Genghis Khan's Y Chromosome
D. Spencer Hines
encountered, whether it be human or animal."
Leslie Mahler ---- hysterical boy poster
--------------------------------------------
Not true at all.
Genghis Khan's policy was just to execute 5,000 people, no more no less, in
cities which resisted him and pile their heads ---- which transmuted into
skulls ---- in a neat pyramid at the entrance to said city.
Good Policy....
He showed them that he meant business.
Perhaps the Coalition of the Willing should follow that same policy if Baghdad
chooses to resist and brings about heavy American and British casualties. The
word would soon get about.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"L Mahler" <lma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9bb1d741.0302...@posting.google.com...
| James Dow Allen wrote:
|
| > Readers of s.g.m may be interested in last week's
| > article in the NY Times.
| >
| > According to Chris Tyler-Smith of Oxford and other
| > researchers, as many as 16 million men, located in
| > what was once the Mongol Empire, share the same Y
| > chromosome. Although no tissue samples are available
| > (he was buried at a secret location), they presume
| > it is the Y chromosome of a certain Chinggis `Temujin'
| > (1162-1227) Greatest of Rulers, Emperor of all Men.
| >
| > Those who need a paper trail for admission to the
| > ``Society of the Sons of the Golden Horde'' may have
| > trouble, as extramarital activity is needed to explain
| > this unusual genetic fact. One researcher comments
| > ``It's pretty clear what [the Mongol rulers] were
| > doing when they weren't fighting.''
|
| Remember that the Mongols tried to exterminate just about everything they
| encountered, whether it be human or animal.
|
| Certainly you would agree that the male relatives of Genghis had the same Y
| chromosome as he did. So not everyone was descended from him.
|
| Leslie
L Mahler
> encountered, whether it be human or animal."
>
> Leslie Mahler ---- hysterical boy poster
> --------------------------------------------
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Not true at all.
>
> Genghis Khan's policy was just to execute 5,000 people, no more no less, in
> cities which resisted him and pile their heads ---- which transmuted into
> skulls ---- in a neat pyramid at the entrance to said city.
>
> Good Policy....
>
> He showed them that he meant business.
>
> Perhaps the Coalition of the Willing should follow that same policy if Baghdad
> chooses to resist and brings about heavy American and British casualties. The
> word would soon get about.
Perhaps you could tell us what your source is on this.
And here are some quotes for you, from the following site:
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/dore/text3.html
"Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
"Also behind the phenomenal success of the Mongol army was the
psychological warfare they propagated by sheer savagery and terror.
Their wholesale massacres of populous cities that dared to resist the
Khan sent shock-waves throughout the land his cavalry fought to
subdue."
"The Mongols were exponents of genocide comparable in scale perhaps
only to the ancient Assyrians."
Leslie
David C Pugh
> > "Remember that the Mongols tried to exterminate just about everything
they
> > encountered, whether it be human or animal."
> >
> > Leslie Mahler ---- hysterical boy poster
> > --------------------------------------------
>
A bodged-up piece of looped software, whose existence I usually refuse to
recognise, wrote:
> > Genghis Khan's policy was just to execute 5,000 people, no more no less,
in
> > cities which resisted him and pile their heads ---- which transmuted
into
> > skulls ---- in a neat pyramid at the entrance to said city.
Bollocks.
> Perhaps you could tell us what your source is on this.
>
> And here are some quotes for you, from the following site:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/ms/dore/text3.html
>
>
> "Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
> Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
>
> "Also behind the phenomenal success of the Mongol army was the
> psychological warfare they propagated by sheer savagery and terror.
> Their wholesale massacres of populous cities that dared to resist the
> Khan sent shock-waves throughout the land his cavalry fought to
> subdue."
>
> "The Mongols were exponents of genocide comparable in scale perhaps
> only to the ancient Assyrians."
>
Good for you, Leslie. The neat pyramid thing was, I think, Timur Lenk.
Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating any
city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set figure,
they killed all adult males except artisans, and sometimes all men, women
and children except artisans.
As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was 1,300,000
plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Alex
> > "Remember that the Mongols tried to exterminate just about everything they
> > encountered, whether it be human or animal."
> >
> > Leslie Mahler ---- hysterical boy poster
> > --------------------------------------------
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> > Not true at all.
> >
> > Genghis Khan's policy was just to execute 5,000 people, no more no less, in
> > cities which resisted him and pile their heads ---- which transmuted into
> > skulls ---- in a neat pyramid at the entrance to said city.
> >
> > Good Policy....
> >
> > He showed them that he meant business.
> >
> > Perhaps the Coalition of the Willing should follow that same policy if Baghdad
> > chooses to resist and brings about heavy American and British casualties. The
> > word would soon get about.
>
>
> Perhaps you could tell us what your source is on this.
>
> And here are some quotes for you, from the following site:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/ms/dore/text3.html
Who cares what is written on the websites? Everybody can create one and
to put whatever he/she/it wants.
>
>
> "Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
> Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
IIRC, Persia was conquered by Ghengis' grandson after G's death.
The conquest was bloody but, surprisingly, a big chunk of a population
survived. OTOH, Jagatay Ulus was seriously depopulated.
In general, the contemporary statements about the area's depopulation
should be taken critically. The contemporary chronicles described Russia
as being completely destroyed by the Mongolian invasion. In practice, most
of the territory suffered very little.
>
> "Also behind the phenomenal success of the Mongol army was the
> psychological warfare they propagated by sheer savagery and terror.
Behind their success was not simply a psychological warfare but also
a brilliant organization. If you are defeated in each and every battle,
you can't exrcise too much of a "p.w."
> Their wholesale massacres of populous cities
Only very few of them.
> that dared to resist the
> Khan sent shock-waves throughout the land his cavalry fought to
> subdue."
And, with the "example" available, most of the territories surrendered
without a resistance. There was no reason to murder the people who agreed
to pay tribute.
>
> "The Mongols were exponents of genocide comparable in scale perhaps
> only to the ancient Assyrians."
Few different things mixed together.
1. Devastation of the conquered area was not something specific only to
the Mongols.
2. Ghengis established a policy of "showing an example". Practically, every
city was offered to capitualte and pay a tribute. If it refused, it would
be destroyed. Only in few recorded cases all the population was killed.
BTW, this was a rather commonplace at the time.
3. A depopulation of the conquered territories was not G's goal (it was
proposed by some of his generals during conquest of China but never accepted).
He was not a bandit interested only in an immediate plunder but a statesman
who wanted to build a powerful empire. "We conquered Empire from the saddle
but we can not govern it from the saddle".
Alex
And Ghengis Cohen (which can be a reason for the misunderstanding above)...
Seriously, making the heaps of heads was, IIRC, a rather common custom
so it's not out of question that G.K. made them as well.
But they are supossed to be Timur's trademark.
>
> Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
> supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating any
> city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set figure,
> they killed all adult males except artisans,
...and good-looking women, and the strong men who could be used for a work in
Mongolia, and the local priests, and probably the merchants who had some
trade relations with Mongolia and got Khan's paitze.
Interestingly, the peasants are rarely mentioned and they had been a
majority of a population in any country....
>and sometimes all men, women
> and children except artisans.
... And sometimes completely leveled the city, especially if there was
some special reason for him being p----d off.
>
> As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
> destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was 1,300,000
> plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
These chronicles were very free with the numbers and anything less than a
1M did not "count". It's rather questionable if there was anything close to
a million in Merv or any other city in Khwaresm. Another story is a
physical possibility of killing this number of people with the available
means. :-)
Paul J Gans
>Bollocks.
Alex has made this point many times as well. (That is,
Boston Alex. Now that we have two of them we need to
distinguish.)
While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
razed to the ground and all the citizens killed", a town
that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
soldiers who took it.
In spite of "chivalry", few fighters regard any engagement
in which they can be killed as free entertainment. The loser
pays.
Ghengis's policy doubtless saved him many lives of *his*
soldiers.
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
news:b38f58$i5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
> >supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating any
> >city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set
figure,
> >they killed all adult males except artisans, and sometimes all men, women
> >and children except artisans.
>
> > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
> >destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
1,300,000 plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
>
>
> Alex has made this point many times as well. (That is,
> Boston Alex. Now that we have two of them we need to
> distinguish.)
I'm not wedded to 1,300,000 for Merv -- but it would be nearer that than
this idiotic story of a mere 5,000 per city.
> While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
> spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
> razed to the ground and all the citizens killed", a town
> that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
> after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
> soldiers who took it.
The cities that surrendered to GK at once, the citizens had to leave and
bivouac in the plain for several days while the Mongol soldiery did the
looting. The normal thing in Europe was that the citizens stayed at home and
tried to guard their valuables and their womenfolk's virtue, no? But the
Mongols were very, very, very well-organised.
(Note to self: if Mongols are approaching, be an artisan.)
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:<ugH5a.30792$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > "L Mahler" <lma...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:9bb1d741.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Remember that the Mongols tried to exterminate just about
everything
> > they encountered, whether it be human or animal."
> > > >
> > > > Leslie Mahler ---- hysterical boy poster
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> > A bodged-up piece of looped software, whose existence I usually refuse
to
> > recognise, wrote:
> >
> > > > Genghis Khan's policy was just to execute 5,000 people, no more no
less, in cities which resisted him and pile their heads ---- which
transmuted
> > into skulls ---- in a neat pyramid at the entrance to said city.
> >
> > Bollocks.
> >
> > > "Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
> > > Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
IIRC, Persia was conquered by Ghengis' grandson after G's death.
Conquered permanently, maybe, but it was certainly *overrun and
devastated* in Genghiz' campaign, though he himself stayed north of the
Oxus -- first you had Subedei and Chepe Noyon on their razzia, then Tolui
came along behind them. I don't think they penetrated to Shiraz and Fars,
but certainly Khorasan, the Hamadan area and Azerbaijan were thoroughly
stomped on.
> > > "Also behind the phenomenal success of the Mongol army was the
> > > psychological warfare they propagated by sheer savagery and terror.
> > > Their wholesale massacres of populous cities that dared to resist the
> > > Khan sent shock-waves throughout the land his cavalry fought to
> > > subdue."
> > >
> > > "The Mongols were exponents of genocide comparable in scale perhaps
> > > only to the ancient Assyrians."
> > >
> > Good for you, Leslie. The neat pyramid thing was, I think, Timur
Lenk.
>
> And Ghengis Cohen (which can be a reason for the misunderstanding
above)...
>
> Seriously, making the heaps of heads was, IIRC, a rather common custom
> so it's not out of question that G.K. made them as well.
>
> But they are supossed to be Timur's trademark.
I haven't seen them mentioned in Juvaini yet.
> > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
> > supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating
any
> > city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set
figure,
> > they killed all adult males except artisans,
>
> ...and good-looking women, and the strong men who could be used for a work
in Mongolia, and the local priests, and probably the merchants who had some
> trade relations with Mongolia and got Khan's paitze.
The good-looking women I won't dispute, can I have some sources for
sparing of the local priests and the strong men in Mongolia please?
> Interestingly, the peasants are rarely mentioned and they had been a
> majority of a population in any country....
Not so. The devastation of Merv was accomplished in several instalments,
and there is much mention of the villages. What seemed to have happened is
that the Mongols executed all the townspeople except the artisans, whom they
took to Bokhara, and then the villagers migrated into the city, started
rebuilding, went into rebellion, a new lot of Mongols came along and
massacred *them*, and so on.
> >and sometimes all men, women
> > and children except artisans.
>
> ... And sometimes completely leveled the city, especially if there was
> some special reason for him being p----d off.
Yes, for example when his grandson was killed at Bamian he was extra
thorough, and it is probably this Leslie was thinking of:
"The Mongols made the greater haste to capture the town, and when it was
taken Chinghiz-Khan gave orders that every living creature, from mankind
down to the brute beasts, should be killed; that no prisoner should be
taken; that not even the child in its mother's womb should be spared; and
that henceforth no living creatures should dwell therein. He gave it the
name of M'au-Baligh, which means in Persian Bad Town. And to this very day
no living creature has taken up abode therein."
> >
> > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
> > destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
1,300,000
> > plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
>
> These chronicles were very free with the numbers and anything less than a
> 1M did not "count".
Actually, Alex, Juvaini is not at all extreme with the numbers. He
speaks of Mongol advance parties of hundred and even dozens, and main armies
of five thousand men. This huge figure is exceptional. FWIW, the quote is:
"Now the sayyid 'Izz ad-Din Nassaba was one of the great sayyids and
renowned for his piety and virtue. He now together with some other persons
passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within the
town. Taking into account only those that were plain to see and leaving
aside those that had been killed in holes and cavities and in the villages
and deserts, they arrived at a figure of more than one million three hundred
thousand."
It's rather questionable if there was anything close to
> a million in Merv or any other city in Khwaresm.
Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I fancy
playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually chronological
snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages having supported
such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its hinterland* of towns
and villages.
And BTW, Merv is in Khorasan not Khwaresm.
Another story is a
> physical possibility of killing this number of people with the available
> means. :-)
"They said the Wright brothers couldn't fly". The sources are very, very
specific as to how it was done:
"Soldiers and burghers were placed in separate groups; whereupon the former
were executed to a man, some by the sword and others by a shower of arrows,
while the latter were drafted into hundreds and tens. The craftsmen,
artisans and keepers of hunting animals were assigned; and the young men
amongst those remaining were pressed into the levy."
"Then all in this citadel were brought out into the open, where the Turks
were separated from the Taziks and all divided into groups of ten and a
hundred. They shaved the front of the Turks' head in the Mongol fashion to
tranquillise them and allay their fears; but when the sun had reached the
west, the day of their life drew to its close, and that night every male
Qanqli was drowned in the ocean of destruction and consumed by the fire of
perdition."
Note the tranquilliser trickery -- just like the delousing showers,
what?
"Then they drove the people out into the open; those that were artisans or
craftsmen, of whom there were more than a hundred thousand, were separated
from the rest; the children and the young women were reduced to slavery and
borne off into captivity; and the men that remained were divided among the
army, and to each fighting man fell the execution of twenty-four persons."
"Therefore Chinghiz-Khan commanded that the population of Balkh, small and
great, few and many, both men and women, should be driven out on to the
plain and divided up according to the usual custom into hundreds and
thousands to be put to the sword; and that not a trace should be left of
fresh or dry."
"The Mongols ordered that, apart from four hundred artisans whom they
specified and selected from amongst the men and some children, girls and
boys, whom they bore off into captivity, the whole population, including the
women and the children, should be killed, and no one, whether woman or man,
be spared. The people of Merv were then distributed among the soldiers and
levies, and, in short, to each man was allotted the execution of three or
four hundred persons..... A party of Mongols belonging to the rearguard then
arrived and wished to have their share of slaughter. They commanded
therefore that each person should bring a skirtful of grain out on to the
plain for the Mongols; and in this way they cast into the well of
annihilation most of those that had previously escaped. "
Note those levies -- from the already conquered cities, paying off old
scores.
Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> But they are supossed to be Timur's trademark.
: I haven't seen them mentioned in Juvaini yet.
obviously you won't find Timur in Juvaini!
Yusuf B Gursey
:> > > "Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
:> > > Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
perhaps some translations confuse "tajik" and "persian"
: IIRC, Persia was conquered by Ghengis' grandson after G's death.
: Conquered permanently, maybe, but it was certainly *overrun and
: devastated* in Genghiz' campaign, though he himself stayed north of the
: Oxus -- first you had Subedei and Chepe Noyon on their razzia, then Tolui
: came along behind them. I don't think they penetrated to Shiraz and Fars,
: but certainly Khorasan, the Hamadan area and Azerbaijan were thoroughly
: stomped on.
Khorasan yes. perhaps you are confusing the chingizid Mongols with other
turko-mongol groups that invaded iran fleeing from Chinggis.
David C Pugh
> :> But they are supossed to be Timur's trademark.
>
> : I haven't seen them mentioned in Juvaini yet.
>
> obviously you won't find Timur in Juvaini!
Don't be silly, Yusuf, we were talking about piles of skulls, not Timur.
Clue: Timur is singular, "them" is plural.
:> > > "Deliberately practicing genocide, the Mongols put to waste the
:> > > Persian towns, sparing of the vanquished only the men of trades."
perhaps some translations confuse "tajik" and "persian"
Not this one, it uses both.
: IIRC, Persia was conquered by Ghengis' grandson after G's death.
: Conquered permanently, maybe, but it was certainly *overrun and
: devastated* in Genghiz' campaign, though he himself stayed north of the
: Oxus -- first you had Subedei and Chepe Noyon on their razzia, then Tolui
: came along behind them. I don't think they penetrated to Shiraz and Fars,
: but certainly Khorasan, the Hamadan area and Azerbaijan were thoroughly
: stomped on.
Khorasan yes. perhaps you are confusing the chingizid Mongols with other
turko-mongol groups that invaded iran fleeing from Chinggis.
No I'm not. Subedei and Chepe Noyon passed through Northern Persia into
Azerbaijan and out over the Caucasus. Inter alia they were at Rayy. Not
Persia?
David
David
Yusuf B Gursey
thanks, how about that!
: No I'm not. Subedei and Chepe Noyon passed through Northern Persia into
Paul J Gans
>news:b38f58$i5$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
>> >supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating any
>> >city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set
>figure,
>> >they killed all adult males except artisans, and sometimes all men, women
>> >and children except artisans.
>>
>> > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
>> >destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
>1,300,000 plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
>>
>>
>> Alex has made this point many times as well. (That is,
>> Boston Alex. Now that we have two of them we need to
>> distinguish.)
> I'm not wedded to 1,300,000 for Merv -- but it would be nearer that than
>this idiotic story of a mere 5,000 per city.
Oh, I agree with that.
>> While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
>> spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
>> razed to the ground and all the citizens killed", a town
>> that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
>> after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
>> soldiers who took it.
> The cities that surrendered to GK at once, the citizens had to leave and
>bivouac in the plain for several days while the Mongol soldiery did the
>looting.
Nice of them to be so organized... :-)
>The normal thing in Europe was that the citizens stayed at home and
>tried to guard their valuables and their womenfolk's virtue, no? But the
>Mongols were very, very, very well-organised.
Well, the town was being besieged so they couldn't leave.
And then the siegers poured in... I suspect that they
hid the women and valuables and let the booze be easily
found.
If they had connections with the other side (artisans
and merchants often did) sometimes a grateful donation
to the folks in charge along with a pledge of alliegance
got them some guards.
> (Note to self: if Mongols are approaching, be an artisan.)
