabs. Would that effect the output of Hollywood and the media? Or would that be an unreasonable paranoid conspiracy? When movies were released with Israelis portrayed as comic book evil villains in the same way that WW2 germans are, would you rush to the defense of the Arab studio bosses? When endless movies and documentaries are released about the historical suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Jews (with the inevitable sad violins playing in the background), would you feel that their was some sort of bias?

Domination is dangerous coming from any group. It clearly leads to bias. Surely you agree...

You are quite amusing. Do you really live in a world in which a conniving band of Jews, possibly whispering in Yiddish, is quietly manipulating your thoughts and mind, impressing you into slavery in service of the dark Zionist cause? If you do, you do not live in the same world as I. I look out my window and see hills and trees and blue skies--these things aren't controlled by Jews. I'd hate to be imprisonned in your mind, beset with the demons of your imagination, unable to see how broad a place the world actually is ....

Let me clarify something: refusing to place a valuation on something has quite a different meaning from not valuing it. When you thrash about, trying to exchange one for the other, you demonstrate the true extent of your desperation and lack of more sophisticated rhetorical ability. If English is not your first language, let me apologize for the harshness of my retort. I refuse to place a valuation on life because I feel it is too great to submit to some sort of calculus. Whenever you put a number to it, you are saying there is a limit to its value, and presumably, that you could find something of greater value. Who are you to do such a thing?

Do you truly think I am a proponent of Palestinian oppression? I am not. If fact, I believe Israel suffers under the leadership of a war criminal (not that the Palestinians have much better). But to equate the Israelis with the Nazis is a spurious comparison. I don't think it takes much psychological imagination to figure out why many Israelis feel beseiged. The same goes for the Palestinians, which is why the situation is so difficult. There are innocents on both sides, and they face real mortal threats. The Nazis faced no danger from the Jews, Gypsies, etc., and the Communists were little more than a political threat.

But all this is a digression. You might do well to work out the inconsistencies in your rants. You say that you value all lives equally, but you lump Jews together into some impersonal monstrosity trying to take over the world. It's ever the same laughable conspiracy theory. Perhaps you learned it from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I shall leave it at this, because probably you have not even read this far anyway. If you have, then congratulations--before you post another "Jews are evil" tirade, why don't you go back an read my previous post and try to understand what it really says. It's fairly straightforward. It's not about anyone's life being worth more than anyone else's. If you can't muster the intellectual honesty to deal with that, you're probably a lost cause.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by derien:
You are quite amusing. Do you really live in a world in which a conniving band of Jews, possibly whispering in Yiddish, is quietly manipulating your thoughts and mind, impressing you into slavery in service of the dark Zionist cause? If you do, you do not live in the same world as I. I look out my window and see hills and trees and blue skies--these things aren't controlled by Jews. I'd hate to be imprisonned in your mind, beset with the demons of your imagination, unable to see how broad a place the world actually is ....

Let me clarify something: refusing to place a valuation on something has quite a different meaning from not valuing it. When you thrash about, trying to exchange one for the other, you demonstrate the true extent of your desperation and lack of more sophisticated rhetorical ability. If English is not your first language, let me apologize for the harshness of my retort. I refuse to place a valuation on life because I feel it is too great to submit to some sort of calculus. Whenever you put a number to it, you are saying there is a limit to its value, and presumably, that you could find something of greater value. Who are you to do such a thing?

Do you truly think I am a proponent of Palestinian oppression? I am not. If fact, I believe Israel suffers under the leadership of a war criminal (not that the Palestinians have much better). But to equate the Israelis with the Nazis is a spurious comparison. I don't think it takes much psychological imagination to figure out why many Israelis feel beseiged. The same goes for the Palestinians, which is why the situation is so difficult. There are innocents on both sides, and they face real mortal threats. The Nazis faced no danger from the Jews, Gypsies, etc., and the Communists were little more than a political threat.

But all this is a digression. You might do well to work out the inconsistencies in your rants. You say that you value all lives equally, but you lump Jews together into some impersonal monstrosity trying to take over the world. It's ever the same laughable conspiracy theory. Perhaps you learned it from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I shall leave it at this, because probably you have not even read this far anyway. If you have, then congratulations--before you post another "Jews are evil" tirade, why don't you go back an read my previous post and try to understand what it really says. It's fairly straightforward. It's not about anyone's life being worth more than anyone else's. If you can't muster the intellectual honesty to deal with that, you're probably a lost cause.

While your original comment was a bit "" and "" your clarification does just that... Clear up. Now it makes more sense.

