when will national review get a new movie critic?
Man...An Ancient Race
Moe Hailstone
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
--
--->"If you can't say 'fuck' you can't say 'fuck the government'."---Lenny
Bruce
--->"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."---Goethe
--->"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R.
Murrow
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
MadNetter
"Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
> This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
>
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
"conservative".
Kevin "Of Course, National Review Readers Get The Critics They Deserve"
Cogliano
Cadillac_Jones
<madn...@madnetter.com> wrote:
>
>"Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
>> This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
>>
>>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
>Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
>film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
>Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
>
>Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
>"conservative".
>
How did Dumbo get on that list?
Cadillac "Oh. We elected him.Never mind" Jones
"I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
Mike V.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
Amazing, isn't it? Just as Stalin gave us "socialist realism", the
National Review has given us the flip side of the coin; I'm surprised
they didn't name their philosophy of art "conservative realism", just
so we'd be clear on what they are talking about.
John Harkness
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:17:43 -0500, "MadNetter"
><madn...@madnetter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
>>> This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>>
>>Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
>>film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
>>Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
>>
>>Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
>>"conservative".
>>
>
>
>How did Dumbo get on that list?
>
Well, it's about an elephant, so it's at least Republican.
John Harkness
Juan F Lara
Cadillac_Jones <d...@D.com> wrote:
> How did Dumbo get on that list?
"Let's hit the Big Boss for a raise...."
Disney feature film animators were on strike when this movie was made, so
"Dumbo" was made by the shorts division instead. I heard that many of the
clowns were caricatures of the striking workers.
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Derek Janssen
>
> >>http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
> >>
> >>Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
> >>"conservative".
> >>
> >How did Dumbo get on that list?
> >
> Well, it's about an elephant, so it's at least Republican.
Not to mention, the humorless clowns demanding bigger salaries...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Ivan G Shreve Jr
news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
>
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
"High Noon"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?
Ivan
--
"If I always knew what I meant, I'd be a genius." -- Dick Powell, MURDER, MY
SWEET (1944)
Derek Janssen
>
> > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> >
> http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
> "High Noon"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?
"The Bicycle Thief"?
"Stand and Deliver"?
"Ghostbusters"??
(And I think that listing for "Ten" ["10"?] may have been an unfinished
typo, but given most Republican congressmen, I doubt it...)
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Ronald O. Christian
>
>
>Cadillac "Oh. We elected him.Never mind" Jones
Well, someone has to be in that thirteen percent.
Ron
www.europa.com/~ronc
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."
Man...An Ancient Race
> "Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
> > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> >
> >
> http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
> Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
> film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
> Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
>
my left right is about the importance of hard work and persistance.
and he had a loving family. had it been a welfare family, the kid
wouldn't have had role models like his mother.
bicycle thief is about importance of honesty and work, family and
unity, how crime sucks. and the guy takes responsibility at the end.
he doesn't blame society. he failed his son.
invasion of the body snatchers is about communist indoctrination of
our nation. and due to pc pods, most of you are brainwashed
dweeberoons.
animal farm is an attack on leninism-stalinism.
Man...An Ancient Race
don't make me laugh. it's the leftists who have turned culture into
political grandstanding. natinal review was only responding in kind.
we now have feminist film fest, asian film fest, gay film fest; we
have black hysteria month, we have leftwing nutjobs like jfk.
so national review shot back. that's all.
David
>http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>>
>
>"High Noon"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?
Yeah! And where's "The Big Sky"?!
Paul Baack
"Ivan G Shreve Jr" <ig...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DNk88.2077$td.7...@news2.nash1.tn.home.com...
> "Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
> > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> >
> >
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
> >
>
> "High Noon"?
I'm *shocked* that "High Noon" would've made this list; it's a vile
repudiation of all the things the classic Western stood for. Methinks the
writer of this column either didn't actually see all the films listed, or
that he's too goddam stupid to actually be able to make a distinction.
Whatta maroon.
Paul
_____________________
Paul Baack
ba...@hmss.com
Her Majesty's Secret Servant
www.hmss.com
Andy Averill
>
> "Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
> > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> >
> >
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
> Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
> film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"?
They're probably thinking of the scene where the Communist party is just as
useless as everybody else to the guy whose bicycle was stolen.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Robert Keser
> a mag is worthless unless it reviews movies!!
True, but National Review is worthless *anyway*...
--Bob Keser
(Oops, maybe A Man For All Seasons is your favorite movie of all time?)
deering
MadNetter wrote:
> "Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
> > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> >
> >
> http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
>
> Some of that list is simply nonsense. How is "My Left Foot" a conservative
> film?
Probably that "anyone can overcome any amount of adversity" thing--g!
> Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
> Fountainhead"?
Dude, a movie based on an Ayn ("conservatives' intellectual pin-up girl) Rand?
Come on. . .:)
> "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
>
One could read both as polemics against socialism/the individual being subjected
to the mass will.
>
> Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
> "conservative".
>
I can't figure how CARNAL KNOWLEDGE got on here--it (as well as DINER) shows
pre-70s men in full swinish glory and gives you every reason why women's
liberation was inevitable. And why they picked GHOSTBUSTERS. . .?
>
> Kevin "Of Course, National Review Readers Get The Critics They Deserve"
> Cogliano
Well, there you go--g!
C.
**
James
>my left right is about the importance of hard work and persistance.
>and he had a loving family.
All political systems value hard work, persistance, and loving
families.
>animal farm is an attack on leninism-stalinism.
Written by an anarchist.
James
Tony Spadaro
criterion used for selection the movies. There is a little notice stating
"You can buy these movies here..." followed by a banner ad for a movie site
that no doubt belongs to one or more of the corporation's trustees, and
which prolly sells movies for above list since they are all carefully vetted
and approved for your conservative family tastes.
There are a couple other criteria -- no sex, and no mention of Social
Security or other commie new deal schemes.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Moe Hailstone" <coloneln...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01c1af49$0d1a8600$12bb56d1@mb1-9mfyv-22...
Man...An Ancient Race
> Man...An Ancient Race :
> >my left right is about the importance of hard work and persistance.
> >and he had a loving family.
>
> All political systems value hard work, persistance, and loving
> families.
wrong. commies told kids to love state and ideology more than family.
liberalism destroyed family thru welfare and encouraging broken
families and degenerate self indulgent self destructive lifestyles.