Mine is, if Mongols are approaching, be elsewhere...
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> >> While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
> >> spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
> >> razed to the ground and all the citizens killed", a town
> >> that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
> >> after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
> >> soldiers who took it.
>
> > The cities that surrendered to GK at once, the citizens had to leave
and
> >bivouac in the plain for several days while the Mongol soldiery did the
> >looting.
>
> Nice of them to be so organized... :-)
>
> >The normal thing in Europe was that the citizens stayed at home and
> >tried to guard their valuables and their womenfolk's virtue, no? But the
> >Mongols were very, very, very well-organised.
>
> Well, the town was being besieged so they couldn't leave.
Of course, but my point is that when the city surrendered, the Mongols
marched everyone out and lined them up on the plain. If they'd been nice,
then the soldiers went into an empty city -- this probably meant less rape
and murder, so paradoxically it may have been better to surrender to the
Mongols than to a European beseiger, as long as you did so very quickly and
unambiguously and didn't try to backtrack later. If they'd not been nice,
they got executed. And yes, sometimes they didn't know which they were
getting.
> > (Note to self: if Mongols are approaching, be an artisan.)
>
> Mine is, if Mongols are approaching, be elsewhere...
They can ride faster than you can run, Paul :-)
Paul J Gans
I was a track star in what is called in the US cross-country
running back when I was young. Give me a day's warning and
I'll be gone.
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> >> > (Note to self: if Mongols are approaching, be an artisan.)
> >>
> >> Mine is, if Mongols are approaching, be elsewhere...
>
> > They can ride faster than you can run, Paul :-)
>
> I was a track star in what is called in the US cross-country
> running back when I was young. Give me a day's warning and
> I'll be gone.
>
Okay, you run, I'll pretend to be a goldsmith or a saddler. And maybe
the horse will learn to sing ;-)
Alex
IIRC, they moved too fast to do some REAL damage to the area:
initiallty
they had been pursuing Khwaresm Shash and then went through Caucass to
the
Kipchack Steppes.
>then Tolui
> came along behind them. I don't think they penetrated to Shiraz and Fars,
> but certainly Khorasan, the Hamadan area and Azerbaijan were thoroughly
> stomped on.
>
> > > > "Also behind the phenomenal success of the Mongol army was the
> > > > psychological warfare they propagated by sheer savagery and terror.
> > > > Their wholesale massacres of populous cities that dared to resist the
> > > > Khan sent shock-waves throughout the land his cavalry fought to
> > > > subdue."
> > > >
> > > > "The Mongols were exponents of genocide comparable in scale perhaps
> > > > only to the ancient Assyrians."
> > > >
> > > Good for you, Leslie. The neat pyramid thing was, I think, Timur
> Lenk.
> >
> > And Ghengis Cohen (which can be a reason for the misunderstanding
> above)...
> >
> > Seriously, making the heaps of heads was, IIRC, a rather common custom
> > so it's not out of question that G.K. made them as well.
> >
> > But they are supossed to be Timur's trademark.
>
> I haven't seen them mentioned in Juvaini yet.
Which proves nothing one way or another... but, as I said, this
particular
type of an architecture was traditionally associated with Timur.
OTOH, as Ghengis Cohen noticed, heads do not scale well. :-)
>
> > > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and provided
> > > supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but exterminating
> any
> > > city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing about a set
> figure,
> > > they killed all adult males except artisans,
> >
> > ...and good-looking women, and the strong men who could be used for a work
> in Mongolia, and the local priests, and probably the merchants who had some
> > trade relations with Mongolia and got Khan's paitze.
>
> The good-looking women I won't dispute, can I have some sources for
> sparing of the local priests and the strong men in Mongolia please?
>
The priests of any faith were supossed to be exempt from the
"unpleasantries"
of war and occupation. Of course, there could be fatalities during the
sieges, etc. But afterwards they were reasonably secure and free from
taxation
(at least in Russia, where Batu supossedly followed the rules of
Yasa).
As for the strong men, try to be practical: most of the population of
any
country had been the peasants. Following the traditional "horror
history",
all of them should not be killed as not artisans. However, the raiding
practice of the later times heavily involved them as the prisoners.
Besides,
part of the Russian <call them whatever> sent as a tribute (or
courtesy) from the Golden Horde to Khubilay were not the artisans:
they served in K's
personal guard and lived by fishing (presumably K gave the land
instead of
the salary).
The terms of tribute installed by Batu stated a certain percentage of
a
population, without specifying profession. I don't think that at the
time of
his Russian Campaign Batu came with some "revolutionary" set of the
rules:
he was too young and not too powerful.
> > Interestingly, the peasants are rarely mentioned and they had been a
> > majority of a population in any country....
>
> Not so. The devastation of Merv was accomplished in several instalments,
> and there is much mention of the villages. What seemed to have happened is
> that the Mongols executed all the townspeople except the artisans, whom they
> took to Bokhara, and then the villagers migrated into the city, started
> rebuilding, went into rebellion, a new lot of Mongols came along and
> massacred *them*, and so on.
Not out of a realm of a possibility but few things should be noticed.
1st,
what the peasants would be doing in the city? They did not have
artisans'
skills and instruments and their wealth was in the agriculture. It's
quite possible that most of the people who came back had been the
earlier
city dwellers who run from the Mongols and then returned. 2nd, as I
said,
the text says nothing about extermination of the peasants (within the
original model, who would come to the city otherwise?). 3rd, the
rebellion
had to be crushed and this would explain the harsh measures (BTW, does
"so
on" mean that they keep rebuilding and rebelling until all population
of
the region had been killed? Sorry, this starts looking like a massive
exercise in a masochism and not a real life).
BTW, IIRC, Bukhara was also on the list of the "exterminated" cities,
which is kind of strange because, IIRC, it capitulated.
> > > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on the
> > > destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
> 1,300,000
> > > plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
> >
> > These chronicles were very free with the numbers and anything less than a
> > 1M did not "count".
>
> Actually, Alex, Juvaini is not at all extreme with the numbers. He
> speaks of Mongol advance parties of hundred and even dozens, and main armies
> of five thousand men. This huge figure is exceptional. FWIW, the quote is:
> "Now the sayyid 'Izz ad-Din Nassaba was one of the great sayyids and
> renowned for his piety and virtue.
I'd prefer "renowned for his skills in accounting": a little bit more
useful for the task.
>He now together with some other persons
> passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within the
> town.
.... Especially during the night....
>Taking into account only those that were plain to see
Sure. After few days, stench of the alledged number of the dead bodies
would be probably too great for anybody to be around.
>and leaving
> aside those that had been killed in holes and cavities and in the villages
> and deserts, they arrived at a figure of more than one million three hundred
> thousand."
Well, you can believe this account if you wish but, IMO, this is usual
"figure of speech" of this period.
>
> It's rather questionable if there was anything close to
> > a million in Merv or any other city in Khwaresm.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I fancy
> playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually chronological
> snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages having supported
> such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its hinterland* of towns
> and villages.
Well, according to the schema you mentioned, it was in the stages well
spaced by time (1st installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, 2nd
installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, etc.). Which means that
either the 1.3M asessment is a result of the "1st installment" only or
the whole account is a complete fantasy (as I suppose it is, "13 days
and
nights", "1.3M", any other magic numbers? :-)). So, either the initial
population of Merv was well over 1.3M: most of the city dwellers were
"artisans" (who else?) so 1.3M would ammount for the young, elderly,
sick, unlucky merchants (those without the proper connections), old
and
ugly women, and the people with the useless professions (water
carriers,
teachers, etc.). City with a population of 2M that was not even the
most important city in the area? ....
>
> And BTW, Merv is in Khorasan not Khwaresm.
AFAIK, it belonged to the state of the Khwaresmhashs (Khorasan was not
an
independent state), sorry if I was unclear. Now it's part of
Turkmenistan.
>
> Another story is a
> > physical possibility of killing this number of people with the available
> > means. :-)
>
> "They said the Wright brothers couldn't fly". The sources are very, very
> specific as to how it was done:
[snip]
Yeah, I read stuff like this. It's all very interesting and nice but
has nothing to do with the answer. How many Mongols had been present
on the scene? How many people lived in the Merv oasis? What was the
size
of the city? etc.
>
> "Then they drove the people out into the open; those that were artisans or
> craftsmen, of whom there were more than a hundred thousand,
And the rest of the city population were doing what? And how the
author
knew that there was 100K+ of the artisans? Did the Mongols report to
him?
They had to because everybody else had been alledgedly killed and
these
prisoners hardly could be reached for a trustworthy account.
> to each man was allotted the execution of three or
> four hundred persons.....
Am I supossed to believe this? IIRC, every Mongol carried two or 3
quivers
with appr 30 arrows in each. Let's say, 100 arrows. AFAIK, it's rather
difficult task to shoot 100 arrows. Even more difficult to kill a
person
with each of them. After this was accomplished, each Mongol had to
kill
200-300 people with his sword. Give me a break.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > IIRC, Persia was conquered by Ghengis' grandson after G's death.
> >
> > Conquered permanently, maybe, but it was certainly *overrun and
> > devastated* in Genghiz' campaign, though he himself stayed north of the
> > Oxus -- first you had Subedei and Chepe Noyon on their razzia,
>
> IIRC, they moved too fast to do some REAL damage to the area:
> initiallty they had been pursuing Khwaresm Shash and then went through
Caucass to the Kipchack Steppes.
Well, you can do anything with the word "real". It's like the
faith-healers: if you have real faith, you will be healed; you are not
healed, so you did not have *enough* or *real* faith.
It is true that they were in a much bigger hurry than the main forces
under Ghenghiz, Juchi, Tolui, Chagatai and so on. But they are reported as
doing a lot of massacring.
Zava -- taken by siege and massacred
Nishapur -- submits
Juvain -- submits
Tus -- submits
Radkan -- submits
Khabushan -- massacred
Damghan -- bypassed with some skirmishing
Samnan -- killing, unclear whether town taken
Khuvar -- killing, unclear whether town taken
Rayy -- submits
Hamadan -- submits
Ardabil -- taken by siege and massacred
Tabriz -- massacres
Maragha -- massacres
Nakhchivan -- massacres
(Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were getting
bored with being so nice.)
Anyway, I had the feeling that people were saying that Persia proper (as
opposed to Khorasan) wasn't affected by GK's own campaign but was left until
later, and that won't do.
> > I haven't seen them mentioned in Juvaini yet.
>
> Which proves nothing one way or another... but, as I said, this
> particular type of an architecture was traditionally associated with
Timur.
Sure. Timur is your baby, not mine. :-)
> OTOH, as Ghengis Cohen noticed, heads do not scale well. :-)
When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a guy
married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used cement. :-)
> > > > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and
provided supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but
exterminating any city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing
about a set figure, they killed all adult males except artisans,
> > >
> > > ...and good-looking women, and the strong men who could be used for a
work in Mongolia, and the local priests, and probably the merchants who had
some trade relations with Mongolia and got Khan's paitze.
> >
> > The good-looking women I won't dispute, can I have some sources for
> > sparing of the local priests and the strong men in Mongolia please?
> >
> The priests of any faith were supossed to be exempt from the
> "unpleasantries" of war and occupation.
This is in the Yasa?
Of course, there could be fatalities during the
> sieges, etc. But afterwards they were reasonably secure and free from
> taxation (at least in Russia, where Batu supossedly followed the rules of
> Yasa).
> As for the strong men, try to be practical: most of the population of
> any country had been the peasants. Following the traditional "horror
> history", > all of them should not be killed as not artisans. However, the
raiding
> practice of the later times heavily involved them as the prisoners.
Okay. Just to be awkward and as a matter of principle I'm going to argue
with you as long as I can, just to see where we get. But nicely, of course
:-)
First I'd like to say that the Khwarezm-shah's realm got the benefit of
a punitive expedition, which may have magnified the effects of GK's
established policy of sharply differentiating between towns that licked his
boots and those that didn't.
Second, it used to be written that this was a conflict between nomads
and oasis farmers, and that the Mongols simply didn't think oasis farmers
ought to exist and take up valuable grass-space --- which is where we
started, with Cain and Abel, no? So they didn't care if they killed the
whole lot of them. A final solution. This seems a bit exaggerated to me.
Among other things, Khwarezm was itself a symbiosis of the nomad and the
farmer, with the Qipchaks being the nomads and the army, and I don't see why
GK can't have thought in terms of a takeover of the "leading role" -- he'd
done the same to Wang-Khan and then the Gur-Khan. OTOH, I'm not sure to what
extent he was really thinking of permanent conquest when he set out, and if
so of how much -- Khwarezm, Transoxania, Khorasan. I'm pretty sure he wasn't
seriously expecting to hold the Indus valley.
> Besides,> part of the Russian <call them whatever> sent as a tribute (or
> courtesy) from the Golden Horde to Khubilay were not the artisans:
> they served in K's > personal guard and lived by fishing (presumably K
gave
the land > instead of> the salary).
That's interesting. Fish in what? The rivers, Baikal?
But remember, that was after the conquest of Northern China, 1220-2 was
before that conquest was a fait accompli: General Mugali was still at it.
Ergo, the Mongols were not at that point up to their eyebrows in Chinese
artisans, and I guess they wanted the ones from Turkistan.
> The terms of tribute installed by Batu stated a certain percentage of
> a> population, without specifying profession. I don't think that at the
> time of his Russian Campaign Batu came with some "revolutionary" set of
the
> rules:> he was too young and not too powerful.
This is assuming that GK and his sons conceived of what they were doing
in Khorasan as "taking tribute" from their <ulus>, as opposed to stripping
the place bare and going home. They may have changed their minds in the
process.
Juvaini says that the cities of Transoxania were let off more lightly
than annoying towns in Khorasan, which suggests that GK conceived of his new
frontier as being the Oxus, and that whatever was done in Khorasan was
looting and Schreckligkeit.
"When, therefore, he took Bokhara and Samarqand, he contented himself
with slaughtering and looting once only, and did not go to the extreme of a
general massacre. As for the adjoining territories that were subject to
these towns or bordered on them, since for the most part they tendered
submission, the hand of molestation was to some extent withheld from them.
And afterwards, the Mongols pacified the survivors and proceeded with the
work of reconstruction, so that at the present time, i.e., in 658/1259-60,
the prosperity and well-being of these districts have in some cases attained
their original level and in others have closely approached it. It is
otherwise with Khorasan and Iraq*, which countries are affected with a
hectic fever and a chronic ague: every town and every village has been
several times subjected to pillage and massacre and has suffered this
confusion for years, so that even though there be generation and increase
until the Resurrection the population will not attain to a tenth part of
what it was before."
*i.e., Persia, which in Arabic is Iraq al-'Ajam, or "barbarian Iraq", as
opposed to Mesopotamia, which is Iraq al-'Arab. (DCP)
> > > Interestingly, the peasants are rarely mentioned and they had been a
> > > majority of a population in any country....
> >
> > Not so. The devastation of Merv was accomplished in several
instalments, and there is much mention of the villages. What seemed to have
happened is that the Mongols executed all the townspeople except the
artisans, whom they took to Bokhara, and then the villagers migrated into
the city, started
> > rebuilding, went into rebellion, a new lot of Mongols came along and
> > massacred *them*, and so on.
>
> Not out of a realm of a possibility but few things should be noticed.
> 1st,> what the peasants would be doing in the city?
???? Go to Shanghai or Mexico City and ask one of several million
ex-peasants. Isn't that the course of civilisation, that peasants gravitate
to the city, become burghers, and die of urban diseases? ;-)
BTW, I'm learning from my close study of Juvaini that these cities were
both self-governing, to the same extent as those in the West, and at times
revolutionary.
"Since there was no absolute leader or governor in Jand, each man spoke
according to what in his eyes seemed right and expedient."
And "Suddenly .... a sieve-maker of Tarab in the district of Bokhara rose up
in rebellion in the dress of the people of rags." Juvaini has several pages
about this rebellion at Bokhara, which has Mahdist features.
They did not have> artisans'> skills and instruments and their wealth was in
the agriculture.
So how do we get urban artisans? Someone must have been the first to
abandon agriculture for big-city goldsmithing. Anyway, there are artisans in
villages too. Blacksmiths, farriers, wheelwrights, builders and so on.
It's> quite possible that most of the people who came back had been the
> earlier> city dwellers who run from the Mongols and then returned.
Yes yes, in the case of Merv Juvaini is clear that the city was
repopulated by both refugees from the surrounding wilderness and villagers.
2nd, as I> said,> the text says nothing about extermination of the peasants
(within the> original model, who would come to the city otherwise?).
That's right, I never said the Mongols went on a village-to-village
massacre, it would take too long. City got massacred, city got repopulated,
city received second visit and got massacred again. Like killing wasps with
a jam-jar.
3rd, the> rebellion> had to be crushed and this would explain the harsh
measures
Yes. Resisting made the Mongols pissed, and rebelling afterwards made
them even more pissed. Note difference from Western feudal practice, which
was negotiation and settlement-based.
(BTW, does> "so> on" mean that they keep rebuilding and rebelling until all
population> of> the region had been killed?
In the case of Merv, yes. I haven't finished the account yet (I copy it
into my database, see, which is how I produce these big quotes so quickly)
but there seem to have been three rounds. And it gets very complicated, with
faction-fighting between Resistance and Collaborationists, and assorted
honchos turning up from the sultan's entourage or elsewhere to lead one or
the other of the factions. And then there is the 'ulema, and the rabble, and
the Turcomans......
Sorry, this starts looking like a massive
> exercise in a masochism and not a real life).
Masochism? You mean, on the part of the refugees and villagers?
> BTW, IIRC, Bukhara was also on the list of the "exterminated" cities,
whose? Leslie's?
> which is kind of strange because, IIRC, it capitulated.
No, not strange, because the city fathers capitulated at once but the
sultan's army kept fighting from the citadel. To subdue them GK fired the
town and used the townsmen to fill in the moat -- with themselves. The
Turkish troops were then executed, the fortifications destroyed, the men of
military age impressed and the rest spared. Then this great
proletarian/peasant rebellion of the Tarabi. Under the "rules", the Mongols
should have exterminated Bokhara for that, but Mahmud Yalavach prevailed on
them not to. So it wasn't exterminated as thoroughly as Balkh or Bamian, but
it was bashed about quite a bit. Under Yalavach it recovered.
> > > > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on
the destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
> > 1,300,000 plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
> > >
> > > These chronicles were very free with the numbers and anything less
than a 1M did not "count".