Do you truly think I am a proponent of Palestinian oppression? I am not. If fact, I believe Israel suffers under the leadership of a war criminal (not that the Palestinians have much better).

This leads back to the question I have asked with no true response for the past year... Why?

If the Israeli people really think these leaders are corrupt and refuse to talk peace, which has been stated in the news over and over... Why hasn't anything changed?

To me, the Israeli Government is nothing more than a puppet government. A complete facade. Puppets controlled by a few rich politicians, most likely who don't live in Israel. If they did, they wouldn't be so arrogant.

We know that Arafat is a douche, and a dictator... it's obvious that he needs to go... It's obvious that the people have no control over this. (This should be much more of a priority of the UN IMHO.. geting this fool out)

But why do the Israeli people continue to brag over the free government they claim have when it constantly acts as some puppet government?

Seems to me, once again, the inocent civilians get screwed. Problem here is, they still deny it.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

So, for saying that it is perhaps not a good idea for one group of people to dominate an industry, I have been accused of:

* being a deranged anti-semite who believes in 'a world in which a conniving band of Jews, possibly whispering in Yiddish, is quietly manipulating my thoughts and mind, impressing me into slavery in service of the dark Zionist cause'
* posting 'Jews are evil' tirades
* being a proponent of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'
* being a holocaust denier
* being semi-literate

What on earth would happen if something REALLY anti-semitic occurred? Crying wolf doesn't work in the long run.

I shall leave it at this

Given that you've run out of hysterical and cowardly name-calling tactics, I'm sure you will.

[derien]

Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
So, for saying that it is perhaps not a good idea for one group of people to dominate an industry, I have been accused of:

* being a deranged anti-semite who believes in 'a world in which a conniving band of Jews, possibly whispering in Yiddish, is quietly manipulating my thoughts and mind, impressing me into slavery in service of the dark Zionist cause'
* posting 'Jews are evil' tirades
* being a proponent of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'
* being a holocaust denier
* being semi-literate

What on earth would happen if something REALLY anti-semitic occurred? Crying wolf doesn't work in the long run.

In my first post, I noted quite plainly that I was perfectly willing to employ hyperbole. Moreover, you find objectionable the style I have adopted. It is one that I generally try to avoid. It is called pure condescension. Most of the time, when I come across an argument on these boards that is plainly ludicrous, I smile or laugh and move along. This time, however, my fingers were itching for adventure, so I let them dance about the keyboard, coming up with the responses you see here. I don't think you are necessarily a deranged antisemite, though your words border on paranoid. You do seem preoccupied with a Jewish conspiracy. As for being a Holocaust denier, that thought never occured to me. Have you said something that would lead a person to believe you were?

Ah, and the comment about semi-literacy. Well, I was unsportingly refusing to give you benefit of the doubt--you seemed unable or unwilling to read into my posts, and insisted on bending the meaning of words. The other reasonable explanation, it seems to me, is that you are simply a contrary little twerp. I liked the way the other possibility sounded, so that's what I went with.

I also called you belligerent, if you'll recall. I purposely added that word to give you the opportunity to find some real irony, as my own reason for replying in the first place was really simply for the sake of argument. You wondered about the word "putz." As I understand it, it's relatively benign, so true, it's not complimentary, but I wouldn't worry about it too much.

If you will, let me now (temporarily), be a little bit more serious. I am not a particular admirer of ideology, whatever the form--cultural, political, religious, etc. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a person to say, "I believe that high taxes harm the economy," or "I believe in personal responsibility," and thereby conclude that the term conservative fits his beliefs. In that case, "conservative" is purely descriptive. The danger arises when that person says "I am a conservative, therefore I believe..." and makes some statement that is purely ideological, not from the heart. At that point, the individual ceases to think for himself and lets himself be guided by the will of others. Does this seem a reasonable thing to say?

It is pertinent. There may be many Jews in certain industries, but is there really a problem? I personally don't think there is a danger from Jewish ideology in Hollywood. Are they acting as Jews, or do they simply happen to be Jews? From my perspective, I'd say it's mostly the latter, though it would might be unwise to make a blanket statement and say that a common cultural identity never comes to bear on anything. In any case, I thinking any Jewish ideology has negligible effects on the course of the larger society. Sure, we don't want to see another Holocaust. But is that a bad thing?

Which is not to say that there is not a problem anywhere. I abhor the attempt of Likud Party to make the struggle between the Israelis and Palestinians a religious matter, Jew versus goyim. When they succeed, they are able to say that attacks (including attacks of words) on Israel are antisemetic (or rather, anti-Jewish, as Arabs are semetic themselves). But this is something entirely different, I think, given that the original question was one of Hollywood movies, and more importantly, perhaps, Jews are likely not the only threat in this regard.