>
> >animal farm is an attack on leninism-stalinism.
>
> Written by an anarchist.
>
> James
orwell was a socialist who however was a prude and man of great
honesty.
honesty is a conservative virtue. conservatives never lie.
Mike V.
Oh, you mean they weren't really serious in believing that art should
not just be for art's sake, but instead should be a means of
expressing conservative values? So they were just kidding? It was
just a little way of shooting back? They didn't really mean it?
Of course that's nonsense. The author of that article meant just what
was written. The National Review doesn't believe in art for art's
sake any more than Stalin did.
Mike
Cadillac_Jones
Ancient Race) wrote:
>orwell was a socialist who however was a prude and man of great
>honesty.
>
>honesty is a conservative virtue. conservatives never lie.
Since when did honesty become a "conservative-only" virtue.
Cadillac" my cat doesn't lie to me" Jones
Bob
MadNetter wrote:
Would you say "no" if they offered you the job??
Bob
Tom Cervo
>film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
>Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
>
>Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their definition of
>"conservative".
>
>Kevin "Of Course, National Review Readers Get The Critics They Deserve"
>Cogliano
"How Green Was My Valley", or how social Darwinism destroyed a family, a
culture and a way of life--conservative, yes, but not to the monopoly
capitalists who call themselves conservatives today.
Man...An Ancient Race
> On 7 Feb 2002 10:46:08 -0800, anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An
> Ancient Race) wrote:
>
>
> >orwell was a socialist who however was a prude and man of great
> >honesty.
> >
> >honesty is a conservative virtue. conservatives never lie.
>
> Since when did honesty become a "conservative-only" virtue.
>
> Cadillac" my cat doesn't lie to me" Jones
>
conservatives know human heart is dark and no good. even when
conservatives lie, it's simply to demonstrate the wickedness of the
human soul. and so it's really telling the truth.
Man...An Ancient Race
nor do spike lee, roger ebert, jane campion, and other leftwing
propagandists.
they always bitch about how movies should be 'progressive' so don't
gimme this stalin b.s.
and don't tell me jonathon rosenbaum doesn't let politics color his
judgment.
what are you, a comedian?
Man...An Ancient Race
> "Man...An Ancient Race" wrote:
>
> > a mag is worthless unless it reviews movies!!
>
> True, but National Review is worthless *anyway*...
>
no, you got it confused with the nation.
Moe Hailstone
Does The Nation still have Stuart Klawans as its film critic? He was pretty
good--and certainly wouldn't produce a lameass list of great films like the
National Review.
If you weren't completely a brainless slave to ideology, and totally
intellectually dishonest to boot, you might acknowledge that the
"conservatism" which you advocate almost as a caricature has been far from
the most dynamic force in producing most of the world's great cinema--that
NR list was embarrassing to anybody who loves film, including you, despite
your transparent and wholly unsuccessful attempts to wish it away. If you
were honest enough to acknowledge this to just yourself, you might actually
feel conflicted between the films you proclaim great and the cartoon
version of "conservatism" you spout ad nauseum. But this would be asking
awfully much from the likes of you.
Back to idiocy, with no capitalization....
--
--->"If you can't say 'fuck' you can't say 'fuck the government'."---Lenny
Bruce
--->"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."---Goethe
--->"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R.
Murrow
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Moe Hailstone
identify with the Angela Lansbury character. I mean, with these pathetic
diatribes, you make a mockery of legitimate conservative thought and just
reinforce the impression that conservatism is a refuge for mouthbreathing
clowns--especially embittered loser white males who had a huge problem with
the second half of the 20th century (all those darkies running wild, women
not knowing their place, etc., etc.) If we didn't know better, it might be
thought you were a lefty agent provocateur intending to undermine any
reasonable conservative arguments that might pop up around here. But, as I
said, we do know better--unfortunately, your positions reflect the real
you.
--
--->"If you can't say 'fuck' you can't say 'fuck the government'."---Lenny
Bruce
--->"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."---Goethe
--->"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R.
Murrow
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Moe Hailstone
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
This is where you come in, I suppose?
Robert Keser
> Does The Nation still have Stuart Klawans as its film critic? He was pretty
> good--and certainly wouldn't produce a lameass list of great films like the
> National Review.
Klawans left maybe six months ago, under what circumstances I don't
know, but they don't seem to be very interested in finding a replacement.
It's a pity because Klawans was not afraid to stand up for his beliefs...
--Bob Keser
Moe Hailstone
weeks ago there was an editorial entitled "Dude, Where's My Klawans?"
Unfortunately it is print only--maybe it explains what happened.
I haven't read a copy of the Nation in years, but if that retard Gaza hates
it so much it might actually have some redeeming value after all (besides
the obvious, Christopher Hitchens, and the less obvious--Gene Santoro,
their music editor).
--
--->"If you can't say 'fuck' you can't say 'fuck the government'."---Lenny
Bruce
--->"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."---Goethe
--->"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R.
Murrow
Robert Keser <rfk...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3C636905...@ix.netcom.com>...
Cadillac_Jones
Once again Tony, how can I argue against logic like that?
I just like to add that without socialists, Kool-Aid would not taste
as sweet.
Moe Hailstone
> I just like to add that without socialists, Kool-Aid would not taste
> as sweet.
>
Who said that first, Jim Jones?
Thomas Andrews
> After I posted this I went over to the Nation website and I see that a few
> weeks ago there was an editorial entitled "Dude, Where's My Klawans?"
> Unfortunately it is print only--maybe it explains what happened.
>
> I haven't read a copy of the Nation in years, but if that retard Gaza
hates
> it so much it might actually have some redeeming value after all (besides
> the obvious, Christopher Hitchens, and the less obvious--Gene Santoro,
> their music editor).
My favorite columnist at the moment is Katha Pollitt, who generally is good
at "getting" the conservative mind so she's better at countering it.
Cockburn is still a raging asshole.
Klawans reviewed three movies in the Feb. 18th issue, for what its worth.
As I recall, the notice was that Klawans was only going to be reviewing
occasionally.
[ I have a subscription, but I'm not a subscriber - my dad subscribes me
ever year, the old hippy. My socialist grandma started the tradition,
actually. I'm the right winger in my family, and I'm still to the left of
90% of Americans. ]
=thomas
Moe Hailstone
>
> My favorite columnist at the moment is Katha Pollitt, who generally is
good
> at "getting" the conservative mind so she's better at countering it.