> >
> > Actually, Alex, Juvaini is not at all extreme with the numbers. He
> > speaks of Mongol advance parties of hundred and even dozens, and main
armies of five thousand men. This huge figure is exceptional. FWIW, the
quote
is: "Now the sayyid 'Izz ad-Din Nassaba was one of the great sayyids and
> > renowned for his piety and virtue.
>
> I'd prefer "renowned for his skills in accounting": a little bit more
> useful for the task.
Oh, well, if you think a chartered accountant has special expertise in
counting bodies after a massacre..... I don't think that's on any college
course, though the UN or MSF might be teaching it. :-(
I mentioned in a reply to Paul that I'm not "married" to this figure,
but was deploying it against the Inexpert System's invocation of this magic
5,000 per city. Hey, split the difference and we still get 652,500! :-)
> >He now together with some other persons
> > passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within the
> > town.
>
> .... Especially during the night....
And so?
> >Taking into account only those that were plain to see
>
> Sure. After few days, stench of the alledged number of the dead bodies
> would be probably too great for anybody to be around.
Agreed. But after a longer time, when the decomposition was over, you
could count the nice shiny skulls at much less personal risk and discomfort,
unless all the dogs have buried them.
> >and leaving
> > aside those that had been killed in holes and cavities and in the
villages and deserts, they arrived at a figure of more than one million
three
hundred thousand."
>
> Well, you can believe this account if you wish but, IMO, this is usual
> "figure of speech" of this period.
No, I'm not prepared to take it as gospel, but I was just noting that
Juvaini is very sober and moderate in all OTHER figures. He does not tell us
of a Mongol army of a million, for example, like wossname did about Xerxes
(was it Herodotus?). He tells us of detachments of a couple of hundred in
skirmishes, and his biggest figure for an army is (from memory) 30,000.
So how many do *you* think they killed and why?
> > It's rather questionable if there was anything close to
> > > a million in Merv or any other city in Khwaresm.
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I
fancy playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually
chronological snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages
having
supported such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its
hinterland* of
towns and villages.
>
> Well, according to the schema you mentioned, it was in the stages well
> spaced by time (1st installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, 2nd
> installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, etc.). Which means that
> either the 1.3M asessment is a result of the "1st installment" only
No, it's a grand total.
or> the whole account is a complete fantasy (as I suppose it is, "13 days
> and> nights", "1.3M", any other magic numbers? :-)).
Well, *is* 13 a magic number to a 13th-century Persian? I don't know,
but it's an empirical question that has the possible answers "Yes", "No", or
"Nobody knows".
So, either the initial
> population of Merv was well over 1.3M: most of the city dwellers were
> "artisans" (who else?)
Proletarians? Depends what he meant by artisans. In the first
installment, they took only 400, and 400 artisans out of a (regional)
population of 1.3 million is absurd. So either the population was lower by a
factor of at least ten, or the Mongols were only interested in particular
artisans (by trade, or only the masters?), or both.
so 1.3M would ammount for the young, elderly,
> sick, unlucky merchants (those without the proper connections), old
> and> ugly women, and the people with the useless professions (water
> carriers,> teachers, etc.). City with a population of 2M that was not even
the
> most important city in the area? ....
Ah, now I got ya. "Royal Merv" was the capital of one of the four
divisions of Khorasan, and had been the capital of Sultan Sanjar.
You can challenge the 1.3 million on these other grounds, but not on
that one.
:-)
> > And BTW, Merv is in Khorasan not Khwaresm.
>
> AFAIK, it belonged to the state of the Khwaresmhashs (Khorasan was not
> an> independent state), sorry if I was unclear.
Yes, it was subject to the guy calling himself "Khwarezm-shah", who hung
out mostly at Urganch or thereabouts, but it's a quite different area :-)
Now it's part of
> Turkmenistan.
Yup. But in those days, "Persia" was considered to extend to the Oxus,
on the other side of which was "Transoxania" or Turania. Khwarezm, i.e., the
oasis where the Oxus approaches the Aral Sea, doesn't seem to have been very
important in the twelfth century. As I mentioned, the whole thing was very
unstable. There was the rather weird situation of the sultan, as Juvaini
calls him, or the Khwarezm-shah, as others do, not being in control of his
own army, which answered to his Qipchak mum, Terken-Khatun, who seems to
have been deficient in the maternal-feelings department.
> > Another story is a physical possibility of killing this number of people
with the
available means. :-)
> >
> > "They said the Wright brothers couldn't fly". The sources are very,
very specific as to how it was done:
>
> [snip]
> Yeah, I read stuff like this. It's all very interesting and nice but
> has nothing to do with the answer. How many Mongols had been present
> on the scene? How many people lived in the Merv oasis? What was the
> size of the city? etc.
Why has it nothing to do with the answer?
> > "Then they drove the people out into the open; those that were artisans
or craftsmen, of whom there were more than a hundred thousand,
>
> And the rest of the city population were doing what?
Hoping they were going outside to wait while the Mongols looted the
city, I guess. Remember that bit from another city about shaving the heads
to fool them they were going to be assimilated, just like the Nazi delousing
trick?
And how the
> author knew that there was 100K+ of the artisans? Did the Mongols report
to
> him?
You laugh, but Juvaini was actually an official of the subsequent Mongol
government.
> They had to because everybody else had been alledgedly killed and
> these prisoners hardly could be reached for a trustworthy account.
See above. No reason why young prisoners shouldn't be around a
generation later to talk to Juvaini. The artisans from Merv were taken to
Bokhara, not Karakorum.
> > to each man was allotted the execution of three or
> > four hundred persons.....
>
> Am I supossed to believe this?
I think we know you too well, Alex, to try to tell you what you are
"supposed" to believe. ;-)
IIRC, every Mongol carried two or 3> quivers> with appr 30 arrows in each.
Let's say, 100 arrows. AFAIK, it's rather> difficult task to shoot 100
arrows.
Did the text say arrows? In one place execution by both sword and "a
shower of arrows" is mentioned, but not at Merv.
Even more difficult to kill a> person> with each of them. After this was
accomplished, each Mongol had to> kill> 200-300 people with his sword. Give
me a break.
(Coming up. Neat, or on the rocks?)
So how did Richard kill his prisoners at Acre?
Can we get a research grant?
Alex
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:b39dq8$9qp$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > >> While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
> > >> spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
> > >> razed to the ground and all the citizens killed", a town
> > >> that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
> > >> after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
> > >> soldiers who took it.
>
> > > The cities that surrendered to GK at once, the citizens had to leave
> and
> > >bivouac in the plain for several days while the Mongol soldiery did the
> > >looting.
> >
> > Nice of them to be so organized... :-)
> >
> > >The normal thing in Europe was that the citizens stayed at home and
> > >tried to guard their valuables and their womenfolk's virtue, no? But the
> > >Mongols were very, very, very well-organised.
> >
> > Well, the town was being besieged so they couldn't leave.
>
> Of course, but my point is that when the city surrendered, the Mongols
> marched everyone out and lined them up on the plain.
I'm not sure that this was necessarily the routine order. In Russia
(which probably means in Central Asia as well), they routinely demanded
tribute, sometimes even before they reached the city. If tribute was
given, they may or may not enter the city and I'm not sure that there was
any plundering. To a certain degree, this would be counterproductive as
a psychological tool. Tribute AND looting? What would be the sense in asking
for tribute in the 1st place? Of course, there could be the "special cases".
>> > Mine is, if Mongols are approaching, be elsewhere...
>
> They can ride faster than you can run, Paul :-)
The proven formula was: "if Mongols are approaching, pay tribute..."
(worked very well in many cases). :-)
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > Of course, but my point is that when the city surrendered, the
Mongols
> > marched everyone out and lined them up on the plain.
>
> I'm not sure that this was necessarily the routine order. In Russia
> (which probably means in Central Asia as well), they routinely demanded
> tribute, sometimes even before they reached the city.
Yes, I think I've seen that in CA too.
If tribute was
> given, they may or may not enter the city and I'm not sure that there was
> any plundering. To a certain degree, this would be counterproductive as
> a psychological tool. Tribute AND looting? What would be the sense in
asking
> for tribute in the 1st place? Of course, there could be the "special
cases".
>
Yes, in Central Asia I'm seeing your pattern as well. City sends out a
deputation to grovel and pay tribute, Mongols appoint a shahna, ride to next
city.
I'm thinking the march-everyone-out-and-loot-the-city-in-peace is a kind
of Level 2 treatment, the above being Level 1. Level 3 is to kill everybody.
Level 4 is to kill everybody, then come back and kill them again, so they
count double ;-)
Maybe I should make a table, city by city? When I've finished Juvaini.
Alex
What about simply Alex (me) and "another Alex" for the new arrival? :-)
"Boston Alex" sounds like something from the old western and I'm not
exactly 6' gun-slinging hero (well, I'm 6' but without the six shooters).
>
> While mass executions were rare in the medieval west in
> spite of the many chronicled instances of "the town was
> razed to the ground and all the citizens killed",
AFAIK, these cheerful descriptions often had been written by the
people who lived in the alledgedly completely destroyed place.
Somehow readers rarely came with the obvious question: "How did you
manage to survive if _everybody_ was killed". BTW, in the archaic
Russia the word that is now used for a murder, meant some serious physical
damage but not necessarily a murder. If the damage was fatal, it was
clarified with a statement that in modern Russian sounds a little bit
strange: "killed to death".
>a town
> that resisted a siege was usually left open for a period
> after capture to the carnal and financial dreams of the
> soldiers who took it.
>
> In spite of "chivalry", few fighters regard any engagement
> in which they can be killed as free entertainment. The loser
> pays.
>
Speaking about a "chivalry", Gizout gave an interesting example of what
chivalry supossed to mean. Bayard (which means the best product of "c")
was wounded during the fighting in Italy and had been brought to the house
of some prominent locals.
The guard had been posted at the door so that other French would not loot
it. The family took a good care of their "guest" and eventually his wound
healed. At this point master of the house had a discussion with his wife.
Both agreed that their "guest" can, and probably will, require a ransom
from them and they even evaluated an ammount he could ask (IIRC, something
VERY substantial). They decided to be proactive and voluntarily offered
Bayard a (lesser) amount in gold. He took the money and, in a stunning
show of his chivalry (according to Guizot, the family was absolutely
overwhelmed by his act), gave part of the money to the daughters of the
family as their dowery and the rest to the wife to be distributed as a charity.
IIRC, he kept some personal presents (not the money) made by the daughters.
With this being an example of the extremely noble behavior, one can easily
imagine what was the "standard". And we are talking about the XVI century,
not XII-XIII.
> Ghengis's policy doubtless saved him many lives of *his*
> soldiers.
... Which was his primary concern after all...
Even Timur was not using all his prisoners strictly for the "architectural"
purposes. After all, he greately extended his domain and, while the
pyramides of skulls can greately improve the landscape (if you have certain
set of mind), there can be some problems in extracting the regular taxes
from these monuments (unless you are ready to convert them into a tourist
attraction, but you still have to have some locals handy to build the
hotels, serve as the guides, bus/ass/camel drivers, hotel clerks, etc.).
OTOH, the live subjects, while being less pleasing aestetically, can provide
a better source of a steady income. AFAIK, neither of Ghengises (Cohen or
Khan), nor Timur were not unaware of this aspect of life.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Of course, but my point is that when the city surrendered, the
> Mongols
> > > marched everyone out and lined them up on the plain.
> >
> > I'm not sure that this was necessarily the routine order. In Russia
> > (which probably means in Central Asia as well), they routinely demanded
> > tribute, sometimes even before they reached the city.
>
> Yes, I think I've seen that in CA too.
BTW, it looks like there was one "cultural misunderstanding" that routinely
triggered Mongolian sanctions. In Russia (and, my impression, in Khwaresmian
Empire as well) it was an acceptable practice to kill an envoy (at least
if he did not have an ambassadorial status) if he managed to displease you
with his message and/or his manners. Something like a message "send us a
better proposal". But the Mongols considered this as a deadly offense that
could not go unpunished. The result .... well, a lot of what we are currently
discussing.
>
> If tribute was
> > given, they may or may not enter the city and I'm not sure that there was
> > any plundering. To a certain degree, this would be counterproductive as
> > a psychological tool. Tribute AND looting? What would be the sense in
> asking
> > for tribute in the 1st place? Of course, there could be the "special
> cases".
> >
>
> Yes, in Central Asia I'm seeing your pattern as well. City sends out a
> deputation to grovel and pay tribute, Mongols appoint a shahna, ride to next
> city.
>
In Russia they often even did not get into the city or a princedom, just left
things as they were, except for sending IRS inspectors aka baskaks.
> I'm thinking the march-everyone-out-and-loot-the-city-in-peace is a kind
> of Level 2 treatment, the above being Level 1. Level 3 is to kill everybody.
> Level 4 is to kill everybody, then come back and kill them again, so they
> count double ;-)
>
It also can be a completely different thing (just a thought): a census.
They needed to know a size of the population to tax it properly. And the
tax was based on a headcount, not on the complicated things like an income.
In Russia they did not occupy many of the territories that acknowledged
Khan's supremacy and had to send special officials to conduct a census with
the help of a local prince. In Novgorod Prince Alexander Nevsky and the
local boyars managed to handle things with such a financial gain for
themselves that there was an upraising ... mostly against the Mongolian
baskaks (the "people's" ability to figure out who is the real enemy was
stable over the centuries).
OTOH, during the G's conquests in CA, Mongols did get to the cities so it's
not out of a real of a possibility that they simply had been counting the
future taxpayers. Of course, this would not exclude a little bit of a looting.
> Maybe I should make a table, city by city? When I've finished Juvaini.
I'll wait.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> BTW, it looks like there was one "cultural misunderstanding" that
routinely
> triggered Mongolian sanctions. In Russia (and, my impression, in
Khwaresmian
> Empire as well) it was an acceptable practice to kill an envoy (at least
> if he did not have an ambassadorial status) if he managed to displease you
> with his message and/or his manners. Something like a message "send us a
> better proposal". But the Mongols considered this as a deadly offense that
> could not go unpunished. The result .... well, a lot of what we are
currently discussing.
Interesting!
Juvaini writes:
"When the party arrived at Otrar, the governor of that town was one
Inalchuq, who was a kinsman of the Sultan's mother, Terken Khatun, and had
received the title of Ghayir-Khan. Now among the merchants was an Indian who
had been acquainted with the governor in former times. He now addressed the
latter simply as Inalchuq; and being rendered proud by reason of the power
and might of his own Khan he did not stand aloof from him nor have regard to
his own interests. On this account Ghayir-Khan became annoyed and
embarrassed; at the same time he conceived a desire for their property. He
therefore placed them under arrest, and sent a messenger to the Sultan in
Iraq to inform him about them. Without pausing to think the Sultan
sanctioned the shedding of their blood and deemed the seizure of their goods
to be lawful, not knowing that his own life would become unlawful, nay a
crime, and that the bird of his prosperity would be lopped of feather and
wing."
He then goes on about the catastrophe that resulted, but I don't see
here a very clear statement that the act was not only unwise (with 20/20
hindsight) but illegal or immoral. Do you? Wonder how Rashid ad-Din treats
it.
> In Russia they often even did not get into the city or a princedom, just
left things as they were, except for sending IRS inspectors aka baskaks.
Cities could also write to the Mongols and submit that way.
> > I'm thinking the march-everyone-out-and-loot-the-city-in-peace is a
kind of Level 2 treatment, the above being Level 1. Level 3 is to kill
everybody. Level 4 is to kill everybody, then come back and kill them again,
so
they count double ;-)
> >
>
> It also can be a completely different thing (just a thought): a census.
> OTOH, during the G's conquests in CA, Mongols did get to the cities so
it's not out of a real of a possibility that they simply had been counting
the
> future taxpayers. Of course, this would not exclude a little bit of a
looting.
Damn good suggestion. Makes intuitive sense, doesn't it?
> > Maybe I should make a table, city by city? When I've finished
Juvaini.
>
> I'll wait.
What happened to the other thread where we were arguing about Merv? My
news-server sometimes eats posts. If you're missing a reply, please repost
or mail.
Alex
>
> (Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were getting
> bored with being so nice.)
They also can be the slower thinkers. :-)
[Is Azerbaizan "Persia proper"?]
> When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a guy
> married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used cement. :-)
Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
>
> > > > > Ghenghis' policy was to spare any city that surrendered and
> provided supplies, installing a shahna or military governor, but
> exterminating any city that resisted, even briefly. And there was nothing
> about a set figure, they killed all adult males except artisans,
> > > >
> > > > ...and good-looking women, and the strong men who could be used for a
> work in Mongolia, and the local priests, and probably the merchants who had
> some trade relations with Mongolia and got Khan's paitze.
> > >
> > > The good-looking women I won't dispute, can I have some sources for
> > > sparing of the local priests and the strong men in Mongolia please?
> > >
> > The priests of any faith were supossed to be exempt from the
> > "unpleasantries" of war and occupation.
>
> This is in the Yasa?
AFAIK, yes. They should not be taxed or harmed in any way (casualties during
the sieges fall into the category "s--t happens"). In echange, they were
supossed to preach obedience to the new masters.
> Second, it used to be written that this was a conflict between nomads
> and oasis farmers, and that the Mongols simply didn't think oasis farmers
> ought to exist and take up valuable grass-space
AFAIK, this issue had been brought up during the conquest of the Northern
China with the proponents of the "nomadic way" (Subedey, IIRC) offering
to kill all these useless Chinese and create a nice pasture out of the
territory. This ecologically sensitive proposal was, unfortunately, turned
down. There is no reason to assume that it was brought again, at least on
the "theoretical" level (practice, of course, could be different).
>--- which is where we
> started, with Cain and Abel, no? So they didn't care if they killed the
> whole lot of them. A final solution. This seems a bit exaggerated to me.
> Among other things, Khwarezm was itself a symbiosis of the nomad and the
> farmer, with the Qipchaks being the nomads and the army, and I don't see why
> GK can't have thought in terms of a takeover of the "leading role" -- he'd
> done the same to Wang-Khan and then the Gur-Khan. OTOH, I'm not sure to what
> extent he was really thinking of permanent conquest when he set out, and if
> so of how much -- Khwarezm, Transoxania, Khorasan. I'm pretty sure he wasn't
> seriously expecting to hold the Indus valley.
With Ghengis' sons being actively involved in the campaigns it could also
be an issue of which territory was going to whom.
>
> > Besides,> part of the Russian <call them whatever> sent as a tribute (or
> > courtesy) from the Golden Horde to Khubilay were not the artisans:
> > they served in K's > personal guard and lived by fishing (presumably K
> gave
> the land > instead of> the salary).