Given that you've run out of hysterical and cowardly name-calling tactics, I'm sure you will.

Have you ever noticed how the word "cowardly" is bandied about with such reckless abandon? I am by no means a fan of Dick Cheney, but at least he had the courage after 9/11/2001 to state that it was ridiculous to call the act "cowardly," as we so often hear after a terror attack. Unfortunately, it seems that any lucidity on the matter was quickly forgotten. In any case, I could call you names until the cows came home, you beslubbering boil-brained scut! But if you've had enough, fine. It is rather a crude technique.

By the way, do you find violins objectionable, or just their overuse? I actually have one, and used to play it, but was never all that good (and rather regretted not trying the cello instead). Maybe I was subconsciously resisting an attempt by the Jews to recruit me to play on the soundtrack of a Holocaust documentary. What do you think?

[macvillage.net]

I think it becomes a problem when a group teams up to dominate an industry...

A large amount of Jews in the film industry is fine... When they start teaming up to keep other groups out, that's when the problem starts.

Same with other categories... For example white men and golf, among others.

[derien]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
While your original comment was a bit "" and "" your clarification does just that... Clear up. Now it makes more sense.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse, but it's a complicated matter. I trust you are not being sarcastic?

This leads back to the question I have asked with no true response for the past year... Why?

If the Israeli people really think these leaders are corrupt and refuse to talk peace, which has been stated in the news over and over... Why hasn't anything changed?

To me, the Israeli Government is nothing more than a puppet government. A complete facade. Puppets controlled by a few rich politicians, most likely who don't live in Israel. If they did, they wouldn't be so arrogant.

We know that Arafat is a douche, and a dictator... it's obvious that he needs to go... It's obvious that the people have no control over this. (This should be much more of a priority of the UN IMHO.. geting this fool out)

But why do the Israeli people continue to brag over the free government they claim have when it constantly acts as some puppet government?

Seems to me, once again, the inocent civilians get screwed. Problem here is, they still deny it.

I don't really have a good explanation for this, nor does anyone else, apparently. What I would guess is that it goes something like this: Once upon a time, an Israeli killed a Palestinian. Or a Palestinian killed an Israeli. And then a Palestinian killed an Israeli or an Israeli killed a Palestinian. In any case, you've got some bad blood there, and then all hell breaks loose.

Well, as you say, the "innocent civilians get screwed." Let's say the Palestinians are stuck with the leadership they have, but the Israelis are free to change theirs. So they elect a dove. But the killing doesn't stop (there are those who feel justifiably wronged or say Israel doesn't deserve to exist at all and won't stop at anything), and more civilians are murdered. The dove tries to make peace by making concessions, but to whom? The murderers! Outrageous! So here comes a hawk who knows how to punish the evildoers. I think it's understandable how someone could come to say, "I'm not going to roll over and die so you can have your way." The solution? How about everyone come to their senses and see through the rhetoric. Eek! Easier said than done, maybe?

Of course, the U.S. doesn't really help. There is, of course, a media bias in favor of Israel, though I would hardly call it a Jewish conspiracy. I heard a lecture on a radio program not long ago where the speaker lamented the situation. He mentioned how an NPR reporter described a certain period as "calm." That meant no Israelis had been killed during the time. Of course, there were a couple dozen Palestinian casualties that went unreported.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by derien:
I wasn't trying to be obtuse, but it's a complicated matter. I trust you are not being sarcastic?

Not at all sarcastic

I don't really have a good explanation for this, nor does anyone else, apparently. What I would guess is that it goes something like this: Once upon a time, an Israeli killed a Palestinian. Or a Palestinian killed an Israeli. And then a Palestinian killed an Israeli or an Israeli killed a Palestinian. In any case, you've got some bad blood there, and then all hell breaks loose.

That was always my guess... but certain individuals here have claimed on several occasions it was started by some mass killing... though I have yet to find out when/where/who... did some research...

Seems to be... the song that doesn't end... yes it goes on and on...<you get the idea>

Well, as you say, the "innocent civilians get screwed." Let's say the Palestinians are stuck with the leadership they have, but the Israelis are free to change theirs. So they elect a dove. But the killing doesn't stop (there are those who feel justifiably wronged or say Israel doesn't deserve to exist at all and won't stop at anything), and more civilians are murdered. The dove tries to make peace by making concessions, but to whom? The murderers! Outrageous! So here comes a hawk who knows how to punish the evildoers. I think it's understandable how someone could come to say, "I'm not going to roll over and die so you can have your way." The solution? How about everyone come to their senses and see through the rhetoric. Eek! Easier said than done, maybe?