>
I can do without her, but to each his own.
> Cockburn is still a raging asshole.
Now he is an odd bird, practically a Stalinist at one point, he went so far
to the left that he occasionally winds up all the way around on the right
(I remember a few years ago, when the "militias" were America's bugaboo, he
was somewhat sympathetic to their position; and he could be confused for
Pat Buchanan when it comes to Jews and Israel). His stuff is NEVER on the
website; I think he must have some deal to avoid it getting posted their
because he has that "Counterpunch" newsletter and website, where he kisses
Noam Chomsky's ass (an act even more repulsive figuratively than it would
be literally).
>
> Klawans reviewed three movies in the Feb. 18th issue, for what its worth.
> As I recall, the notice was that Klawans was only going to be reviewing
> occasionally.
Glad to hear that.
> [ I have a subscription, but I'm not a subscriber - my dad subscribes me
> ever year, the old hippy. My socialist grandma started the tradition,
> actually. I'm the right winger in my family, and I'm still to the left
of
> 90% of Americans. ]
>
You are just not trying hard enough, my friend--perhaps you need to find
Jesus.
My money is on "behind the refrigerator".
Bob
Moe Hailstone wrote:
> I figured out why you love The Manchurian Candidate so much--you really
> identify with the Angela Lansbury character. I mean, with these pathetic
> diatribes, you make a mockery of legitimate conservative thought and just
> reinforce the impression that conservatism is a refuge for mouthbreathing
> clowns--especially embittered loser white males who had a huge problem with
> the second half of the 20th century (all those darkies running wild, women
> not knowing their place, etc., etc.) If we didn't know better, it might be
> thought you were a lefty agent provocateur intending to undermine any
> reasonable conservative arguments that might pop up around here. But, as I
> said, we do know better--unfortunately, your positions reflect the real
> you.
>
>
Moe - Bottom posting is far easier to follow.
Also - You are responding to Tony Gaza as if Tony were a person and not a
troll. Truly, forget trying to have a serious discussion with Tony. There ARE
times when he will post something very good and serious about a film, but that
is rare. Mostly Tony is a troll. There is no reason to get your shorts it a
tuck about him.
Bob
Moe Hailstone
>
> Moe - Bottom posting is far easier to follow.
You know, I usually find the opposite, but if that is general preference
around here, I'll try to go with it.
>Mostly Tony is a troll. There is no reason to get your shorts it a
> tuck about him.
> Bob
>
Bob, I swear--my shorts are riding fine.
Bob
Moe Hailstone wrote:
Good. You are getting a read on him.
See how nice bottom posting works?
you just scroll down and you get the posts in order.
At least, I think that's the theory.
Bob
Mike V.
So far you have managed not to disagree with my statement that the
National Review is guilty of believing that narrative art forms like
films should necessarily promote an ideological point of view. Your
entire argument is to agree that they do but then to defend it by
making unsubstantiated claims that various "leftists" believe the same
thing, which in no way contradicts what I said. On the contrary, you
are admitting that the National Review is guilty of this insidious
doctrine, but your defense is simply that other people do too
(although you provide no substantiation for this claim).
Then again, your earlier assertion was to compare the National
Review's thesis about what narrative art forms should do with the
existence of film festivals devoted to specific subcultures, as if
that were analogous, which they clearly are not. (You also managed to
include a racist attack on African Amercians, by calling it "Black
Hysteria Month", as part of your argument, but that's another story.)
The fact is that no one disagrees that cultural values often intersect
with art; the issue is whether, as Stalin and the National Review have
argued, art, and narrative art forms particularly, necessarily ought
to advocate a particular set of ideological values. I happen to
disagree with both the National Review and Stalin in this matter.
Mike
MadNetter
> I figured out why you love The Manchurian Candidate so much--you really
> identify with the Angela Lansbury character. I mean, with these pathetic
> diatribes, you make a mockery of legitimate conservative thought and just
> reinforce the impression that conservatism is a refuge for mouthbreathing
> clowns--especially embittered loser white males who had a huge problem
with
> the second half of the 20th century (all those darkies running wild, women
> not knowing their place, etc., etc.) If we didn't know better, it might
be
> thought you were a lefty agent provocateur intending to undermine any
> reasonable conservative arguments that might pop up around here. But, as I
> said, we do know better--unfortunately, your positions reflect the real
> you.
Dude, Gaza's a fuckwit. Some people here put up with him because, once about
every fifty posts, he manages to accidentally type something they agree
with.
I am not one of them. The entirety of Gaza's thought process can be summed
thusly: "What's the smallest amount of words I can type that will piss off
the most people?" That's it. If the entire universe suddenly decided
overnight to turn racist, he'd probably become a Black Panther.
Killfile him, or ignore him. Feeding him just makes it worse. You won't
change his mind, because he doesn't have one.
Kevin "Trust Me" Cogliano
Man...An Ancient Race
> After I posted this I went over to the Nation website and I see that a few
> weeks ago there was an editorial entitled "Dude, Where's My Klawans?"
> Unfortunately it is print only--maybe it explains what happened.
>
> I haven't read a copy of the Nation in years, but if that retard Gaza hates
> it so much it might actually have some redeeming value after all (besides
> the obvious, Christopher Hitchens, and the less obvious--Gene Santoro,
> their music editor).
> --
>
what a clod you are. if nation is so great how come you haven't read
a copy IN YEARS???
i read that antiamerican rag regularly for two reasons. it has decent
film reviews and it exposes the worst aspects of america that should
be addressed.
but they ARE a bunch of socialist anti-american clods who want this
great nation to be a huge welfare state spilling out its wealth to all
the loser nations around the world.
moron.
Man...An Ancient Race
pollit is a whining, squealing, gurgling twit. she doesn't understand
anything including her own stupidass dishonest mind.
she's just a more extreme eleanor clift.
cockburn is the better guy.