>
> That's interesting. Fish in what? The rivers, Baikal?
AFAIK, the local lakes and rivers: the personal guard was supossed to be close
to "the person". :-)
>
> Juvaini says that the cities of Transoxania were let off more lightly
> than annoying towns in Khorasan, which suggests that GK conceived of his new
> frontier as being the Oxus, and that whatever was done in Khorasan was
> looting and Schreckligkeit.
Or it can be an inheritance issue. The "western" (at the moment) lands
were supossed to go to Juchi (AFAIK) and he was not on the best terms with
GK and at least some of his brothers. So why would they care?
> > >
> > > Not so. The devastation of Merv was accomplished in several
> instalments, and there is much mention of the villages. What seemed to have
> happened is that the Mongols executed all the townspeople except the
> artisans, whom they took to Bokhara, and then the villagers migrated into
> the city, started
> > > rebuilding, went into rebellion, a new lot of Mongols came along and
> > > massacred *them*, and so on.
> >
> > Not out of a realm of a possibility but few things should be noticed.
> > 1st,> what the peasants would be doing in the city?
>
> ???? Go to Shanghai or Mexico City and ask one of several million
> ex-peasants. Isn't that the course of civilisation, that peasants gravitate
> to the city, become burghers, and die of urban diseases? ;-)
A good list of the occupations, however there was a reason for the peasants
staying mostly in a countryside unless they had been expecting to get some
extra income in the city. Not sure that this was the case with Merv after
the "1st installment".
>
> > > > > As it happens I'm currently reading the Ta-rikh-i-Jahan-Gusha on
> the destruction of Merv, where the contemporary casualty estimate was
> 1,300,000 plus for that city and its hinterland alone.
> > > >
> > > > These chronicles were very free with the numbers and anything less
> than a 1M did not "count".
> > >
> > > Actually, Alex, Juvaini is not at all extreme with the numbers. He
> > > speaks of Mongol advance parties of hundred and even dozens, and main
> armies of five thousand men. This huge figure is exceptional. FWIW, the
> quote
> is: "Now the sayyid 'Izz ad-Din Nassaba was one of the great sayyids and
> > > renowned for his piety and virtue.
> >
> > I'd prefer "renowned for his skills in accounting": a little bit more
> > useful for the task.
>
> Oh, well, if you think a chartered accountant has special expertise in
> counting bodies after a massacre..... I don't think that's on any college
> course, though the UN or MSF might be teaching it. :-(
What I meant is that the piety tells nothing about the elementary ability
to count beyond ten (providing all person's fingers are in place). Actually,
the author's ability to count is also somewhat questionable. Your quotation
says that each Mongol had to kill 300-400 people. With the total of 1.3M,
this means that the city with a population close to 2M (providing there
was unbelievably high percentage of the unskilled labor) had been taken
and massacred by the Mongolian army of 3-4,000. Of course, everything is
possible but...
> > >He now together with some other persons
> > > passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within the
> > > town.
> >
> > .... Especially during the night....
>
> And so?
Very convenient time for the counting: "one, two, ... thousand!" :-)
> > Well, you can believe this account if you wish but, IMO, this is usual
> > "figure of speech" of this period.
>
> No, I'm not prepared to take it as gospel, but I was just noting that
> Juvaini is very sober and moderate in all OTHER figures.
Look at de Comnin. When he was talking about the Burgundian armies, he was
very sober and precise. OTOH, his evaluations of the sizes of English armies
were CONSIDERABLY higher.
>He does not tell us
> of a Mongol army of a million, for example, like wossname did about Xerxes
> (was it Herodotus?). He tells us of detachments of a couple of hundred in
> skirmishes, and his biggest figure for an army is (from memory) 30,000.
That's fine but the numbers of killed customarily had been high to create
a picture of a horror and annihilation.
>
> So how many do *you* think they killed and why?
Have no clue. The map of Merv in XII century would be helpful to get an
idea of how many people could live in it.
>
> > > It's rather questionable if there was anything close to
> > > > a million in Merv or any other city in Khwaresm.
> > >
> > > Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I
> fancy playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually
> chronological snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages
> having
> supported such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its
> hinterland* of
> towns and villages.
But this means that the pious man was going all around the area to do
the count.
> >
> > Well, according to the schema you mentioned, it was in the stages well
> > spaced by time (1st installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, 2nd
> > installment, return and rebuilding, rebellion, etc.). Which means that
> > either the 1.3M asessment is a result of the "1st installment" only
>
> No, it's a grand total.
>
> or> the whole account is a complete fantasy (as I suppose it is, "13 days
> > and> nights", "1.3M", any other magic numbers? :-)).
>
> Well, *is* 13 a magic number to a 13th-century Persian? I don't know,
> but it's an empirical question that has the possible answers "Yes", "No", or
> "Nobody knows".
Ok, let's put it another way. If he was able to count all of them, this means
that they were not buried. Hardly the case in the multistage scenario
(surely, at least the corpses near the city would be dealt with between the
1st and 2nd massacres).
>
> So, either the initial
> > population of Merv was well over 1.3M: most of the city dwellers were
> > "artisans" (who else?)
>
> Proletarians?
"P's" are the skilled labor. You are talking about the "lumpen proletariat".
>Depends what he meant by artisans. In the first
> installment, they took only 400, and 400 artisans out of a (regional)
> population of 1.3 million is absurd.
Yep. :-)
>So either the population was lower by a
> factor of at least ten,
how about a hundred? :-)
> or the Mongols were only interested in particular
> artisans (by trade, or only the masters?), or both.
>
> so 1.3M would ammount for the young, elderly,
> > sick, unlucky merchants (those without the proper connections), old
> > and> ugly women, and the people with the useless professions (water
> > carriers,> teachers, etc.). City with a population of 2M that was not even
> the
> > most important city in the area? ....
>
> Ah, now I got ya. "Royal Merv" was the capital of one of the four
> divisions of Khorasan, and had been the capital of Sultan Sanjar.
IIRC, Khorasan was not even an independent area, was not really big and
one of its parts does not look very important to me. BTW, by the "area"
I ment a Khwaresmian Empire.
>
> > > And BTW, Merv is in Khorasan not Khwaresm.
> >
> > AFAIK, it belonged to the state of the Khwaresmhashs (Khorasan was not
> > an> independent state), sorry if I was unclear.
>
> Yes, it was subject to the guy calling himself "Khwarezm-shah", who hung
> out mostly at Urganch or thereabouts, but it's a quite different area :-)
Following this logic, you can say that Siberia is not a part of Russia. :-)
> And how the
> > author knew that there was 100K+ of the artisans? Did the Mongols report
> to
> > him?
>
> You laugh, but Juvaini was actually an official of the subsequent Mongol
> government.
Yes, but it was later. I doubt that the account of the numbers killed ever
existed and he was to rely on a hearsay. Both the victors and the victims
tend to exaggerate the numbers of killed.
>
> > They had to because everybody else had been alledgedly killed and
> > these prisoners hardly could be reached for a trustworthy account.
>
> See above. No reason why young prisoners shouldn't be around a
> generation later to talk to Juvaini.
They would have a very vague idea about the real numbers.
> > > to each man was allotted the execution of three or
> > > four hundred persons.....
> >
> > Am I supossed to believe this?
>
> I think we know you too well, Alex, to try to tell you what you are
> "supposed" to believe. ;-)
>
> IIRC, every Mongol carried two or 3> quivers> with appr 30 arrows in each.
> Let's say, 100 arrows. AFAIK, it's rather> difficult task to shoot 100
> arrows.
>
> Did the text say arrows? In one place execution by both sword and "a
> shower of arrows" is mentioned, but not at Merv.
I'm just going through the technical possibilities based on the available
weaponry. Of course, they could order prisoners to kill each other, which
would save a lot of effort, but your quotation does not say anything about
this scenario.
>
> Even more difficult to kill a> person> with each of them. After this was
> accomplished, each Mongol had to> kill> 200-300 people with his sword. Give
> me a break.
>
> (Coming up. Neat, or on the rocks?)
Straight. :-)
>
> So how did Richard kill his prisoners at Acre?
Any references to the million being killed there?
>
> Can we get a research grant?
This would be nice.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > (Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were getting
> > bored with being so nice.)
>
> They also can be the slower thinkers. :-)
>
> [Is Azerbaizan "Persia proper"?]
I would say not.... the who-ruled-what of those highlands between
"Persia" and "Anatolia" makes disentangling the Rurikid princes seem simple.
The names are funny, "Azerbaijan" wasn't where it is now, and a lot of the
area is called "Arran". But if you start from Khorasan and go west until you
reach Azerbaijan, you've passed through what I think can reasonably called
"Persia proper", especially if you visit Hamadan.
> > When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a guy
> > married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used cement.
:-)
>
> Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
Ah! Good one. I liked what you said in another post about the pyramids
being tourist attractions. Maybe we can interest a certain entertainment
company in "Timurworld"?
> > > The priests of any faith were supossed to be exempt from the
> > > "unpleasantries" of war and occupation.
> > This is in the Yasa?
>
> AFAIK, yes. They should not be taxed or harmed in any way (casualties
during the sieges fall into the category "s--t happens"). In echange, they
were
> supossed to preach obedience to the new masters.
Ah. "Indoor work and no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry puts it.
That's a really good deal, isn't it?
> Second, it used to be written that this was a conflict between
nomads and oasis farmers, and that the Mongols simply didn't think oasis
farmers ought to exist and take up valuable grass-space
>
> AFAIK, this issue had been brought up during the conquest of the Northern
> China with the proponents of the "nomadic way" (Subedey, IIRC) offering
> to kill all these useless Chinese and create a nice pasture out of the
> territory.
That would be a good one for alt.history.what-if......
As I'm sure you know, an American called Morgenthau suggested doing it
to Germany in 1945.
This ecologically sensitive proposal
Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest disaster ever
suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
> With Ghengis' sons being actively involved in the campaigns it could also
> be an issue of which territory was going to whom.
Right, and we don't have as much information as we'd like as to what
these family feuds were really about, do we?
> >
> > > Besides,> part of the Russian <call them whatever> sent as a tribute
(or
> > > courtesy) from the Golden Horde to Khubilay were not the artisans:
> > > they served in K's > personal guard and lived by fishing (presumably K
> > gave the land > instead of> the salary).
> >
> > That's interesting. Fish in what? The rivers, Baikal?
>
> AFAIK, the local lakes and rivers: the personal guard was supossed to be
close to "the person". :-)
So whenever Khan went too far from a river, guard had nothing to eat?
;-)
> > Juvaini says that the cities of Transoxania were let off more
lightly than annoying towns in Khorasan, which suggests that GK conceived of
his
new frontier as being the Oxus, and that whatever was done in Khorasan was
> > looting and Schreckligkeit.
>
> Or it can be an inheritance issue. The "western" (at the moment) lands
> were supossed to go to Juchi (AFAIK) and he was not on the best terms with
> GK and at least some of his brothers. So why would they care?
Good point, since the devastation of Khorasan was done mostly by Tolui,
who being the youngest would inherit the homelands, no?
> > > Not out of a realm of a possibility but few things should be noticed.
> > > 1st,> what the peasants would be doing in the city?
> >
> > ???? Go to Shanghai or Mexico City and ask one of several million
> > ex-peasants. Isn't that the course of civilisation, that peasants
gravitate to the city, become burghers, and die of urban diseases? ;-)
>
> A good list of the occupations, however there was a reason for the
peasants staying mostly in a countryside unless they had been expecting to
get some extra income in the city.
If the countryside is well-populated or over-populated, and with their
qanat system it was MUCH more fertile than it is now, then you're going to
have a lot of landless people, and whenever you have that, you have them
migrating to the cities. It doesn't do any good to tell them there's no work
in the city, they come anyway. And if you kill off a lot of burghers, there
*will* be openings there. (at any rate McJobs -- burgher-flipping.)
> What I meant is that the piety tells nothing about the elementary ability
> to count beyond ten (providing all person's fingers are in place).
He obviously meant it as a proof of moral integrity, that is, not lying
about his calculation. Whether he could count is indeed a separate question,
I'll give you that. :-)
Actually,> the author's ability to count is also somewhat questionable. Your
quotation> says that each Mongol had to kill 300-400 people. With the total
of 1.3M,
This is for several instalments, and he isn't specific on how they did
the follow-ups.
this means that the city with a population close to 2M (providing there
> was unbelievably high percentage of the unskilled labor)
I think you're making assumptions about what GK considered useful
skilled labour. It is possible -- just a hypothetical example -- that all
the Mongols wanted were carpet-makers (a lot of carpets to the yurt, and
doesn't carpet-making require large, un-nomadic looms, or is that just
nowadays?) and were quite happy to execute all the goldsmiths. Or maybe they
made their own carpets and all they wanted from Merv were people who could
build siege-engines.
had been taken and massacred by the Mongolian army of 3-4,000. Of course,
everything is possible but...
I'm agnostic about that 1.3 million. I would like to believe that those
cities really were large and flourishing, if for no other reason than to
give the finger to European ethnocentrics. As the Scourge of the Bermuda
Triangle, such a motivation should elicit some sympathy from you? :-)
>
> > > >He now together with some other persons
> > > > passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within
the town.
> > >
> > > .... Especially during the night....
> >
> > And so?
>
> Very convenient time for the counting: "one, two, ... thousand!" :-)
"Sayyid! That one moved! I'm scared!"
"All right, then, we'll put them down as nine hundred ninety-nine dead,
one undead".
(Seriously, I read in a guide to Istanbul cemeteries that Muslims don't
believe in ghosties or find cemeteries creepy.)
> > No, I'm not prepared to take it as gospel, but I was just noting
that Juvaini is very sober and moderate in all OTHER figures.
>
> Look at de Comnin. When he was talking about the Burgundian armies, he was
> very sober and precise. OTOH, his evaluations of the sizes of English
armies were CONSIDERABLY higher.
Point to you.
> >He does not tell us of a Mongol army of a million, for example, like
wossname did about Xerxes (was it Herodotus?). He tells us of detachments of
a couple of hundred in skirmishes, and his biggest figure for an army is
(from memory) 30,000.
>
> That's fine but the numbers of killed customarily had been high to create
> a picture of a horror and annihilation.
True, but even discounting his million dead Mervians, I think we're
still dealing with the most horrendous disaster in the history of the region
or perhaps any region, a real Ragnarok. I mean, suppose someone tried to
suggest to an old Russian that the Great Patriotic War was not such a big
deal, because after all, one in every three Russians in the occupied
territories survived and that's quite a lot? :-/
> > > > Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I
> > fancy playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually
> > chronological snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages
> > having supported such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its
> > hinterland* of
> > towns and villages.
>
> But this means that the pious man was going all around the area to do
> the count.
So he headed up a project?
> Ok, let's put it another way. If he was able to count all of them, this
means> that they were not buried. Hardly the case in the multistage scenario
> (surely, at least the corpses near the city would be dealt with between
the> 1st and 2nd massacres).
Um. Good point.
> >So either the population was lower by a
> > factor of at least ten,
>
> how about a hundred? :-)
Nah, 13,000 is way too low for these great commercial cities. I believe
it's generally accepted that the really big medieval cities (none of which
were in the Bermuda Triangle, of course) could be up to a million or
more --- Constantinople, Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba (?) and several in China.
> > Ah, now I got ya. "Royal Merv" was the capital of one of the four
> > divisions of Khorasan, and had been the capital of Sultan Sanjar.
>
> IIRC, Khorasan was not even an independent area, was not really big
about the size of Ukraine?
and> one of its parts does not look very important to me.
How "big" were Venice and Flanders?
> > Yes, it was subject to the guy calling himself "Khwarezm-shah", who
hung out mostly at Urganch or thereabouts, but it's a quite different area
:-)
>
> Following this logic, you can say that Siberia is not a part of Russia.
:-)
Following your logic, then the creation of the EU with capital at
Bruxelles means that Milan is in Belgium :-)
And if some Siberian warlord ruled Russia from Irkutsk, would that mean
the destruction of Moscow was not important? :-)
> > You laugh, but Juvaini was actually an official of the subsequent
Mongol government.
>
> Yes, but it was later. I doubt that the account of the numbers killed ever
> existed and he was to rely on a hearsay. Both the victors and the victims
> tend to exaggerate the numbers of killed.
Fair enough. Only the Nazis ever kept audited accounts of their
victims.....
> > > They had to because everybody else had been alledgedly killed and
> > > these prisoners hardly could be reached for a trustworthy account.
> >
> > See above. No reason why young prisoners shouldn't be around a
> > generation later to talk to Juvaini.
> They would have a very vague idea about the real numbers.
True, but they were there and you and I weren't. :-)
> > IIRC, every Mongol carried two or 3> quivers> with appr 30 arrows in
each. Let's say, 100 arrows. AFAIK, it's rather> difficult task to shoot 100
> > arrows.
I forgot to say, no, it was possible, because each of the arrows could
hit several targets. They were MERV'ed. <ducks and covers>
> > Did the text say arrows? In one place execution by both sword and "a
> > shower of arrows" is mentioned, but not at Merv.
>
> I'm just going through the technical possibilities based on the available
> weaponry. Of course, they could order prisoners to kill each other, which
> would save a lot of effort, but your quotation does not say anything about
> this scenario.
No, nor does anything else that I've read in Juvaini as yet. But I have
read accounts of prisoner massacres (can't remember where or when) being
done in this way.
> > So how did Richard kill his prisoners at Acre?
>
> Any references to the million being killed there?
No, of course not.
Baha' ad-Din says: "Then they brought up the Muslim prisoners whose
martyrdom God had ordained, more than 3000 men in chains. They fell on
them as one man and slaughtered them in cold blood, with sword and
lance."
That's one way to do it, have them chained beforehand and then hack
away.
I don't have the _Itinerarium_, alas.
> > Can we get a research grant?
>
> This would be nice.
I don't think you and I would agree on who the subjects should be. In
fact, if we start talking politics, we would end up in one another's sample.
Weird experiment design, that. :-)
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > (Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were getting
> > > bored with being so nice.)
> >
> > They also can be the slower thinkers. :-)
> >
> > [Is Azerbaizan "Persia proper"?]
>
> I would say not.... the who-ruled-what of those highlands between
> "Persia" and "Anatolia" makes disentangling the Rurikid princes seem simple.
> The names are funny, "Azerbaijan" wasn't where it is now, and a lot of the
> area is called "Arran". But if you start from Khorasan and go west until you
> reach Azerbaijan, you've passed through what I think can reasonably called
> "Persia proper", especially if you visit Hamadan.