Must agree....

Could have stopped years ago. From what I have read, and various TV discussions seem to also agree on, is that nobody was willing to agree to a truce at the same time...
The palestinians wanted to stop it at several points where they appeared to weak to continue... but Israel didn't want peace, they wanted victory.

Then Israel decided enough is enough, but the palestinians wanted to milk it more....

Seems like the planets need to line up or something.

Of course, the U.S. doesn't really help. There is, of course, a media bias in favor of Israel, though I would hardly call it a Jewish conspiracy. I heard a lecture on a radio program not long ago where the speaker lamented the situation. He mentioned how an NPR reporter described a certain period as "calm." That meant no Israelis had been killed during the time. Of course, there were a couple dozen Palestinian casualties that went unreported.

US definatly is biased towards Israel in regards to foreign relations. If we weren't... this would have been over a long time ago. One must remember Israel is a just a strip of land in a desert. They rely on the outside world. No oil, nothing really. They live by coexisting with the rest of the world. If we were to preasure them say with an embargo or tariff in the past, until they agreed to work something out, there would have been preasure to end this mess...

Now there is no preasure... so it continues. Those in power listen to their walets. Until we stop funding, there is no reason to stop. Sad part is we pay for this foolish war. We pay Israel, and we take crap from the Palestinians. We get short changed on both sides.

I agree on the media biased, and even heard (and mentioned) that "calm" example a while back... most in this forum labled the thread anti-semetic as a result. Fact is do the research, and Israeli death always makes the front page. A palestinian death is in the classified section.

That also doesn't help the problem.

And look who still suffers.. US Taxpayers, US Citizens stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time (9/11) Israeli's, and Palestinians...

Years later, nobody is any further than they were before.

Briliant!

[voodoo]

Robert, you and I see eye to eye on this one.

[vmarks]

This thread -was- about Jewish movies. It wasn't about a war in the middle east, it was about the way movies get made in California, a world away.

And as I noted above, movies get made based on what has funding. Want a movie on rwanda, put up the cash and get a producer's title. Story doesn't matter in Hollywood, what can be sold quickly and merchandised does. What can make a big box office hit in two weekends is what gets made. Hollywood hasn't cared about good stories for about 25 years. Hollywood is happy to recycle stories. Hollywood is happy to take any good to great story it gets its hands on and turn it to pablum in story writing committees.

Don't expect anything from Hollywood.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

There may be many Jews in certain industries, but is there really a problem?

Yes, there is a problem if any group dominates an industry, especially ones so powerful as Hollywood and the media, as my Wahabbi Arab example shows. And your continuing refusal to address this is the reason I called you a coward.

If this thread was a Hollywood film, it's a shame Bert Lahr isn't alive to play you.

[itai195]

This is interesting to me, because I don't ever recall Israel fighting a war specificially against the Palestinian people... Correct me if I'm wrong please. They HAVE fought a war against the PLO, which at the time was undeniably a terrorist organization.

I also find the use of the NPR example to prove a pro-Israel bias somewhat curious, considering that many find NPR to be rather anti-Israel in general. For example, they recently had a large special series about the middle east conflict in which they discussed Israel's occupation of Palestinian areas last April. They neglected to mention that the motivation for this action was the passover suicide bombing. An interesting twist to this issue is that you can say the opposite when talking about Europe. I've frequently heard that CNN Europe, for example, devotes a lot more coverage to Palestinian deaths than to Israeli deaths.

One other thing I'd like to throw out there is that, yes, the US gives plenty of money to Israel. The US also gives plenty of money to the Palestinians and to Egypt, as well as a handful of other Arab nations. As much as people on this forum would like to malign the US role in the crisis, the fact remains that the US is the only peace broker that both the Palestinians and Israelis accept.

It's also humorous to me that you think an embargo will end anything. There was an Arab-imposed trade embargo on Israel for years, and it crumbled in the early 90s. Israel today is a markedly different nation than it was in 1990, and if you want my honest opinion I think that bringing in Western trade has caused the liberal movement in Israel to grow by leaps and bounds. Of course, somehow the so obviously pro-Israel US media has somehow laregly failed to mention any of this. That people in the US have the impression that our aid to Israel has given them carte blanche to do whatever they want leads me only to conclude that there really isn't a pro-Israel media bias, at least not as much of one as some would claim.