Man...An Ancient Race
> I figured out why you love The Manchurian Candidate so much--you really
> identify with the Angela Lansbury character. I mean, with these pathetic
> diatribes, you make a mockery of legitimate conservative thought and just
> reinforce the impression that conservatism is a refuge for mouthbreathing
> clowns--especially embittered loser white males who had a huge problem with
> the second half of the 20th century (all those darkies running wild, women
> not knowing their place, etc., etc.) If we didn't know better, it might be
> thought you were a lefty agent provocateur intending to undermine any
> reasonable conservative arguments that might pop up around here. But, as I
> said, we do know better--unfortunately, your positions reflect the real
> you.
>
>
>
lansbury in that film is a communist. she uses great patriotic noble
fascist rhetoric to hide her antiamericanism; she's an agent of
foreign powers and when her son is used in such manner, she wants all
the power.
why? to impose moe stalinism on america. man, are you dim.
Man...An Ancient Race
what did i say now? i said national review is better than the nation
and conservatives are better people and better americans than
antiamerican leftwing hucksters pissing all over this country.
i thought you were proamerican but now you've exposed yourself as a
commie.
Man...An Ancient Race
what is this gay kindergarten school b.s.?
'now listen little moe, remember to scroll to the bottom and then
let's pwactice our ABC's'
and moe is going along like the little dweebster that he is.
Moe Hailstone
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Gald to see you are subsidizing an "antiamerican rag". The Angela
Lansbury/Manchurian Candidate theory gets more supporting evidence.
And the "antiamerican" Nation has "decent" film reviews? More cognitive
dissonance from a loser who can't reconcile his comic book political
beliefs and his occasionally insightful artistic tastes.
I like the word "clod"--or I did when I was about 10 years old. They used
in Mad magazine a lot back then.
Moe Hailstone
drew the analogy between her character and a "lefty agent provocateur" I
smell around here. It's all too complicated, I guess. I wish life were as
simple as a doe-eyed Japanese cartoon.
--
--->"If you can't say 'fuck' you can't say 'fuck the government'."---Lenny
Bruce
--->"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free."---Goethe
--->"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."--Edward R.
Murrow
Man...An Ancient Race <anthony...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Moe Hailstone
> I am not one of them. The entirety of Gaza's thought process can be
summed
> thusly: "What's the smallest amount of words I can type that will piss
off
> the most people?" That's it. If the entire universe suddenly decided
> overnight to turn racist, he'd probably become a Black Panther.
>
I was bored and he's easy fun. Believe me, I'm not seriously hopeful that
this imbecile will ever have a moment of genuine self-awareness.
And on your latter point, you just know that as he's pounding the keyboard
with another negrophobic rant, 5 minutes later he'll be pounding his pud
while he downloads from some "blacks on blondes" pornsite.
larry legallo
Ancient Race) wrote:
>James <a@b.c> wrote in message news:<pg946u07uo1baojji...@4ax.com>...
>> Man...An Ancient Race :
>> >my left right is about the importance of hard work and persistance.
>> >and he had a loving family.
>>
>> All political systems value hard work, persistance, and loving
>> families.
>
>wrong. commies told kids to love state and ideology more than family.
>
>liberalism destroyed family thru welfare and encouraging broken
>families and degenerate self indulgent self destructive lifestyles.
>
>>
>> >animal farm is an attack on leninism-stalinism.
Yes. It's also an attack on capitalism.
>>
>> Written by an anarchist.
>>
>> James
>
>orwell was a socialist who however was a prude and man of great
>honesty.
>
>honesty is a conservative virtue. conservatives never lie.
That last three-word sentence contains more levels of irony than any
book I've ever read.
MadNetter
> > > This tells you all you need to know--and then some:
> > >
> > >
> >
http://www.nationalreview.com/conservative_movies/conservative_movies.shtml
> >
conservative
> > film? Or, for that matter, "The Bicycle Thief"? Or - shudder - "The
> > Fountainhead"? "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? "Animal Farm"?
> >
> > Based on this list, I'll be damned if I can come up with their
definition of
> > "conservative".
> >
> > Kevin "Of Course, National Review Readers Get The Critics They Deserve"
> > Cogliano
>
> Would you say "no" if they offered you the job??
> Bob
>
Actually, I probably would. I once turned down a column in a local rag
because I took umbrage to the editor's rather liberal use of the red pen. I
can't imagine the Review would be any different.
Kevin "Is The 'High Times' Looking For A Reviewer?" Cogliano
Bob
"Man...An Ancient Race" wrote:
>
> i thought you were proamerican but now you've exposed yourself as a
> commie.
I served in the Army, in the arctic, to protect my country against "the commie horde".
You, on the other hand, have, in the past, defamed every veteran that ever lived with your
bullshit about what a great hero you were in the marines.
Hell, Tony, you couldn't pass the mental exam to be a Marine, but Gomer Pyle could.
Sometimes, Tony, you cross the line and piss me off.
Bob
Bob
MadNetter wrote:
Kevins right, and I just violated that rule with a post to Gaza, about something
he said that pissed me off. DAMN, I should have ignored the idiot.
Bob
MadNetter
Ahhh, don't feel bad. Gaza's from the Shotgun School Of Irritation - if he
fires off one hundred irritating statements, one of them's bound to hit
home. (I've been baiting Rich over at current-films, and I really should
know better. But he's just so gosh-darn cute when he's mad.)
Kevin "We're Only Human" Cogliano
Derek Janssen
> >
> > Kevins right, and I just violated that rule with a post to Gaza, about
> something
> > he said that pissed me off. DAMN, I should have ignored the idiot.
> > Bob
Uh, yeah. You should have. For the last four years.
> Ahhh, don't feel bad. Gaza's from the Shotgun School Of Irritation - if he
> fires off one hundred irritating statements, one of them's bound to hit
> home.
Except that at most, two or three of them will actually be of what he
thinks is the group troll button:
Since he's long since permanently taken his lumps and lost practically
any notice he ever had from two years ago, he's settled himself into
playing the Hollywood Troll Squares low-camp-caricature angle for
whatever last few tomatoes get thrown nowadays...
Which can usually be achieved by simply recycling the same "hey you
idiots, rate what you think of stanley kaufman's review of waking life
and 13th warrior" and "here's what pissed off a totally different group
two years ago, so i'll post it here even though there's no chance you
have the slightest idea what i'm talking about" posts mindlessly over
and over again, usually unchanged, without any imaginable connection to
anything, thus earning him the nickname of "The Autistic Troll"--
His few efforts to actually TRY to find a troll button will usually
consist literally of scanning the group *headers* without reading the
actual posts and trying to guess what will be the Hot Topic...