OK, Ispahan is Persia proper while Derbent probably was not. Of course,
everything had been made more complicated by the Russian conquests of the
XVIII-XIX that made parts of Azerbaijan and Armenia belonging to the different
states.
>
> > > When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a guy
> > > married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used cement.
> :-)
> >
> > Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
>
> Ah! Good one. I liked what you said in another post about the pyramids
> being tourist attractions. Maybe we can interest a certain entertainment
> company in "Timurworld"?
It may be found politically incorrect but, with a proper spin, an
environmentalistic aspect of Timur's activities can be vrought to the
front light: ... these pyramides not only greately improved a local
landscape (and inspired at least one famous painting) but also helped to
preserve a vulnerable environment and to save some of the local endangered
spieces from being eated/killed by the environmentally-incensitive locals
(followed the list which may include the local mosquitos, snakes, scorpions,
etc.)
>
> > > > The priests of any faith were supossed to be exempt from the
> > > > "unpleasantries" of war and occupation.
>
> > > This is in the Yasa?
> >
> > AFAIK, yes. They should not be taxed or harmed in any way (casualties
> during the sieges fall into the category "s--t happens"). In echange, they
> were
> > supossed to preach obedience to the new masters.
>
> Ah. "Indoor work and no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry puts it.
Is his "sainthood" of the same category as a "Divine Wisdom" mentioned
elsewhere?
>
> That's a really good deal, isn't it?
AFAIK, the russian Church was quite loyal until the Great Princedom
of Moscow picked up enough steam to start quarrel with the Horde. Only
at this point the Church's attitude changed to the preaching the fight
against the infidels (Muslims, by this time).
>
> > Second, it used to be written that this was a conflict between
> nomads and oasis farmers, and that the Mongols simply didn't think oasis
> farmers ought to exist and take up valuable grass-space
> >
> > AFAIK, this issue had been brought up during the conquest of the Northern
> > China with the proponents of the "nomadic way" (Subedey, IIRC) offering
> > to kill all these useless Chinese and create a nice pasture out of the
> > territory.
>
> That would be a good one for alt.history.what-if......
>
> As I'm sure you know, an American called Morgenthau suggested doing it
> to Germany in 1945.
Well, all things considering, this would put him close to being Ghengis
Cohen. :-)
>
> This ecologically sensitive proposal
>
> Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest disaster ever
> suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
>
You got it. :-)
> > With Ghengis' sons being actively involved in the campaigns it could also
> > be an issue of which territory was going to whom.
>
> Right, and we don't have as much information as we'd like as to what
> these family feuds were really about, do we?
Well, G definitely disliked Juchi (perhaps suspected his parentage, does not
really matter). Juchi's domain (or rather domain of his sons) was vagualy
defined as Siberia and all (still unconquered) lands to the West but at
the time of the campaign in CA, it could/should be different. So, why
Juchi's brothers care about preserving the lands that are supossed to go
to their (not really beloved) brother?
>
> > >
> > > > Besides,> part of the Russian <call them whatever> sent as a tribute
> (or
> > > > courtesy) from the Golden Horde to Khubilay were not the artisans:
> > > > they served in K's > personal guard and lived by fishing (presumably K
> > > gave the land > instead of> the salary).
> > >
> > > That's interesting. Fish in what? The rivers, Baikal?
> >
> > AFAIK, the local lakes and rivers: the personal guard was supossed to be
> close to "the person". :-)
>
> So whenever Khan went too far from a river, guard had nothing to eat?
> ;-)
Well, I was talking about the peacetime arrangements. These guys had to
support themselves and their families. During the wars or Khubilay's
travels their arrangements were probably the same as for the rest of
Khan's retinue/army.
> If the countryside is well-populated or over-populated, and with their
> qanat system it was MUCH more fertile than it is now,
After decades of the Soviet-style experimenting? Easily to believe.
>then you're going to
> have a lot of landless people, and whenever you have that, you have them
> migrating to the cities. It doesn't do any good to tell them there's no work
> in the city, they come anyway.
Of course, this is a feasible scenario for the functioning city but
perhaps less feasible for the destroyed one.
>And if you kill off a lot of burghers, there
> *will* be openings there. (at any rate McJobs -- burgher-flipping.)
This can be a motivation but "openings" in what? You have to have either
initial capital or some skill to start a business and most of the landless
people have neither: they can live off the existing city structure but
it's more difficult for them to start city from the scratch. What I'm saying,
is there should be some functioning nucleus (probably made of the survivors).
>
> > What I meant is that the piety tells nothing about the elementary ability
> > to count beyond ten (providing all person's fingers are in place).
>
> He obviously meant it as a proof of moral integrity, that is, not lying
> about his calculation. Whether he could count is indeed a separate question,
> I'll give you that. :-)
I see. OK, we have an understanding. :-)
[Scenario of the "honest idiot" being assigned to the job is too frequent
to be ignored.]
>
> Actually,> the author's ability to count is also somewhat questionable. Your
> quotation> says that each Mongol had to kill 300-400 people. With the total
> of 1.3M,
>
> This is for several instalments, and he isn't specific on how they did
> the follow-ups.
>
The body-counting procedure (if it ever happened) gives an impression that
there was one-time event. Otherwise it would be rather difficult to do
all this counting unless they followed your scenario of the (literal)
head count (some problems would be encoutered even with it).
> this means that the city with a population close to 2M (providing there
> > was unbelievably high percentage of the unskilled labor)
>
> I think you're making assumptions about what GK considered useful
> skilled labour.
AFAIK, there was a massive construction/production going in Karakorum.
Based on the more "accessible" example of the Golden Horde, there was a
need in the construction workers, stone cutters, masons (not the free m's),
wood workers, craftsmen capable to produce various luxury articles and
those for the everyday usage: Mongols had a very limited range of the
things they could produce themselves and with the Empire the new tastes
and requirements are coming.
An "unskilled" strong slave still can be useful for many other tasks.
> It is possible -- just a hypothetical example -- that all
> the Mongols wanted were carpet-makers (a lot of carpets to the yurt, and
> doesn't carpet-making require large, un-nomadic looms, or is that just
> nowadays?) and were quite happy to execute all the goldsmiths.
Hey, not THOSE!
>Or maybe they
> made their own carpets and all they wanted from Merv were people who could
> build siege-engines.
>
I think that they were going for a wide range of the specialities.
> had been taken and massacred by the Mongolian army of 3-4,000. Of course,
> everything is possible but...
>
> I'm agnostic about that 1.3 million. I would like to believe that those
> cities really were large and flourishing, if for no other reason than to
> give the finger to European ethnocentrics.
Can we build some nice pyramide out of THEIR skulls?
>As the Scourge of the Bermuda
> Triangle, such a motivation should elicit some sympathy from you? :-)
Sure. As long as you are out of the "million" range and as long as
your intentions are dishonest, you can expect my complete understanding
and sympathy. :-)
>
> >
> > > > >He now together with some other persons
> > > > > passed thirteen days and nights in counting the people slain within
> the town.
> > > >
> > > > .... Especially during the night....
> > >
> > > And so?
> >
> > Very convenient time for the counting: "one, two, ... thousand!" :-)
>
> "Sayyid! That one moved! I'm scared!"
> "All right, then, we'll put them down as nine hundred ninety-nine dead,
> one undead".
... And one rock suddenly raised and, grabbed one of the counters and
used him to hit the other counters.... and there was some terrifying
howling nearby....
"All right, all right! There was a million of them, just let us get the
hell out of there!"
>
> (Seriously, I read in a guide to Istanbul cemeteries that Muslims don't
> believe in ghosties or find cemeteries creepy.)
This was not exactly the cemetry....
>
> > > No, I'm not prepared to take it as gospel, but I was just noting
> that Juvaini is very sober and moderate in all OTHER figures.
> >
> > Look at de Comnin. When he was talking about the Burgundian armies, he was
> > very sober and precise. OTOH, his evaluations of the sizes of English
> armies were CONSIDERABLY higher.
>
> Point to you.
>
> > >He does not tell us of a Mongol army of a million, for example, like
> wossname did about Xerxes (was it Herodotus?). He tells us of detachments of
> a couple of hundred in skirmishes, and his biggest figure for an army is
> (from memory) 30,000.
> >
> > That's fine but the numbers of killed customarily had been high to create
> > a picture of a horror and annihilation.
>
> True, but even discounting his million dead Mervians, I think we're
> still dealing with the most horrendous disaster in the history of the region
> or perhaps any region, a real Ragnarok.
Quite possible. I remember some references to the Jagatay Ulus being turned
in a desert/steppe-like condition with the city life almost extinct.
> > > > > Maybe, maybe not. We've been here before with the numbers, and I
> > > fancy playing Devil's advocate and suggesting that it is actually
> > > chronological snobbery on our part, that we cannot conceive of past ages
> > > having supported such large populations. Anyway, I did say Merv *and its
> > > hinterland* of
> > > towns and villages.
> >
> > But this means that the pious man was going all around the area to do
> > the count.
>
> So he headed up a project?
>
> > Ok, let's put it another way. If he was able to count all of them, this
> means> that they were not buried. Hardly the case in the multistage scenario
> > (surely, at least the corpses near the city would be dealt with between
> the> 1st and 2nd massacres).
>
> Um. Good point.
>
> > >So either the population was lower by a
> > > factor of at least ten,
> >
> > how about a hundred? :-)
>
> Nah, 13,000 is way too low for these great commercial cities.
13K - 20K killed would be just fine as a big percentage of a population
and a number that a reasonably small Mongolian army would be able to kill
without any technical problems.
>I believe
> it's generally accepted that the really big medieval cities (none of which
> were in the Bermuda Triangle, of course) could be up to a million or
> more --- Constantinople,
IIRC, it was considerably smaller.
>Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba (?)
Somehow I don't think so. Just an impression.
> and several in China.
IIRC, there were appr 50M Chinese at the time so this is not impossible
but hardly "several". OTOH, who ever was able to count Chinese?
>
> > > Ah, now I got ya. "Royal Merv" was the capital of one of the four
> > > divisions of Khorasan, and had been the capital of Sultan Sanjar.
> >
> > IIRC, Khorasan was not even an independent area, was not really big
>
> about the size of Ukraine?
Desert being a big part of it? Merv, AFAIK, was located in an oasis.
>
> and> one of its parts does not look very important to me.
>
> How "big" were Venice and Flanders?
>
Probably not too big.
> > > Yes, it was subject to the guy calling himself "Khwarezm-shah", who
> hung out mostly at Urganch or thereabouts, but it's a quite different area
> :-)
> >
> > Following this logic, you can say that Siberia is not a part of Russia.
> :-)
>
> Following your logic, then the creation of the EU with capital
Is EU a single state?
>at
> Bruxelles means that Milan is in Belgium :-)
>
You are suffering from the luck of imagination: according to the Beligians,
Israel and US are also parts of this mighty state or at least its vassals. :-)
> And if some Siberian warlord ruled Russia from Irkutsk, would that mean
> the destruction of Moscow was not important? :-)
Well, the loss of Kiev proved to be unimportant. :-)
>
> > > You laugh, but Juvaini was actually an official of the subsequent
> Mongol government.
> >
> > Yes, but it was later. I doubt that the account of the numbers killed ever
> > existed and he was to rely on a hearsay. Both the victors and the victims
> > tend to exaggerate the numbers of killed.
>
> Fair enough. Only the Nazis ever kept audited accounts of their
> victims.....
Not to a satisfactory degree. When filling the emigration papers to leave
SU, my father (then in mid-80's) had been asked to bring a consent from
his father or an official certificat of his death. It took a while to
convince the beurocratist that the Nazies did not provide such a certificat
(and, in general, were not around anymore). This much for a German accuracy.
>
> > > > They had to because everybody else had been alledgedly killed and
> > > > these prisoners hardly could be reached for a trustworthy account.
> > >
> > > See above. No reason why young prisoners shouldn't be around a
> > > generation later to talk to Juvaini.
>
> > They would have a very vague idea about the real numbers.
>
> True, but they were there and you and I weren't. :-)
"lie as an eyewitness"? :-)
>
> > > IIRC, every Mongol carried two or 3> quivers> with appr 30 arrows in
> each. Let's say, 100 arrows. AFAIK, it's rather> difficult task to shoot 100
> > > arrows.
>
> I forgot to say, no, it was possible, because each of the arrows could
> hit several targets. They were MERV'ed. <ducks and covers>
Machine guns? After all Hollywood provided GK with the artillery in the
movie.
>
> > > Did the text say arrows? In one place execution by both sword and "a
> > > shower of arrows" is mentioned, but not at Merv.
> >
> > I'm just going through the technical possibilities based on the available
> > weaponry. Of course, they could order prisoners to kill each other, which
> > would save a lot of effort, but your quotation does not say anything about
> > this scenario.
>
> No, nor does anything else that I've read in Juvaini as yet. But I have
> read accounts of prisoner massacres (can't remember where or when) being
> done in this way.
>
> > > So how did Richard kill his prisoners at Acre?
> >
> > Any references to the million being killed there?
>
> No, of course not.
>
> Baha' ad-Din says: "Then they brought up the Muslim prisoners whose
> martyrdom God had ordained, more than 3000 men in chains. They fell on
> them as one man and slaughtered them in cold blood, with sword and
> lance."
Exactly my point. I'm not against a bloodshed when it is of a reasonable
proportion. :-)
>
> That's one way to do it, have them chained beforehand and then hack
> away.
>
It's much easier. You arrange them in the columns. Then you should give
the 2nd man in each column a stone. He kicks the man in front of him on
the head and passes a stone to the person behind him. Zero expenses, almost
zero attrition of the guards, just a little bit of a good management.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > (Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were
getting bored with being so nice.)
> > >
> > > They also can be the slower thinkers. :-)
> > >
> > > [Is Azerbaizan "Persia proper"?]
> >
> > I would say not.... the who-ruled-what of those highlands between
> > "Persia" and "Anatolia" makes disentangling the Rurikid princes seem
simple. The names are funny, "Azerbaijan" wasn't where it is now, and a lot
of
the area is called "Arran". But if you start from Khorasan and go west until
you reach Azerbaijan, you've passed through what I think can reasonably
called "Persia proper", especially if you visit Hamadan.
>
> OK, Ispahan is Persia proper while Derbent probably was not.
The one in Dagestan? No way.
Of course, everything had been made more complicated by the Russian
conquests of theXVIII-XIX that made parts of Azerbaijan and Armenia
belonging to thedifferent
> states.
Yes, in a way the republic of Azerbaijan is only half the geographical
area, though I am reliably informed that the Azeris of Iran have no burning
desire for union with their "brothers".
> >
When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a
guy married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used
cement.
> > :-)
> > > Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
> >
> > Ah! Good one. I liked what you said in another post about the
pyramids being tourist attractions. Maybe we can interest a certain
entertainment
> > company in "Timurworld"?
>
> It may be found politically incorrect but, with a proper spin, an
> environmentalistic aspect of Timur's activities can be vrought to the
> front light: ... these pyramides not only greately improved a local
> landscape (and inspired at least one famous painting)
It did? Is there a URL for it?
> > > AFAIK, yes. They should not be taxed or harmed in any way (casualties
> > during the sieges fall into the category "s--t happens"). In echange,
they were supossed to preach obedience to the new masters.
> >
> > Ah. "Indoor work and no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry puts it.
>
> Is his "sainthood" of the same category as a "Divine Wisdom" mentioned
> elsewhere?
I think it ought to be. "Sophos" isn't an English forename, alas --
though the reading room in the University of Oslo history/social science
department is named for a guy called Sophus Bugge.......
> > As I'm sure you know, an American called Morgenthau suggested doing
it to Germany in 1945.
>
> Well, all things considering, this would put him close to being Ghengis
> Cohen. :-)
Sounds like something a reenactor would bring to the battle of
Bbbbbbbbburn. Trumps the morgenstierne and devastates the enemy camp. :-)
> > This ecologically sensitive proposal
> >
> > Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest disaster
ever suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
> >
>
> You got it. :-)
Yes, I have, but I really mean it as well :-)
> Well, G definitely disliked Juchi (perhaps suspected his parentage, does
not> really matter).
Yes, the Börte kidnapping affair.
Juchi's domain (or rather domain of his sons) was vagualy
> defined as Siberia and all (still unconquered) lands to the West but at
> the time of the campaign in CA, it could/should be different. So, why
> Juchi's brothers care about preserving the lands that are supossed to go
> to their (not really beloved) brother?
I heard something about this thing with Juchi being a quarrel with
Chagatai over the siege of Djend. Juchi wanted a "hearts and minds"
approach, which tends to rely for success on leaving people their
bodies.......
> > If the countryside is well-populated or over-populated, and with
their qanat system it was MUCH more fertile than it is now,
>
> After decades of the Soviet-style experimenting? Easily to believe.
On the Turkmen side, yeah, we know what cotton monoculture has done :-(
Doesn't apply to the Persian side, AFAIK.
But I meant a division of history into two phases --- flourishing,
qanat-based agriculture, and post-Mongol desertification.
> >then you're going to
> > have a lot of landless people, and whenever you have that, you have them
> > migrating to the cities. It doesn't do any good to tell them there's no
work in the city, they come anyway.
>
> Of course, this is a feasible scenario for the functioning city but
> perhaps less feasible for the destroyed one.
So perhaps the very fact that the peasants immigrated to Merv in the wake
of Phase One meant that the destruction left them something worth
immigrating to.
> >And if you kill off a lot of burghers, there
> > *will* be openings there. (at any rate McJobs -- burgher-flipping.)
>
> This can be a motivation but "openings" in what? You have to have either
> initial capital or some skill to start a business and most of the landless
> people have neither: they can live off the existing city structure but
> it's more difficult for them to start city from the scratch.
You're sounding as if you want the peasants in a Catch-22. But there was
no Soviet bureaucracy then. I'm sure that millions of people have started
out as pedlars, water-carriers and so forth and worked up. All you need is
arbitrage: find something valuable a distance from people who want it, and
take it there :-)
And the big stupid ones get to be bodyguards :-)
What I'm saying,> is there should be some functioning nucleus (probably made
of the survivors).
I've just finished the Merv chapter now, and it's weird -- after Phases
Three and Four, when there was no one left alive in the region, he mentions
a group of Indian merchants who had been resident there for ten years. They
seem to have lived through all this! Grist to your mill.