Summed up best, IMO, the one time it was suggested, "Quick, everybody
put 'Barbecued pork rinds' in all the post headers, and see what he
tries to troll with." : )
> (I've been baiting Rich over at current-films, and I really should
> know better. But he's just so gosh-darn cute when he's mad.)
As for poor Rich, well...he's young, he's inexperienced, and Wants It
All Now--
Occasionally also playing it for low-camp trademark shtick, but still
convinced that ANGRY HOTHEADED ARGUMENTS ABOUT OUR NATIONAL INJUSTICES!!
is the best way to play the crowd and light the ol' bonfire under the group--
And *not* simply look to understandably bewildered bystanders like he
should stay off the Starbucks Moccachino for a while...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Man...An Ancient Race
> So far you have managed not to disagree with my statement that the
> National Review is guilty of believing that narrative art forms like
> films should necessarily promote an ideological point of view. Your
> entire argument is to agree that they do but then to defend it by
> making unsubstantiated claims that various "leftists" believe the same
> thing, which in no way contradicts what I said. On the contrary, you
> are admitting that the National Review is guilty of this insidious
> doctrine, but your defense is simply that other people do too
> (although you provide no substantiation for this claim).
>
> Then again, your earlier assertion was to compare the National
> Review's thesis about what narrative art forms should do with the
> existence of film festivals devoted to specific subcultures, as if
> that were analogous, which they clearly are not. (You also managed to
> include a racist attack on African Amercians, by calling it "Black
> Hysteria Month", as part of your argument, but that's another story.)
> The fact is that no one disagrees that cultural values often intersect
> with art; the issue is whether, as Stalin and the National Review have
> argued, art, and narrative art forms particularly, necessarily ought
> to advocate a particular set of ideological values. I happen to
> disagree with both the National Review and Stalin in this matter.
>
> Mike
are you nuts? national review made a silly list. we makes silly
lists here in this ng all the time. it's like gameplaying, done half
tongue-in-cheek.
did national review say that those films were the only ones red
blooded americans should see?
did national review say nonconservative films are artistically
worthless?
no, it just made a list of films that are conservative and good.
of course, like all magazines national review likes to play
provocateur and listed certain films that would spark off debates but
then that's all part of gameplaying.
like bicycle thief. it was made by leftleaning desica and its
champions love to hail it as communist art(check jonathon rosenbaum).
below is the capsule review by rosenbaum:
"The Bicycle Thief
Capsule by Jonathan Rosenbaum
From the Chicago Reader
An unemployed worker (Lamberto Maggiorani) in postwar Rome finds a job
putting up movie posters after his wife pawns the family sheets to get
his bicycle out of hock. But right after he starts work the bike is
stolen, and with his little boy in tow he travels across the city
trying to recover it. This masterpiece--whose Italian title translates
as "bicycle thieves"--is generally and correctly known as one of the
key works of Italian neorealism, but French critic Andre Bazin also
recognized it as one of the great communist films....."
i happen to disagree. the movie doesn't argue for revolution nor does
it blame it all on class and society. but then great art can be
interpreted in so many ways.
there are probably communist AND conservative elements in bicycle
thief. but national review chooses to emphasize the conservative and
rosenbaum is happy to declare it a commie masterpiece.
who is right? but if you are angry at national review, shouldn't you
be equally pissed with rosenbaum and bazin who have reduced a great
complex work into ideological propaganda?
or do you only get pissed when conservatives get political about
culture?
Man...An Ancient Race
> So far you have managed not to disagree with my statement that the
> National Review is guilty of believing that narrative art forms like
> films should necessarily promote an ideological point of view.
can you show me proof of national review saying narrative art forms
must NECESSARILY promote an ideological point of view or are you some
kind of paranoid nut?
it made a list of films they admire on a political/cultural level.
feminists have their list. blacks have theirs. pope has his. big
deal, moron.
> Your
> entire argument is to agree that they do but then to defend it by
> making unsubstantiated claims that various "leftists" believe the same
> thing, which in no way contradicts what I said. On the contrary, you
> are admitting that the National Review is guilty of this insidious
> doctrine, but your defense is simply that other people do too
> (although you provide no substantiation for this claim).
there is no doctrine. this 'insidious doctrine' has been false
projected onto the national review by hysterical leftwing morons like
yourself.
if someone in this ng makes a list of his favorite socialist films, i
don't think that's the same as saying all films should be socialist or
that nonsocialist films are necessarily bad. moron.
>
> Then again, your earlier assertion was to compare the National
> Review's thesis about what narrative art forms should do with the
> existence of film festivals devoted to specific subcultures, as if
> that were analogous, which they clearly are not.
what is this nutty nonsense?
(You also managed to
> include a racist attack on African Amercians, by calling it "Black
> Hysteria Month", as part of your argument, but that's another story.)
cuz i'm a racist just as you're a pansy white boy dweeb for whom all
black things are noble, just, and better than anything honkey. black
history month is full of jive and b.s. it's a masturbatory
celebration based mostly on self-promoting fantasies. that make a
racist to say so? good, i gladly declare myself so. better honest
racist than pansy ass p.c. dupe.
> The fact is that no one disagrees that cultural values often intersect
> with art; the issue is whether, as Stalin and the National Review have
> argued, art, and narrative art forms particularly, necessarily ought
> to advocate a particular set of ideological values. I happen to
> disagree with both the National Review and Stalin in this matter.
>
again, where is the proof that national review said art has to be
conservative?
why did national review hire john simon who's politically a liberal
who championed such films as born on the fourth of july, people vs.
larry flynt, the official story, and didn't care at all for the right
stuff?
and what planet have you been on? it's the liberal critics who
always bitch and wail about how a movie is racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, etc. etc.
look at ebert playing courtjester to clinton. disgusting.
look at wilmington starting all his reviews of whit stillman's films
by cautioning his readers that stillman is a 'extreme right winger'.
look at how liberals howl about how bad bad bad birth of a nation is
because they hate its politics.
compared to liberal hysteria, national review list is just funning
around.
dweeb.
Man...An Ancient Race
> Gald to see you are subsidizing an "antiamerican rag". The Angela
> Lansbury/Manchurian Candidate theory gets more supporting evidence.
>
> And the "antiamerican" Nation has "decent" film reviews? More cognitive
> dissonance from a loser who can't reconcile his comic book political
> beliefs and his occasionally insightful artistic tastes.
>
> I like the word "clod"--or I did when I was about 10 years old. They used
> in Mad magazine a lot back then.
>
>
i say it like it is, i say it like i feel.
i welcome all debates, i read people i disagree with(and sometimes
learn a thing or two or even change my views), and i praise what is
good even if i disagree. and klawans is a first rate critic though he
does suffer from kneejerk leftitis.
why else would anyone champion the works of chantal akerman?
yechh!!!!
Man...An Ancient Race
> >> >animal farm is an attack on leninism-stalinism.
>
> Yes. It's also an attack on capitalism.
wrong. animal farm is about russia. russia never really had
capitalism before the commies took over.
larry, why do you still worship those leech scumsuckers lenin and
trotsky?
they sucked.
Thomas Andrews
"MadNetter" <madk...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Ry398.17094$Gu.133...@radon.golden.net...
> (I've been baiting Rich over at current-films, and I really should
> know better. But he's just so gosh-darn cute when he's mad.)
>
> Kevin "We're Only Human" Cogliano
>
Rich is a troll only in the way that modern conservatives have become trolls
in general. I recall a commercial for some conservative talk radio jerk in
the bay area who said something like, "Tune in, call in, and we'll really
make those liberals mad." They have stopped trying to affect change, but
instead just like to piss off liberals. It's certainly easier than actually
constructing a clear and cogent argument. It's petty, as when Jesse Helms
and Carol Mosley-Braun where in an elevator together, and Helms starting
whistling "Dixie," or the way that so many Republicans call the opposing
party the "Democrat party." It's in the way that they say, "I know it's not
politically correct to say so, but..." before they launch into some bigoted
rant, as if it takes courage to write racist or sexist crap, as if they are
standing up to a government tank. It's in the obscene way that
conservatives have jumped on John Walker as if he was primarily a product of
liberal upbringing, and as if all liberals were just a slightly less loyal
version of Walker, or Newt Gingrich suggested that Susan Smith's crime was
primarily the result of the 60s counter-culture. [ For what it's worth, The
New Republic pointed out that Smith's step-daddy, who she alleges sexually
abused her, was a Christian Coalition member who stumped for Robertson in
'88. ]
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again
that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute
people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by
making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will
turn out to be outright traitors." - Ann Coulter, speaking at the
Conservative Action Committee.
If it was just Ann Coulter, that would be fine - some have suggested she is
a man in drag who is parodying conservatives - but I heard a Respected
Conservative, one of those think-tank guys who gets lots of foundation money
as long as he tows the line, offering the same argument - that Walker is
just what all liberals are, only a little more so. If you take it
seriously, it is a disgusting argument, but I have long ago gotten past
disgusted, and simply find it amazing and pathetic that they stoop this low,
that they are this mean.
Rich is of their ilk - he knows he has lost the argument, his way of life is
obsolete. All he has left is tormenting, and once you realize he has lost
already, that most of the progress that he and his ilk resist are inevitable
in any good an decent society, you let go of your anger. That doesn't mean
that you stop countering him or responding, but the response is more like a
parent dealing with an angry teenager.
=thomas andrews
Cadillac_Jones
wrote:
>
>"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again
>that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute
>people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by
>making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will
>turn out to be outright traitors." - Ann Coulter, speaking at the
>Conservative Action Committee.
>
>If it was just Ann Coulter, that would be fine - some have suggested she is
>a man in drag who is parodying conservatives - but I heard a Respected
>Conservative, one of those think-tank guys who gets lots of foundation money
>as long as he tows the line, offering the same argument - that Walker is
>just what all liberals are, only a little more so. If you take it
>seriously, it is a disgusting argument, but I have long ago gotten past
>disgusted, and simply find it amazing and pathetic that they stoop this low,
>that they are this mean.
It's the same thing politicians have been doing for years. Put up the
straw man and let their members beat it while the leaders further
their private agendas. See McCarthyism, see Drug Policy, see
Prohibition, ad infinitum.
Walker deserves what he gets but how in the hell does his adopting
Islam and fighting with a bunch of backwards screwheads figure into
the grand liberal conspiracy? I thought all liberals were cowards who
run away from battle and dodge drafts. I need a set stereotype, damn
it.
I had a polite discussion with someone the other day on Post 9/11
America. He asserted that this country needs to curtail personal
freedom to stop the threat. I asserted that if monkeys didn't operate
the security at airports nothing of this magnitude would have happened
and we would still be blindly living our lives in America.
My solution to the Middle East problem. Get this country off the need
for foreign oil. Being in bed with the Saudi's who despise us despite
freely taking our money is 75% of our Middle Eastern problem.
"I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
Derek Janssen
>
> Rich is a troll only in the way that modern conservatives have become trolls
> in general. I recall a commercial for some conservative talk radio jerk in
> the bay area who said something like, "Tune in, call in, and we'll really
> make those liberals mad." They have stopped trying to affect change, but
> instead just like to piss off liberals. It's certainly easier than actually
> constructing a clear and cogent argument.
And instead conjuring up images of desperate, job-frantic radio host
Buck Henry, in the old SNL sketch:
<phones haven't rung in five minutes>
"Uh, okay, so our call-in topic *isn't* just the new customs and
free-trade agreement...How about, 'Suicide, fun for the elderly"?....er,
"Hitler, boy do we need him now!"?..."
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Thomas Andrews
"Cadillac_Jones" <d...@D.com> wrote in message
news:l4oa6uk3n8adfr4tt...@4ax.com...
>
> I had a polite discussion with someone the other day on Post 9/11
> America. He asserted that this country needs to curtail personal
> freedom to stop the threat. I asserted that if monkeys didn't operate
> the security at airports nothing of this magnitude would have happened
> and we would still be blindly living our lives in America.
That's nonsense. All they brought on board was box cutters - glorified
razors. They got by on gumption and the ignorance of the passengers. They
*claimed* to have a bomb. The one plane where the passangers knew what was
going to happen revolted.
=thomas
Bob
MadNetter wrote:
Incorrect answer.
You should have answered the question with a question. The proper answer is:
How much will it pay, how long is the contract, how much time per week will I
have in my TV show, and do I really have to have Ebert as my sidekick?