> The body-counting procedure (if it ever happened) gives an impression that
> there was one-time event. Otherwise it would be rather difficult to do
> all this counting unless they followed your scenario of the (literal)
> head count (some problems would be encoutered even with it).
Yes, there's a contradiction here.
> AFAIK, there was a massive construction/production going in Karakorum.
> Based on the more "accessible" example of the Golden Horde, there was a
> need in the construction workers, stone cutters, masons (not the free
m's),
> wood workers, craftsmen capable to produce various luxury articles and
> those for the everyday usage: Mongols had a very limited range of the
> things they could produce themselves and with the Empire the new tastes
> and requirements are coming.
> An "unskilled" strong slave still can be useful for many other tasks.
I wonder if the locals, coming back and finding all these folks dragged
off to Karakorum, counted them as killed?
> > I'm agnostic about that 1.3 million. I would like to believe that
those cities really were large and flourishing, if for no other reason than
to
> > give the finger to European ethnocentrics.
>
> Can we build some nice pyramide out of THEIR skulls?
Don't need cement, though -- the density will hold them in place.
> >As the Scourge of the Bermuda
> > Triangle, such a motivation should elicit some sympathy from you? :-)
>
> Sure. As long as you are out of the "million" range and as long as
> your intentions are dishonest, you can expect my complete understanding
> and sympathy. :-)
<bows>
I'm prepared to leave the million range for Merv, but for the whole of
the region, I still think the casualties could have been in the millions.
Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of 1997? A
Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think living in
Australia? It got very nasty.
> > "Sayyid! That one moved! I'm scared!"
> > "All right, then, we'll put them down as nine hundred ninety-nine
dead, one undead".
>
> ... And one rock suddenly raised and, grabbed one of the counters and
> used him to hit the other counters.... and there was some terrifying
> howling nearby....
Ah, you mean they were all buried under the Detritus?
> > True, but even discounting his million dead Mervians, I think we're
> > still dealing with the most horrendous disaster in the history of the
region or perhaps any region, a real Ragnarok.
>
> Quite possible. I remember some references to the Jagatay Ulus being
turned in a desert/steppe-like condition with the city life almost extinct.
The same was said of Chernigov in the 1150s, wasn't it? A lot of the
Russian-Ukrainian ethnogenesis row turns on whether the Dasht-e Kipchak
(wink) was emptied of people and recolonised later, or whether there were
Rus' there all along to give continuity. No?
> > Nah, 13,000 is way too low for these great commercial cities.
>
> 13K - 20K killed would be just fine as a big percentage of a population
> and a number that a reasonably small Mongolian army would be able to kill
> without any technical problems.
That would be a casualty rate of about a fifth of the minimum wild
estimate I'd be prepared to accept for the prewar population. You're
thinking that about two-thirds were carted off to Karakorum?
> >I believe it's generally accepted that the really big medieval cities
(none of
which were in the Bermuda Triangle, of course) could be up to a million or
> > more --- Constantinople,
>
> IIRC, it was considerably smaller.
No, don't think so.
> >Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba (?)
>
> Somehow I don't think so. Just an impression.
And my opposite impression.
> > and several in China.
>
> IIRC, there were appr 50M Chinese at the time so this is not impossible
> but hardly "several".
Well, Ka'i-feng was supposed to be much bigger than anything in the West
or Muslim world. Lo-yang comes to mind as well.
> > And if some Siberian warlord ruled Russia from Irkutsk, would that
mean the destruction of Moscow was not important? :-)
>
> Well, the loss of Kiev proved to be unimportant. :-)
Just think of the lower number of corrupt apparatchiks you have to deal
with now. ;-)
> Not to a satisfactory degree. When filling the emigration papers to leave
> SU, my father (then in mid-80's) had been asked to bring a consent from
> his father
!!! Sounds like something out of Voinovich.
> > I forgot to say, no, it was possible, because each of the arrows
could hit several targets. They were MERV'ed. <ducks and covers>
>
> Machine guns? After all Hollywood provided GK with the artillery in the
> movie.
"Men in Tights"?
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > (Either the Azeris were bigger resisters or the Mongols were
> getting bored with being so nice.)
> > > >
> > > > They also can be the slower thinkers. :-)
> > > >
> > > > [Is Azerbaizan "Persia proper"?]
> > >
> > > I would say not.... the who-ruled-what of those highlands between
> > > "Persia" and "Anatolia" makes disentangling the Rurikid princes seem
> simple. The names are funny, "Azerbaijan" wasn't where it is now, and a lot
> of
> the area is called "Arran". But if you start from Khorasan and go west until
> you reach Azerbaijan, you've passed through what I think can reasonably
> called "Persia proper", especially if you visit Hamadan.
> >
> > OK, Ispahan is Persia proper while Derbent probably was not.
>
> The one in Dagestan? No way.
However, at certain point (IIRC) it belonged to Persia. More or less.
>
> Of course, everything had been made more complicated by the Russian
> conquests of theXVIII-XIX that made parts of Azerbaijan and Armenia
> belonging to thedifferent
> > states.
>
> Yes, in a way the republic of Azerbaijan is only half the geographical
> area, though I am reliably informed that the Azeris of Iran have no burning
> desire for union with their "brothers".
Well, one can expect that situation in today's Azerbaijan is even worse
than in Iran but I doubt that Iranian Azeries had been EVER really asked.
>
> > >
> When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a
> guy married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used
> cement.
> > > :-)
> > > > Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
> > >
> > > Ah! Good one. I liked what you said in another post about the
> pyramids being tourist attractions. Maybe we can interest a certain
> entertainment
> > > company in "Timurworld"?
> >
> > It may be found politically incorrect but, with a proper spin, an
> > environmentalistic aspect of Timur's activities can be vrought to the
> > front light: ... these pyramides not only greately improved a local
> > landscape (and inspired at least one famous painting)
>
> It did?
You did not know?
> Is there a URL for it?
Almost definitely but I don't know it. You can make a search on the Russian
sites. The name is "Apotheosys of War" by Vereschagin. AFAIK, it was
reproduced on the cover of some book about the Mongols (or nomads in general?)
with another popular Russian painting (none of them having anything to do
with GK) and I had a long argument with David Read about their relevance to
the subject.
>
> > > > AFAIK, yes. They should not be taxed or harmed in any way (casualties
> > > during the sieges fall into the category "s--t happens"). In echange,
> they were supossed to preach obedience to the new masters.
> > >
> > > Ah. "Indoor work and no heavy lifting", as Saint Terry puts it.
> >
> > Is his "sainthood" of the same category as a "Divine Wisdom" mentioned
> > elsewhere?
>
> I think it ought to be.
Maybe "Holy" is more appropriate? Sounds better to me.
>
> > > This ecologically sensitive proposal
> > >
> > > Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest disaster
> ever suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
> > >
> >
> > You got it. :-)
>
> Yes, I have, but I really mean it as well :-)
You can show an example by swithcing back to the hunting and food gathering.
I'm doing the last part (in the supermarket) as my contribution to the
ecological improvement of a planet.
>
> > Well, G definitely disliked Juchi (perhaps suspected his parentage, does
> not> really matter).
>
> Yes, the Börte kidnapping affair.
>
> Juchi's domain (or rather domain of his sons) was vagualy
> > defined as Siberia and all (still unconquered) lands to the West but at
> > the time of the campaign in CA, it could/should be different. So, why
> > Juchi's brothers care about preserving the lands that are supossed to go
> > to their (not really beloved) brother?
>
> I heard something about this thing with Juchi being a quarrel with
> Chagatai over the siege of Djend. Juchi wanted a "hearts and minds"
> approach, which tends to rely for success on leaving people their
> bodies.......
There are definite disadvantages in this approach, like potential rebellions
and a need to spend time on administration (instead of ecologically friendly
activities like hunting and killing even more farmers).
IIRC, Chagatai used the ... er.... alternative approach in his Ulus and
saved a lot of mosquitos, tarantulas, etc.
>
> > > If the countryside is well-populated or over-populated, and with
> their qanat system it was MUCH more fertile than it is now,
> >
> > After decades of the Soviet-style experimenting? Easily to believe.
>
> On the Turkmen side, yeah, we know what cotton monoculture has done :-(
>
>
The same for Uzbeks.
> Doesn't apply to the Persian side, AFAIK.
>
> But I meant a division of history into two phases --- flourishing,
> qanat-based agriculture, and post-Mongol desertification.
Too scientofic for me.
>
> > >then you're going to
> > > have a lot of landless people, and whenever you have that, you have them
> > > migrating to the cities. It doesn't do any good to tell them there's no
> work in the city, they come anyway.
> >
> > Of course, this is a feasible scenario for the functioning city but
> > perhaps less feasible for the destroyed one.
>
> So perhaps the very fact that the peasants immigrated to Merv in the wake
> of Phase One meant that the destruction left them something worth
> immigrating to.
Indeed.
>
> > >And if you kill off a lot of burghers, there
> > > *will* be openings there. (at any rate McJobs -- burgher-flipping.)
> >
> > This can be a motivation but "openings" in what? You have to have either
> > initial capital or some skill to start a business and most of the landless
> > people have neither: they can live off the existing city structure but
> > it's more difficult for them to start city from the scratch.
>
> You're sounding as if you want the peasants in a Catch-22.
Yep. The best thing for them.
>But there was
> no Soviet bureaucracy then.
Actually, the Soviet (and any other) "proper" administration tends to
create cities from the scratch. Look at the activities of the Russian
Emperors/Empresses. You probably can find similar examples in other
places where administration was up to its task.
Being left to their own devices, the peasants tend to stay home, unless
there is a place where they can get some extra cash.
>I'm sure that millions of people have started
> out as pedlars, water-carriers and so forth and worked up. All you need is
> arbitrage: find something valuable a distance from people who want it, and
> take it there :-)
Well, this is extremely naive point of view but let it be. :-)
>
> And the big stupid ones get to be bodyguards :-)
>
> What I'm saying,> is there should be some functioning nucleus (probably made
> of the survivors).
>
> I've just finished the Merv chapter now, and it's weird -- after Phases
> Three and Four, when there was no one left alive in the region, he mentions
> a group of Indian merchants who had been resident there for ten years. They
> seem to have lived through all this! Grist to your mill.
Read "History of the city" by Saltikov-Schedrin. He noticed the interesting
phenomena: today city is completely devastated and all its population is
dead, tomorrow it's back to existence and there are even the "elders".
>
> > The body-counting procedure (if it ever happened) gives an impression that
> > there was one-time event. Otherwise it would be rather difficult to do
> > all this counting unless they followed your scenario of the (literal)
> > head count (some problems would be encoutered even with it).
>
> Yes, there's a contradiction here.
Thanks. :-)
>
> > AFAIK, there was a massive construction/production going in Karakorum.
> > Based on the more "accessible" example of the Golden Horde, there was a
> > need in the construction workers, stone cutters, masons (not the free
> m's),
> > wood workers, craftsmen capable to produce various luxury articles and
> > those for the everyday usage: Mongols had a very limited range of the
> > things they could produce themselves and with the Empire the new tastes
> > and requirements are coming.
> > An "unskilled" strong slave still can be useful for many other tasks.
>
> I wonder if the locals, coming back and finding all these folks dragged
> off to Karakorum, counted them as killed?
>
They dissapeared so why not?
> > > I'm agnostic about that 1.3 million. I would like to believe that
> those cities really were large and flourishing, if for no other reason than
> to
> > > give the finger to European ethnocentrics.
> >
> > Can we build some nice pyramide out of THEIR skulls?
>
> Don't need cement, though -- the density will hold them in place.
>
Yeah, they often have REALLY thick skulls.
> > >As the Scourge of the Bermuda
> > > Triangle, such a motivation should elicit some sympathy from you? :-)
> >
> > Sure. As long as you are out of the "million" range and as long as
> > your intentions are dishonest, you can expect my complete understanding
> > and sympathy. :-)
>
> <bows>
>
> I'm prepared to leave the million range for Merv, but for the whole of
> the region, I still think the casualties could have been in the millions.
A lot of people could eventually die form the diseases (even less than a
million executed could serve as a source of the pollution for the whole
area), breaking of the water supply and agriculture with the resulting
starvation, epidemics, etc.
Look at the Germany after 30YW: some areas lost 50 - 70% of their population
and starvation of the whole areas was reported during the initial stages
of war (well before G-A's period).
>
> Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of 1997? A
> Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think living in
> Australia? It got very nasty.
Ahhhhh! Joseph Askew, IIRC. Terrible.
>
> > > "Sayyid! That one moved! I'm scared!"
> > > "All right, then, we'll put them down as nine hundred ninety-nine
> dead, one undead".
> >
> > ... And one rock suddenly raised and, grabbed one of the counters and
> > used him to hit the other counters.... and there was some terrifying
> > howling nearby....
>
> Ah, you mean they were all buried under the Detritus?
Can you guarantee that they were not?
>
> > > True, but even discounting his million dead Mervians, I think we're
> > > still dealing with the most horrendous disaster in the history of the
> region or perhaps any region, a real Ragnarok.
> >
> > Quite possible. I remember some references to the Jagatay Ulus being
> turned in a desert/steppe-like condition with the city life almost extinct.
>
> The same was said of Chernigov in the 1150s, wasn't it? A lot of the
> Russian-Ukrainian ethnogenesis row turns on whether the Dasht-e Kipchak
> (wink) was emptied of people and recolonised later, or whether there were
> Rus' there all along to give continuity. No?
You picked the wrong example: my wife is from Chernigov so don't you dare
to touch this particular city. :-)
Yes, I know what you mean: each side has it's own idiots... Did I said
"idiots"? Silly me! "Patriots" is a proper word!
[Of course, there was a continuity from the chimp all the way through
Yaroslav Smart Ass and to Taras Shevchenko and Ivan Franko. OTOH, "Moskali"
descended from the wrong chimp and the results are well-known.]
>
> > > Nah, 13,000 is way too low for these great commercial cities.
> >
> > 13K - 20K killed would be just fine as a big percentage of a population
> > and a number that a reasonably small Mongolian army would be able to kill
> > without any technical problems.
>
> That would be a casualty rate of about a fifth of the minimum wild
> estimate I'd be prepared to accept for the prewar population. You're
> thinking that about two-thirds were carted off to Karakorum?
Honestly, I have no clue. In Russia tribute was, IIRC, 10% but we are
talking about the different scenario so it can be higher.
>
> > >I believe it's generally accepted that the really big medieval cities
> (none of
> which were in the Bermuda Triangle, of course) could be up to a million or
> > > more --- Constantinople,
> >
> > IIRC, it was considerably smaller.
>
> No, don't think so.
>
I remember some asessment of 400-500K but can't tell how accurate it was.
> > >Cairo, Baghdad, Cordoba (?)
> >
> > Somehow I don't think so. Just an impression.
>
> And my opposite impression.
My, of course, is a correct one. :-)
>
> > > and several in China.
> >
> > IIRC, there were appr 50M Chinese at the time so this is not impossible
> > but hardly "several".
>
> Well, Ka'i-feng was supposed to be much bigger than anything in the West
> or Muslim world. Lo-yang comes to mind as well.
>
> > > And if some Siberian warlord ruled Russia from Irkutsk, would that
> mean the destruction of Moscow was not important? :-)
> >
> > Well, the loss of Kiev proved to be unimportant. :-)
>
> Just think of the lower number of corrupt apparatchiks you have to deal
> with now. ;-)
Splork.
What this have to do with me? :-)
>
> > Not to a satisfactory degree. When filling the emigration papers to leave
> > SU, my father (then in mid-80's) had been asked to bring a consent from
> > his father
>
> !!! Sounds like something out of Voinovich.
Real life. Unlike Tiglath, I'm not trying to pass a joke as a true story.
You had to produce consent of your relatives to be able to fill the
application. Details, like age, did not matter and in some cases people
could not apply because their former husband/wife (providing there were
children) refused to give such a permission. I spent 10 years collecting
the "ransom" money to get a necessary consent from my former wife.
In the case of the parents, there was nothing in the rules about the
maximum age, just that there should be either a signed consent or a
death certificat.
>
> > > I forgot to say, no, it was possible, because each of the arrows
> could hit several targets. They were MERV'ed. <ducks and covers>
> >
> > Machine guns? After all Hollywood provided GK with the artillery in the
> > movie.
>
> "Men in Tights"?
Wrong guess. Never underestimate Hollywood. "Ghengis Khan" with Omar Sherif
as GK and a lot of interesting discoveries about geography and G's biography.
Artillery was impressive. Not up to the Napoleonic standard but pretty
efficient.... Cut Jamuha's cavalry to pieces (still can't figure out why
Omar Khan had to fight a duel with Jamuha afterwards but probably I was
too busy laughing and missed something important).
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > When I was first told about the pyramids of heads thing, by a
> > guy married to a Persian, I was told that the general concerned used
> > cement.
> > > > :-)
> > > > > Explains why they needed the artisans. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Ah! Good one. I liked what you said in another post about the
> > pyramids being tourist attractions. Maybe we can interest a certain
> > entertainment
> > > > company in "Timurworld"?
> > >
> > > It may be found politically incorrect but, with a proper spin, an
> > > environmentalistic aspect of Timur's activities can be vrought to the
> > > front light: ... these pyramides not only greately improved a local
> > > landscape (and inspired at least one famous painting)
> >
> > It did?
>
> You did not know?
No, Eve's the art expert, not me :-)
> > Is there a URL for it?
>
> Almost definitely but I don't know it. You can make a search on the
Russian
> sites. The name is "Apotheosys of War" by Vereschagin. AFAIK, it was
> reproduced on the cover of some book about the Mongols (or nomads in
general?)
> with another popular Russian painting (none of them having anything to do
> with GK) and I had a long argument with David Read about their relevance
to the subject.
I'll go look!
> > > > Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest
disaster ever suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > You got it. :-)
> >
> > Yes, I have, but I really mean it as well :-)
>
> You can show an example by swithcing back to the hunting and food
gathering. I'm doing the last part (in the supermarket) as my contribution
to the
> ecological improvement of a planet.
Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. :-)
> > I heard something about this thing with Juchi being a quarrel with
> > Chagatai over the siege of Djend. Juchi wanted a "hearts and minds"
> > approach, which tends to rely for success on leaving people their
> > bodies.......
>
> There are definite disadvantages in this approach, like potential
rebellions and a need to spend time on administration (instead of
ecologically
friendly activities like hunting and killing even more farmers).
> IIRC, Chagatai used the ... er.... alternative approach in his Ulus and
> saved a lot of mosquitos, tarantulas, etc.
I wonder whether, in a thousand years, legend will have it that Bush and
Saddam were enemies because they were after the same slave-girl....... ;-/
> Indeed.