THEN, you have enough information to make an informed decision.
Bob
Mike V.
>
> "moron" and dweeb", each used twice, deleted. Racist comments also deleted.
>
It is clear that from your use of name calling that you aren't really
interested in a serious discussion (look up the words "ad hominem" in
case you are wondering about the use of this tactic in diminishing the
level of a discussion). However, for the record, the author of that
article did not just "make a list", but accompanied it with an article
briefly summarizing the philosophy that underlied the list. The
philosphy strongly implied a theory of what can only be termed
"conservative realism".
When you weren't busy launching a tirade of insults and name calling,
you pointed out that everyone can make a list of favorite movies.
Certainly, as I stated earlier, it is also true that culture can
intersect with the arts, but I argued that a lot of films (and other
art forms) can certain be appreciated without putting a political
filter upon them. Your argument seems to be that when so-called
"leftists" and "liberals" are wrong when they make note of such
examples; and therefore, when the National Review does the same thing
it MUST just either be making a parody of the "left" or otherwise it
is just "funning", since (you apparently believe) they couldn't
possibly be doing the same thing that you accuse the left of doing.
What you base your interpretation of the National Review's motives in
making this list is totally unclear, since there is absolutely nothing
to base it on in the article that accompanied the list.
The reality is that the National Review gave every indication of being
quite serious in its published list. More interestingly, it applied
such a broad cultural filter to what it considered "conservative" in
making that list, that it managed to make a large percentage of
narrative forms "conservative"--forms that anyone in their right mind
would consider devoid of association with any particular place in the
political spectrum. This assignment of political implications to such
narrative forms is part of what makes it a kind of "conservative
realism".
Mike
Man...An Ancient Race
> anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An Ancient Race) wrote in message news:<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> > it made a list of films they admire on a political/cultural level.
> >
> > lots of ad hominem attacks, including the use of such words as
> > "moron" and dweeb", each used twice, deleted. Racist comments also deleted.
> >
>
> It is clear that from your use of name calling that you aren't really
> interested in a serious discussion (look up the words "ad hominem" in
> case you are wondering about the use of this tactic in diminishing the
> level of a discussion).
i don't need latin to make mincemeat out of your pansy ass.
However, for the record, the author of that
> article did not just "make a list", but accompanied it with an article
> briefly summarizing the philosophy that underlied the list. The
> philosphy strongly implied a theory of what can only be termed
> "conservative realism".
it doesn't matter. why? cuz he never said it should be THE policy for
moviemaking. it was only a criteria for what he considered good
CONSERVATIVE movies. i may disagree but it's a matter of OPINION, not
state policy.
why are you SO intolerant of OPINIONS or PREFERANCES?
and some of the films on the list don't even fall under realism of
anykind so what the hell are you talking about?
besides, how is conservative realism any worse than liberal realism or
feminist radicalism or black punkassism? go read again if you
understand english. the dude stated--very honestly--his political
beliefs and made a list of films that fall under those values. hardly
STALINIST!!! if you think stalinism consisted of making silly lists
read up on your history again. geez.
>
> When you weren't busy launching a tirade of insults and name calling,
> you pointed out that everyone can make a list of favorite movies.
> Certainly, as I stated earlier, it is also true that culture can
> intersect with the arts, but I argued that a lot of films (and other
> art forms) can certain be appreciated without putting a political
> filter upon them.
and who's arguing? yes, lots of movies can be appreciated without
political considerations. i love triumph of the will and communist
propaganda films. i watch for the aesthetic qualities, not for the
politics. heck, i even enjoy many misguided liberal movies. so stop
arguing with yourself. the dude at national review didn't say a
nonconservative movie is aesthetically bad or lacking in artistry.
indeed, the list was made with political values as criteria and not
aesthetic worth. i mean 'red dawn' is on the list for chrissakes.
surely even the most ardent conservative knows battleship potemkin is
a greater if that dude said he's making a list of best artistic films
and then filled it up with conservative flicks, yes that would be
ridiculous. but he doesn't hide his intentions. there is no secret
agenda. it's a list of politically or culturally conservative films.
BIG DEAL!!! 'conservative realism' indeed! as long as it's not
shoved down our throat anything is fine. even socialist realism is
fine and okay with me... as long the state doesn't shove it down our
throat as the ONLY artistic approach. so calm your hysterical butt
down, drink some water, get some air, and shut up.
> Your argument seems to be that when so-called
> "leftists" and "liberals" are wrong when they make note of such
> examples; and therefore, when the National Review does the same thing
> it MUST just either be making a parody of the "left" or otherwise it
> is just "funning", since (you apparently believe) they couldn't
> possibly be doing the same thing that you accuse the left of doing.
> What you base your interpretation of the National Review's motives in
> making this list is totally unclear, since there is absolutely nothing
> to base it on in the article that accompanied the list.
the article is silly fluff. the guy said he believes in family
values, patriotism, etc. etc. and he isn't into nihilism, narcissism,
etc. and then he made a list. now, what is the big crime being
perpetrated here? and furthermore, if you ever look at movies or tv,
they ARE political! they are liberal drivel. if you really want
politics out of cinema, then you tell the moviemaking clods to go easy
with their stalinist liberal realism. conservatives only get to make
lists. liberals get to make the movies, all stupid retarded
propaganda. and you, silly cloddler, pick on a stupid list instead of
going after the megagigantic industry that spews cultural pollution
all over america and the world.
>
> The reality is that the National Review gave every indication of being
> quite serious in its published list. More interestingly, it applied
> such a broad cultural filter to what it considered "conservative" in
> making that list, that it managed to make a large percentage of
> narrative forms "conservative"--forms that anyone in their right mind
> would consider devoid of association with any particular place in the
> political spectrum. This assignment of political implications to such
> narrative forms is part of what makes it a kind of "conservative
> realism".
>
you're too earnest. you are a goo goo boy. all lists are silly. some
of the picks on the list make it clear that they had some fun doing
it. and they knew silly liberal dweebs such as yourself would get all
upset and pee all over yourself. how true.
if you don't like politics in your movie whatsoever(which i doubt
since you probably love liberal b.s. like ally mcbeal, etc.) then,
fine. but mike v. stupidism is worse than conservative realism. some
conservative squarehead making a silly list is trivial. but someone
associating it with stalinism is simply obscene and shows no
understanding of the evil that was stalinism.
and again, as long as it's not state policy, any preferance is fine by
me. a catholic making his favorite list or a feminist her list or a
gay guy making his list are all fine by me. see, i'm a tolerant guy.
i understand the diversity of opinions and views. but stalinist mike
v. harrumphs and grumps when a list he doesn't agree with show up in
some mag.
i mean that's so retarded.
Mike V.
> ootwi...@yahoo.com (Mike V.) wrote in message news:<6e40861b.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> > anthony...@hotmail.com (Man...An Ancient Race) wrote in message news:<145695ee.02020...@posting.google.com>...
> i don't need latin to make mincemeat out of your pansy ass.
Your use of the phrase "your pansy ass" is duly noted and repeated
here for the benefit of all who might have skimmed over your posting
and thus missed your style of communication.
> it doesn't matter. why? cuz he never said it should be THE policy for
> moviemaking. it was only a criteria for what he considered good
> CONSERVATIVE movies. i may disagree but it's a matter of OPINION, not
> state policy.
His article strongly implied that his criteria for good "conservative"
movies was more or less the same as as he considered to be good
movies, period.
> and some of the films on the list don't even fall under realism of
> anykind so what the hell are you talking about?
Had you paid attention to my postings, you would have noted that I was
making an analogy with the conception of "socialist realism".
>
> besides, how is conservative realism any worse than liberal realism or
> feminist radicalism or black punkassism?
I think I made my point already--I think that any kind of theory that
automatically eschews art for art's sake is bad. "Socialist realism",
"conservative realism", or whatever. I think that it is wonderful if
art has a political edge, and I like political movies, but I don't
think that all art necessarily has a political implication. But the
NR article defined such narrative concepts as "the hero triumphs" as
being "conservative"; this single pronouncement is such a broad
categorization of what is political in art as to make, in one fell
swoop, a huge percentage of narrative art political, and
conservatively political at that.
>political
> beliefs and made a list of films that fall under those values. hardly
> STALINIST!!! if you think stalinism consisted of making silly lists
> read up on your history again. geez.
I didn't say that this is what Stalinism is. If you read up on your
history, perhaps you will discover Stalin's views on art. Then you
can come back to this forum and discuss the subject that I brought up.
> BIG DEAL!!! 'conservative realism' indeed! as long as it's not
> shoved down our throat anything is fine. even socialist realism is
> fine and okay with me... as long the state doesn't shove it down our
> throat as the ONLY artistic approach. so calm your hysterical butt
> down, drink some water, get some air, and shut up.
Part of the objection that many people raised against the "socialist
realism" of Stalin went beyond the fact that it was shoved down
people's throat, which of course was also bad, and also included an
objection to its underlying philosophy of art, which many people
consider objectionable and absurd.
>
> the article is silly fluff. the guy said he believes in family
> values, patriotism, etc. etc. and he isn't into nihilism, narcissism,
> etc. and then he made a list. now, what is the big crime being
> perpetrated here? and furthermore, if you ever look at movies or tv,
> they ARE political! they are liberal drivel. if you really want
> politics out of cinema, then you tell the moviemaking clods to go easy
> with their stalinist liberal realism. conservatives only get to make
> lists. liberals get to make the movies, all stupid retarded
> propaganda. and you, silly cloddler, pick on a stupid list instead of
> going after the megagigantic industry that spews cultural pollution
> all over america and the world.
What I objected to was the author's philosophy of art, as briefly
expounded in the article that accompanied the list. It is interesting
that, you seem now to be agreeing with the premise that earlier in the
same posting you disagreed with, namely on the one hand you say that
lots of movies have no political implications, and now you are saying
that all movies are full of political implications (which you disagree
with). I "pick on" the list because I object to the philosophy of art
that underlies it.
>
> you're too earnest. you are a goo goo boy. all lists are silly. some
> of the picks on the list make it clear that they had some fun doing
> it. and they knew silly liberal dweebs such as yourself would get all
> upset and pee all over yourself. how true.
(more ad hominem attacks deleted)
Your use of the ad hominem phrases "you are a goo goo boy", "liberal
dweebs such as yourself", "mike v. stupidism", "stalinist mike v.",
and "that's so retarded" are duely noted duly noted and repeated here
for the benefit of all who might have skimmed over your posting and
thus missed your style of communication.
Mike
David
>Does The Nation still have Stuart Klawans as its film critic? He was pretty
>good--and certainly wouldn't produce a lameass list of great films like the
>National Review.
Incidentally, National Review's former film critic more than likely
deplores a good three-fourths of the movies on said list -- on
aesthetic as well as political grounds.
Man...An Ancient Race
> Does The Nation still have Stuart Klawans as its film critic? He was pretty
> good--and certainly wouldn't produce a lameass list of great films like the
> National Review.
he listed a chantal akerman as one of the ten greatest films of the
20th century. you tellin' me klawans is not an ideological clown?
>
> If you weren't completely a brainless slave to ideology, and totally
> intellectually dishonest to boot, you might acknowledge that the
> "conservatism" which you advocate almost as a caricature has been far from
> the most dynamic force in producing most of the world's great cinema
be that as it may but it did produce JOHN WAYNE, bub!!! could commies
ever have come up JOHN WAYNE? DIRTY HARRY? CHARLES BRONSON? you can
have your brando babbling like a baby about having coulda been a
contenda but for us patriotic red blooded americans, JOHN WAYNE
justifies the right. he was tough, he was rough but he was a
gentleman and a cool dude and knew when and how to slap a woman's
arse.
>--that
> NR list was embarrassing to anybody who loves film, including you, despite
> your transparent and wholly unsuccessful attempts to wish it away. If you
> were honest enough to acknowledge this to just yourself, you might actually
> feel conflicted between the films you proclaim great and the cartoon
> version of "conservatism" you spout ad nauseum. But this would be asking
> awfully much from the likes of you.
>
that list is no worse than film championed by leftwing critics like
the later godard idiocies, films by ackerman and greenaway, the
trashpiles of jane campion, the dungheaps of spike flea, oliver stone
at his worst(i will defend born on 4th, heaven and earth, and nixon),
garbage like thelma and louise and fried green tomatoes, when a man
loves a woman, finding forrester and other stinkheaps you love so
much.