You can't say that, it's (c) David Read :-)
> Being left to their own devices, the peasants tend to stay home, unless
> there is a place where they can get some extra cash.
Again, I think a collective term for rural inhabitants who own land and
those who don't is misleading. People who own land and have reasonable
prospects of being able to farm tend to be very, very fixed, I agree, but
not all the rural population has any "stake" in the countryside, as we say
now (and no Dracula jokes this time please).
> Read "History of the city" by Saltikov-Schedrin. He noticed the
interestingphenomena: today city is completely devastated and all its
population is
> dead, tomorrow it's back to existence and there are even the "elders".
Maybe being massacred makes for growing up very fast ;-)
> > I wonder if the locals, coming back and finding all these folks
dragged off to Karakorum, counted them as killed?
> >
> They dissapeared so why not?
You'd think the artisans building Karakorum would be able to get word
home that they were still alive, even if no one could then do anything about
it.
> A lot of people could eventually die form the diseases (even less than a
> million executed could serve as a source of the pollution for the whole
> area), breaking of the water supply and agriculture with the resulting
> starvation, epidemics, etc.
Absolutely. Juvaini emphasises the starvation in the districts around
Merv, though he doesn't mention disease.
> Look at the Germany after 30YW: some areas lost 50 - 70% of their
population and starvation of the whole areas was reported during the initial
stages
> of war (well before G-A's period).
No picnic.
> > Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of 1997? A
> > Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think
living in Australia? It got very nasty.
>
> Ahhhhh! Joseph Askew, IIRC. Terrible.
I didn't much like either of them. The Mongolian was taking the line
that what we are saying about GK is an insult to, and racist discrimination
against, both the Mongolian People and him personally. Who said PC was dead?
(So next time we talk about Stalin's death toll, you can sue us for pain and
suffering. And if it's the sins of the British in their colonies, I can.
Yeah, right.) And for his part, the Han did seem to be a Mongolphobe in
every sense of the word.
> > The same was said of Chernigov in the 1150s, wasn't it? A lot of the
> > Russian-Ukrainian ethnogenesis row turns on whether the Dasht-e Kipchak
> > (wink) was emptied of people and recolonised later, or whether there
were Rus' there all along to give continuity. No?
>
> You picked the wrong example: my wife is from Chernigov so don't you dare
> to touch this particular city. :-)
Woof!
> Yes, I know what you mean: each side has it's own idiots... Did I said
> "idiots"? Silly me! "Patriots" is a proper word!
Yes, that's why the Act was called that. :-)
> [Of course, there was a continuity from the chimp all the way through
> Yaroslav Smart Ass and to Taras Shevchenko and Ivan Franko. OTOH,
"Moskali" descended from the wrong chimp and the results are well-known.]
I once saw a Nazi historical atlas. It had "the old, Jewish theory"
showing the origin of Homo sapiens in the Olduvai Gorge, and the "new,
scientific theory" showing the origin of Homo Sapiens in the North German
Plain. Funny, I didn't think there were any chimps in those forests, so I
wonder what Nordic Man evolved from? Bears, I guess.
> Real life. Unlike Tiglath, I'm not trying to pass a joke as a true story.
> You had to produce consent of your relatives to be able to fill the
> application. Details, like age, did not matter and in some cases people
> could not apply because their former husband/wife (providing there were
> children) refused to give such a permission. I spent 10 years collecting
> the "ransom" money to get a necessary consent from my former wife.
> In the case of the parents, there was nothing in the rules about the
> maximum age, just that there should be either a signed consent or a
> death certificat.
Did the State say that since it had paid for your education, it wanted
some money back? Romania sold its Germans to Germany for DM 1 million each,
on that basis.
> Wrong guess. Never underestimate Hollywood. "Ghengis Khan" with Omar
Sherif
> as GK and a lot of interesting discoveries about geography and G's
biography.
> Artillery was impressive. Not up to the Napoleonic standard but pretty
> efficient.... Cut Jamuha's cavalry to pieces (still can't figure out why
> Omar Khan had to fight a duel with Jamuha afterwards but probably I was
> too busy laughing and missed something important).
I've never seen that, and now I think I don't want to. :-)
Wouldn't it be nice if we discovered Jamuga's memoirs?
David C Pugh
Here's the painting Alex mentioned:
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/vereshchagin
-war.html
len jones
The picture is a pile of skulls. It can be represented by a square pyramid
approximately 17 skulls each way on the bottom. Followed successively by
rows of 16x16, 15x15, etc. skulls. If my calculations are correct, that
gives 1,529 skulls. This is far less than the advertised 5,000 skulls. GK
doesn't seem to be such a bad fellow after all. History seems to have
overestimated his ruthlessness.
Len Jones
D. Spencer Hines
There are obviously far more than 17 skulls in that bottom row.
This poor fellow can't even count.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"len jones" <ljo...@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:b3lps...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Alex
JUdging by your next post, you found it. Of course, impression is quite
different from a real painting. Next time you are visiting Russia, you
can look at the original in the Tretiakov's Gallery in Moscow. BTW, there
is one more Timur-related painting of the same artist in this gallery:
"Timur's gates".
The "Ap. of W" has a dedication carved on its frame: "To all the great
conquerers of the past, present and future". Very suitable. :-)
>
> > > > > Of course. The invention of farming has been the biggest
> disaster ever suffered by Homo sapiens :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You got it. :-)
> > >
> > > Yes, I have, but I really mean it as well :-)
> >
> > You can show an example by swithcing back to the hunting and food
> gathering. I'm doing the last part (in the supermarket) as my contribution
> to the
> > ecological improvement of a planet.
>
> Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. :-)
Very PC of you. Does this involves suicide at some point of your career
or just some actions toward the extinction of the other memebers of a
human race?
>
> > Read "History of the city" by Saltikov-Schedrin. He noticed the
> interesting phenomena: today city is completely devastated and all its
> population is
> > dead, tomorrow it's back to existence and there are even the "elders".
>
> Maybe being massacred makes for growing up very fast ;-)
Perhaps. One of his "heroes" (city governors) recognized this phenomena
and was very free with the experimentations on his subjects (started with
the Wars of Enlightnment and ended up going in the opposite direction,
each act had been accompanied by the mass executions).
>
> > > I wonder if the locals, coming back and finding all these folks
> dragged off to Karakorum, counted them as killed?
> > >
> > They dissapeared so why not?
>
> You'd think the artisans building Karakorum would be able to get word
> home that they were still alive, even if no one could then do anything about
> it.
Some of them could but this should not change the general picture of a
"total" destruction.
>
> > A lot of people could eventually die form the diseases (even less than a
> > million executed could serve as a source of the pollution for the whole
> > area), breaking of the water supply and agriculture with the resulting
> > starvation, epidemics, etc.
>
> Absolutely. Juvaini emphasises the starvation in the districts around
> Merv, though he doesn't mention disease.
>
I just listed the possibilities. One more could be people leaving the "bad"
place for the more secure ones, like Bukhara, etc. During the Civil War
in Russia a lot of the rural dwellers fled to the cities because this would
mean less looting: a village can be looted by a small band but you need
a reasonably big force to take the city and the big forces tended to be a
little bit better organized and disciplined.
> > Look at the Germany after 30YW: some areas lost 50 - 70% of their
> population and starvation of the whole areas was reported during the initial
> stages
> > of war (well before G-A's period).
>
> No picnic.
No food for a picnic.
BTW, it's rather interesting how such small forces managed to do such a
big damage in such a short time.
>
> > > Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of 1997? A
> > > Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think
> living in Australia? It got very nasty.
> >
> > Ahhhhh! Joseph Askew, IIRC. Terrible.
>
> I didn't much like either of them. The Mongolian
Don't remember his name (something close to "Bimbo"?)
>was taking the line
> that what we are saying about GK is an insult to, and racist discrimination
> against, both the Mongolian People and him personally.
Well, this is always a problem in the discussions of this type. But, out
of what I remember of these discussions, the Australopiteck's posts
often WERE insulting (just as his style in general).
>Who said PC was dead?
> (So next time we talk about Stalin's death toll, you can sue us for pain and
> suffering.
Did I ever said anything good about Uncle Joe? ... Well, except saying that
he was smarter than Mikolaychik. :-)
>And if it's the sins of the British in their colonies, I can.
> Yeah, right.) And for his part, the Han did seem to be a Mongolphobe in
> every sense of the word.
>
IMO, it's OK to be negative about some society but to claim that the
members of this society are inferior human beings is another story.
> > > The same was said of Chernigov in the 1150s, wasn't it? A lot of the
> > > Russian-Ukrainian ethnogenesis row turns on whether the Dasht-e Kipchak
> > > (wink) was emptied of people and recolonised later, or whether there
> were Rus' there all along to give continuity. No?
> >
> > You picked the wrong example: my wife is from Chernigov so don't you dare
> > to touch this particular city. :-)
>
> Woof!
Good boy! Now, play dead :-)
>
> > Yes, I know what you mean: each side has it's own idiots... Did I said
> > "idiots"? Silly me! "Patriots" is a proper word!
>
> Yes, that's why the Act was called that. :-)
>
Well, probably if a couple of thousands people had been killed in Oslo,
Norway would come with some similar measures as well.
I remember how at some point Swedes became very restrictive about the
transit visas because a planeload of Kurds decided to stay instead of
going to <whatever was their destination>.
> > [Of course, there was a continuity from the chimp all the way through
> > Yaroslav Smart Ass and to Taras Shevchenko and Ivan Franko. OTOH,
> "Moskali" descended from the wrong chimp and the results are well-known.]
>
> I once saw a Nazi historical atlas. It had "the old, Jewish theory"
> showing the origin of Homo sapiens in the Olduvai Gorge, and the "new,
> scientific theory" showing the origin of Homo Sapiens in the North German
> Plain.
Interesting. Arians, IIRC, came from Iran and Himmler&Co had been
looking for some "Tibetian Connection".
>Funny, I didn't think there were any chimps in those forests,
An old theory. The Scientific One would easily find The True German Chimps
in the appropriate place (or at least near Hamburg Zoo) and these Chimps
would be much superior to the Jewish ones.
Similarly, the True Slavs managed to stay nice and pure, avoiding mixing
with the inferior races and grew up into the tall, blond, blue-eyed
superhumans with the horizontally elongated skulls (here is a substantial
difference with the you know whom who claimed that their skulls are
vertically elongated). You may notice that in, say "Alexander Nevsky", the
Germans are mostly dark-haired, dark-eyed, with the hooked noses, while
their Russian opponents are blond, etc.
The point of a disput between the R and U patriots is which side are
the True Slavs and which are the descendants of the inferior non-Slavic
nations.
>so I
> wonder what Nordic Man evolved from?
See above.
> Bears, I guess.
Why does it have to be a mammal? It's mammalism.
>
> > Real life. Unlike Tiglath, I'm not trying to pass a joke as a true story.
> > You had to produce consent of your relatives to be able to fill the
> > application. Details, like age, did not matter and in some cases people
> > could not apply because their former husband/wife (providing there were
> > children) refused to give such a permission. I spent 10 years collecting
> > the "ransom" money to get a necessary consent from my former wife.
> > In the case of the parents, there was nothing in the rules about the
> > maximum age, just that there should be either a signed consent or a
> > death certificat.
>
> Did the State say that since it had paid for your education, it wanted
> some money back?
It did not have to: I simply could not take any money with me so that the
issue was solved automatically. But I had to pay for the revokation of my
Soviet citizenship (not that I asked for it and not that it was legal under
the Soviet Constitution: only Supreme Council could do such a thing and
only on an individual basis).
>Romania sold its Germans to Germany for DM 1 million each,
> on that basis.
Good deal.
>
> > Wrong guess. Never underestimate Hollywood. "Ghengis Khan" with Omar
> Sherif
> > as GK and a lot of interesting discoveries about geography and G's
> biography.
> > Artillery was impressive. Not up to the Napoleonic standard but pretty
> > efficient.... Cut Jamuha's cavalry to pieces (still can't figure out why
> > Omar Khan had to fight a duel with Jamuha afterwards but probably I was
> > too busy laughing and missed something important).
>
> I've never seen that, and now I think I don't want to. :-)
It was one of the best comedies I saw. Not sure that this was the authors
intention but who cares.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> JUdging by your next post, you found it. Of course, impression is quite
> different from a real painting. Next time you are visiting Russia, you
> can look at the original in the Tretiakov's Gallery in Moscow.
The only time I was ever in Moscow, the Tretyakov was closed for repairs
:-(
Wouldn't mind going to see the changes in the place, but I'm a timid
traveller.....
BTW, there
> is one more Timur-related painting of the same artist in this gallery:
> "Timur's gates".
> The "Ap. of W" has a dedication carved on its frame: "To all the great
> conquerers of the past, present and future". Very suitable. :-)
Isn't it just.
> > Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. :-)
>
> Very PC of you.
Why? Most human ideologies are geared to reproduction -- someone once
said that "all moral language can be resolved into statements about genetic
fitness strategies" -- and I think the VHEM is orthagonal to the PC/non-PC
axis.
Does this involves suicide at some point of your career
Possibly, but the accent is more on not breeding. But no, before you
ask, I'm not a Doukhobor :-)
> or just some actions toward the extinction of the other memebers of a
> human race?
Certainly not! Hence the "voluntary" in the name.
> > You'd think the artisans building Karakorum would be able to get
word home that they were still alive, even if no one could then do anything
about it.
>
> Some of them could but this should not change the general picture of a
> "total" destruction.
I think this makes sense. There was an immense carnage and destruction,
but some of the folks were actually still alive in Karakorum, unbeknownst to
the survivors under the rubble.
> I just listed the possibilities. One more could be people leaving the
"bad"> place for the more secure ones, like Bukhara, etc. During the Civil
War
> in Russia a lot of the rural dwellers fled to the cities because this
would> mean less looting: a village can be looted by a small band but you
need
> a reasonably big force to take the city and the big forces tended to be a
> little bit better organized and disciplined.
Hey!! Wasn't it you who was throwing so much doubt on the villagers
moving to the city after Phase One of the exterminations? You've just
suggested another motivation for them to do so.
> BTW, it's rather interesting how such small forces managed to do such a
> big damage in such a short time.
That might point to economic sophistication and interdependence. Easier
to smash a complex mechanism.
> > > > Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of
1997? A Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think
> > living in Australia? It got very nasty.
> > >
> > > Ahhhhh! Joseph Askew, IIRC. Terrible.
> >
> > I didn't much like either of them. The Mongolian
>
> Don't remember his name (something close to "Bimbo"?)
Byambaa Garid. Askew called him "Bambi" :-(
> >was taking the line
> > that what we are saying about GK is an insult to, and racist
discrimination against, both the Mongolian People and him personally.
>
> Well, this is always a problem in the discussions of this type. But, out
> of what I remember of these discussions, the Australopiteck's posts
> often WERE insulting (just as his style in general).
Yes, they were, but BG gave everyone the treatment, it wasn't just when
provoked by JK. For instance, in a separate thread I quoted the McNeill
hypothesis that the Black Death had been endemic in southern China, where
the locals were either immune or had developed rodent-avoiding customs, and
escaped from its pool when the Mongols linked the area to their
international trade network. It wasn't as if they did this on purpose, but
nevertheless the idea was insulting, discriminatory, racist and a tortious
act against him personally. Apparently no evil of any kind must be spoken of
any Mongolian, living or dead, ever.
> >And if it's the sins of the British in their colonies, I can.
> > Yeah, right.) And for his part, the Han did seem to be a Mongolphobe in
> > every sense of the word.
> >
>> IMO, it's OK to be negative about some society but to claim that the
> members of this society are inferior human beings is another story.
Quite. But see above.
> > > Yes, I know what you mean: each side has it's own idiots... Did I said
> > > "idiots"? Silly me! "Patriots" is a proper word!
> >
> > Yes, that's why the Act was called that. :-)
> >
> Well, probably if a couple of thousands people had been killed in Oslo,
> Norway would come with some similar measures as well.
Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been planning an
imperialist dictatorship for a decade. Nah, let's drop this and stick to the
Mongols, we're not going to convert one another. :-)
(Mind you, from what I know of Norwegian ethnocentricity and nationalist
conceit, y'all should be very, very grateful there are only 4.5 million of
them.)
> > I once saw a Nazi historical atlas. It had "the old, Jewish theory"
> > showing the origin of Homo sapiens in the Olduvai Gorge, and the "new,
> > scientific theory" showing the origin of Homo Sapiens in the North
German Plain.
>
> Interesting. Arians, IIRC, came from Iran and Himmler&Co had been
> looking for some "Tibetian Connection".
Didn't know that! But surely the old theory, from when people believed
that every language had to have a "race" carting it about the map, was that
the Aryans* invaded Iran, not that they came from there?
*Arians are a Christian heresy ('cos they lost), watch that spelling.
> >Funny, I didn't think there were any chimps in those forests,
>
> An old theory. The Scientific One would easily find The True German Chimps
> in the appropriate place (or at least near Hamburg Zoo) and these Chimps
> would be much superior to the Jewish ones.
> Similarly, the True Slavs managed to stay nice and pure, avoiding mixing
> with the inferior races and grew up into the tall, blond, blue-eyed
> superhumans with the horizontally elongated skulls (here is a substantial
> difference with the you know whom who claimed that their skulls are
> vertically elongated). You may notice that in, say "Alexander Nevsky", the
> Germans are mostly dark-haired, dark-eyed, with the hooked noses, while
> their Russian opponents are blond, etc.
No, I only remember the Great Helms they were wearing! Very sinister.
Maybe Alexander Nevsky should have a Hollywood remake called "Blonder than
Thou"? People will see it because they think it's a sequel to "Blonde and
Blonder". :-)
Had a Ukrainian friend once, whose appearance and name were Turkic......
> The point of a disput between the R and U patriots is which side are
> the True Slavs and which are the descendants of the inferior non-Slavic
> nations.
Depressing. In another place I recently remarked, apropos of a reference
to "True Love", that "truth" is a property of statements or propositions,
not of love -- and similarly I would say that it is a property of statements
not of races. I was also ranting about the damage caused by our using the
same words for non-contamination of nutrients (pure drinking water), sexual
inexperience (a pure young girl) and endogamy (a pure race).
Alex
The painting has nothing to do with GK, except him qualifying for one of the
"subjects" of the picture's dedication. It supposed to be "inspired" by
Timur, not by GK. IIRC, the painting's "nickname" is "Timur's Pyramide".
Calculations are rather irrelevant because author's purpose was not to show
any special number of the skulls but the disasters caused by war. Did you
notice the destroyed city on a background?
> Len Jones
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > JUdging by your next post, you found it. Of course, impression is quite
> > different from a real painting. Next time you are visiting Russia, you
> > can look at the original in the Tretiakov's Gallery in Moscow.
>
> The only time I was ever in Moscow, the Tretyakov was closed for repairs
> :-(
> Wouldn't mind going to see the changes in the place, but I'm a timid
> traveller.....
Well, a lot of his paintings are in the Russian Museum in Petersburg. Rather
short travel from Norway.
>
> BTW, there
> > is one more Timur-related painting of the same artist in this gallery:
> > "Timur's gates".
> > The "Ap. of W" has a dedication carved on its frame: "To all the great
> > conquerers of the past, present and future". Very suitable. :-)
>
> Isn't it just.
Yes. He was a strange "military" painter: got in a lot of trouble in many
countries for "antimilitarism" (aka "realism") of his paintings.
>
> > > Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. :-)
> >
> > Very PC of you.
>
> Why? Most human ideologies are geared to reproduction -- someone once
> said that "all moral language can be resolved into statements about genetic
> fitness strategies" -- and I think the VHEM is orthagonal to the PC/non-PC
> axis.
This was supossed to be a compliment to underscore environmental (and
<whatever> else) awareness of your movement.
>
> Does this involves suicide at some point of your career
>
> Possibly, but the accent is more on not breeding. But no, before you
> ask, I'm not a Doukhobor :-)
[The better known Russian term is "Skoptsy"]
You mean that you are not planning any drastic changes, just a .... er ....
"controlled" usage of your anatomy?
Can I guess the reason? Perhaps you decided that perfection is already
achieved and any following "experimentations" can produce only distressingly
inferior result? :-)
>
> > or just some actions toward the extinction of the other members of a
> > human race?
>
> Certainly not! Hence the "voluntary" in the name.
Well, there are different ways to achieve a voluntary participation....
>
> > > You'd think the artisans building Karakorum would be able to get
> word home that they were still alive, even if no one could then do anything
> about it.
> >
> > Some of them could but this should not change the general picture of a
> > "total" destruction.
>
> I think this makes sense. There was an immense carnage and destruction,
> but some of the folks were actually still alive in Karakorum, unbeknownst to
> the survivors under the rubble.
>
> > I just listed the possibilities. One more could be people leaving the
> "bad"> place for the more secure ones, like Bukhara, etc. During the Civil
> War
> > in Russia a lot of the rural dwellers fled to the cities because this
> would> mean less looting: a village can be looted by a small band but you
> need
> > a reasonably big force to take the city and the big forces tended to be a
> > little bit better organized and disciplined.
>
> Hey!! Wasn't it you who was throwing so much doubt on the villagers
> moving to the city after Phase One of the exterminations? You've just
> suggested another motivation for them to do so.
It's not exactly the same. To run to the safety of a big city is one thing
but to run into the destroyed city for the safety reasons is quite different
(like running for safety to Stalingrad in the fall of 1942).
>
> > BTW, it's rather interesting how such small forces managed to do such a
> > big damage in such a short time.
>
> That might point to economic sophistication and interdependence. Easier
> to smash a complex mechanism.
>
Interesting observation. Indeed, the cultures of China and Khwaresm had been
reasonably developed (which did not necessarily applied to their rulers of
the time).
>
> > > > > Say, were you here for the Great Mongol War in the spring of
> 1997? A Mongolian and a Han Chinese or sympathiser therewith, both I think
> living in Australia? It got very nasty.
> > > >
> > > > Ahhhhh! Joseph Askew, IIRC. Terrible.
> > >
> > > I didn't much like either of them. The Mongolian
> >
> > Don't remember his name (something close to "Bimbo"?)
>
> Byambaa Garid. Askew called him "Bambi" :-(
Yes, This is one.
>
> > >was taking the line
> > > that what we are saying about GK is an insult to, and racist
> discrimination against, both the Mongolian People and him personally.
> >
> > Well, this is always a problem in the discussions of this type. But, out
> > of what I remember of these discussions, the Australopiteck's posts
> > often WERE insulting (just as his style in general).
>
> Yes, they were, but BG gave everyone the treatment, it wasn't just when
> provoked by JK. For instance, in a separate thread I quoted the McNeill
> hypothesis that the Black Death had been endemic in southern China, where
> the locals were either immune or had developed rodent-avoiding customs,
You mean "rodent-eating"? :-)
>and
> escaped from its pool when the Mongols linked the area to their
> international trade network. It wasn't as if they did this on purpose, but
> nevertheless the idea was insulting, discriminatory, racist and a tortious
> act against him personally. Apparently no evil of any kind must be spoken of
> any Mongolian, living or dead, ever.
Did you point to him that ACTUALLY this was a positive Mongolian contribution?
They saved Europe from the overpopulation, eliminated leprosy (AFAIK), and
probably saved some endangered species (at least for a while). Not to
mention that extermination of the white christians (esp males) is definitely
PC. And that whatever fault was present, it was a Chinese fault (as a source),
while Mongols acted as the honest intermediaries by bringing this nice and
highly intelligent rodents into Europe (for which act Europeans should be
eternally grateful).
A proper explanation often helps to avoid hostility and unnecessary
aggravation. :-)
>
> > >And if it's the sins of the British in their colonies, I can.
> > > Yeah, right.) And for his part, the Han did seem to be a Mongolphobe in
> > > every sense of the word.
> > >
> >> IMO, it's OK to be negative about some society but to claim that the
> > members of this society are inferior human beings is another story.
>
> Quite. But see above.
>
> > > > Yes, I know what you mean: each side has it's own idiots... Did I said
> > > > "idiots"? Silly me! "Patriots" is a proper word!
> > >
> > > Yes, that's why the Act was called that. :-)
> > >
> > Well, probably if a couple of thousands people had been killed in Oslo,
> > Norway would come with some similar measures as well.
>
> Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been planning an
> imperialist dictatorship for a decade.
Ah yes, this is Paul's idea fix. :-)
> Nah, let's drop this and stick to the
> Mongols, we're not going to convert one another. :-)
Indeed.
>
> (Mind you, from what I know of Norwegian ethnocentricity and nationalist
> conceit, y'all should be very, very grateful there are only 4.5 million of
> them.)
>
> > > I once saw a Nazi historical atlas. It had "the old, Jewish theory"
> > > showing the origin of Homo sapiens in the Olduvai Gorge, and the "new,
> > > scientific theory" showing the origin of Homo Sapiens in the North
> German Plain.
> >
> > Interesting. Arians, IIRC, came from Iran and Himmler&Co had been
> > looking for some "Tibetian Connection".
>
> Didn't know that!
Oh yes. There were numerous theories about Himmler's theories. He was a
little bit crazy about all this Aryan stuff and, unlike Hitler himself,
took it completely seriously.
>But surely the old theory, from when people believed
> that every language had to have a "race" carting it about the map, was that
> the Aryans* invaded Iran, not that they came from there?
AFAIK, they are Hindu-Iranian and nobody knows for sure where did they
came from (perhaps from India?). It's a long walk from Germany.
>
> *Arians are a Christian heresy ('cos they lost), watch that spelling.
Thanks, IIRC, this heresy started with a disput over a single letter. :-)
>
> > >Funny, I didn't think there were any chimps in those forests,
> >
> > An old theory. The Scientific One would easily find The True German Chimps
> > in the appropriate place (or at least near Hamburg Zoo) and these Chimps
> > would be much superior to the Jewish ones.
> > Similarly, the True Slavs managed to stay nice and pure, avoiding mixing
> > with the inferior races and grew up into the tall, blond, blue-eyed
> > superhumans with the horizontally elongated skulls (here is a substantial
> > difference with the you know whom who claimed that their skulls are
> > vertically elongated). You may notice that in, say "Alexander Nevsky", the
> > Germans are mostly dark-haired, dark-eyed, with the hooked noses, while
> > their Russian opponents are blond, etc.
>
> No, I only remember the Great Helms they were wearing!
>Very sinister.
AFAIK, designed by Eisenstein personally and specifically for this effect.
Can't figure out why this piece of crap is so well-known outside Russia.
Well, music is good and it's a good example of how to make a political
propaganda. But besides this, it sucks in each and every scene (well, purely
"graphic" effects are sometimes impressive but mostly stolen from Fritz
Lang). Technically, it is way, way, way, behind the european and american
standards of the time.
> Maybe Alexander Nevsky should have a Hollywood remake called "Blonder than
> Thou"? People will see it because they think it's a sequel to "Blonde and
> Blonder". :-)
Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's attempts
(mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the Russian history
(Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a "Collective Farm
Red Cranberry". :-)
>
> Had a Ukrainian friend once, whose appearance and name were Turkic......
Well, Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were not exactly tall, blond, etc.
One should not mix principle with the facts. :-)
>
> > The point of a disput between the R and U patriots is which side are
> > the True Slavs and which are the descendants of the inferior non-Slavic
> > nations.
>
> Depressing. In another place I recently remarked, apropos of a reference
> to "True Love", that "truth" is a property of statements or propositions,
> not of love -- and similarly I would say that it is a property of statements
> not of races. I was also ranting about the damage caused by our using the
> same words for non-contamination of nutrients (pure drinking water), sexual
> inexperience (a pure young girl) and endogamy (a pure race).
Well, each and every nation has its own share of the idiots. And the idiots
tend to find interesting things to occupy themselves with. One of the best
ways to use them for whatever purpose is to explain that, as a specific
group of the idiots, they are much superior (in their idiocy) to everybody
else and, preferably, to some specific group that can be easily identified
as an enemy. National purity/identity is one of the favorite subjects:
easy to understand and the enemy is usually somewhere around the corner.
David C Pugh
news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
:-)
> > >
> > > Very PC of you.
> >
> > Why? Most human ideologies are geared to reproduction -- someone
once said that "all moral language can be resolved into statements about
genetic fitness strategies" -- and I think the VHEM is orthagonal to the
PC/non-PC axis.
>
> This was supossed to be a compliment to underscore environmental (and
> <whatever> else) awareness of your movement.
Ah, sorry, not used to compliments from this quarter :-)
> > Does this involves suicide at some point of your career
> >
> > Possibly, but the accent is more on not breeding. But no, before you
> > ask, I'm not a Doukhobor :-)
>
> [The better known Russian term is "Skoptsy"]
>
> You mean that you are not planning any drastic changes, just a .... er
"controlled" usage of your anatomy?
That's "need-to-know" info........
> Can I guess the reason? Perhaps you decided that perfection is already
> achieved and any following "experimentations" can produce only
distressingly inferior result? :-)
Biologically inferior to me? No room at the bottom.
> > > or just some actions toward the extinction of the other members of a
> > > human race?
> >
> > Certainly not! Hence the "voluntary" in the name.
>
> Well, there are different ways to achieve a voluntary participation....
I can hear you reminiscing about May Day parades...........
>
> > Hey!! Wasn't it you who was throwing so much doubt on the villagers
> > moving to the city after Phase One of the exterminations? You've just
> > suggested another motivation for them to do so.
>
> It's not exactly the same. To run to the safety of a big city is one thing
> but to run into the destroyed city for the safety reasons is quite
different (like running for safety to Stalingrad in the fall of 1942).
Well, one difference is that the Germans at Stalingrad didn't keep going
away and coming back. At Merv, one of the magnates who came along and set
himself up as ruler really started to rebuild the walls and irrigation and
everything. With hindsight, we know the Mongols came back and killed
everybody again, but they couldn't have known that. The guy's brief reign
must have seemed like an attractive prospect to all landless peasants --
lots of opportunity, as a brick-carrier if nothing else.
BTW, I saw "The Enemy at the Gates" the other day, about the Stalingrad
sniper duel between Zaitsev and the German. Seen it?
> > Yes, they were, but BG gave everyone the treatment, it wasn't just
when provoked by JK. For instance, in a separate thread I quoted the McNeill
> > hypothesis that the Black Death had been endemic in southern China,
where the locals were either immune or had developed rodent-avoiding
customs,
>
> You mean "rodent-eating"? :-)
No, I mean keeping away from the things. Killing, but not touching.
> >and
> > escaped from its pool when the Mongols linked the area to their
> > international trade network. It wasn't as if they did this on purpose,
but
> > nevertheless the idea was insulting, discriminatory, racist and a
tortious
> > act against him personally. Apparently no evil of any kind must be
spoken of
> > any Mongolian, living or dead, ever.
>
> Did you point to him that ACTUALLY this was a positive Mongolian
contribution?
> They saved Europe from the overpopulation, eliminated leprosy (AFAIK)
??? woss?
and
> probably saved some endangered species (at least for a while). Not to
> mention that extermination of the white christians (esp males) is
definitely
> PC. And that whatever fault was present, it was a Chinese fault (as a
source),
> while Mongols acted as the honest intermediaries by bringing this nice and
> highly intelligent rodents into Europe (for which act Europeans should be
> eternally grateful).
> A proper explanation often helps to avoid hostility and unnecessary
> aggravation. :-)
You and I might enjoy playing around with such thoughts, but I don't
think either of those two had much sense of self-irony.
> > Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been planning
an imperialist dictatorship for a decade.
>
> Ah yes, this is Paul's idea fix. :-)
Mine too! Why should Paul have all the fun?
Oh yes. There were numerous theories about Himmler's theories. He was a
> little bit crazy about all this Aryan stuff and, unlike Hitler himself,
> took it completely seriously.
Yes indeed. Can you imagine Himmler as a talk.origins loon? :-)
And now can you imagine an American talk.origins loon of your choice as
head of state security? :-(
> > No, I only remember the Great Helms they were wearing!
> >Very sinister.
>
> AFAIK, designed by Eisenstein personally and specifically for this effect.
> Can't figure out why this piece of crap is so well-known outside Russia.
> Well, music is good and it's a good example of how to make a political
> propaganda. But besides this, it sucks in each and every scene (well,
purely> "graphic" effects are sometimes impressive but mostly stolen from
Fritz
> Lang). Technically, it is way, way, way, behind the european and american
> standards of the time.
I don't know enough to know whether this is a sound assessment or an
Alex idiosyncracy, so I'm copying to Eve :-)
> > Maybe Alexander Nevsky should have a Hollywood remake called "Blonder
than Thou"? People will see it because they think it's a sequel to "Blonde
and Blonder". :-)
>
> Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's
attempts (mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the
Russian
history (Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a
"Collective
Farm Red Cranberry". :-)
Not sure I get that reference..... any relation to "Europudding"?
Didn't know they made a film of Taras Bulba. The BBC did "War and Peace"
as a series, cast the diminutive and restrained Antony Hopkins as Pierre,
which was ridiculous.
> > Had a Ukrainian friend once, whose appearance and name were
Turkic......
>
> Well, Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were not exactly tall, blond, etc.
Quite!
> > > The point of a disput between the R and U patriots is which side are
> > > the True Slavs and which are the descendants of the inferior
non-Slavic nations.
> >
> > Depressing. In another place I recently remarked, apropos of a
reference to "True Love", that "truth" is a property of statements or
propositions,
> > not of love -- and similarly I would say that it is a property of
statements not of races. I was also ranting about the damage caused by our
using
the > same words for non-contamination of nutrients (pure drinking water),
sexual
> > inexperience (a pure young girl) and endogamy (a pure race).
>
> Well, each and every nation has its own share of the idiots. And the
idiots> tend to find interesting things to occupy themselves with. One of
the best
> ways to use them for whatever purpose is to explain that, as a specific
> group of the idiots, they are much superior (in their idiocy) to everybody
> else and, preferably, to some specific group that can be easily identified
> as an enemy. National purity/identity is one of the favorite subjects:
> easy to understand and the enemy is usually somewhere around the corner.
Well said!!!
The way I like to put it, you attribute all negative aspects of human
beings to some category of which you are not yourself a member, and this has
the wonderful consequence that you can thereafter consider yourself free of
these negative characteristics and can fall down and worship yourself.
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > Well, I'm a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
> -)
> > > >
> > > > Very PC of you.
> > >
> > > Why? Most human ideologies are geared to reproduction -- someone
> once said that "all moral language can be resolved into statements about
> genetic fitness strategies" -- and I think the VHEM is orthagonal to the
> PC/non-PC axis.
> >
> > This was supossed to be a compliment to underscore environmental (and
> > <whatever> else) awareness of your movement.
>
> Ah, sorry, not used to compliments from this quarter :-)
Don't you think that a permanent conract with the liberal ("PC" by definition)
environment of SHM should somehow rub-in? Besides, I'm trying to be
cooperative and use the terms that are flattering to my correspondent.
Somehow, I doubt that statement: "You are a real reactionary!" will be
considered as a compliment. :-)
>
> > > Does this involves suicide at some point of your career
> > >
> > > Possibly, but the accent is more on not breeding. But no, before you
> > > ask, I'm not a Doukhobor :-)
> >
> > [The better known Russian term is "Skoptsy"]
> >
> > You mean that you are not planning any drastic changes, just a .... er
> "controlled" usage of your anatomy?
>
> That's "need-to-know" info........
As it was noticed some time ago on a diferent subject, if person does not
want to talk about something, he/she/it has something to hide. :-)
>
> > Can I guess the reason? Perhaps you decided that perfection is already
> > achieved and any following "experimentations" can produce only
> distressingly inferior result? :-)
>
> Biologically
Not only biologically but in all other respects, from mental capabilities
to the manners...
>inferior to me? No room at the bottom.
I was right in my assumption. The issues of "top" and "bottom" are very
relative and one can take as much pride in being on the very top as in
being on the very bottom (both are implying certain "perfection"). As
it was said about Ed Wood, "he reached bottom of the hill and proudly
stayed there".
And your claim that there is "no room" confirms what I said: that everything
else will be a deviation from the "prefect" level (in other words, "inferior").
E.g., the ordinary low rank demons are definitely inferior to the Satan.
>
> > > > or just some actions toward the extinction of the other members of a
> > > > human race?
> > >
> > > Certainly not! Hence the "voluntary" in the name.
> >
> > Well, there are different ways to achieve a voluntary participation....
>
> I can hear you reminiscing about May Day parades...........
>
No, about "the cat and the mustard" principle.
> >
> > > Hey!! Wasn't it you who was throwing so much doubt on the villagers
> > > moving to the city after Phase One of the exterminations? You've just
> > > suggested another motivation for them to do so.
> >
> > It's not exactly the same. To run to the safety of a big city is one thing
> > but to run into the destroyed city for the safety reasons is quite
> different (like running for safety to Stalingrad in the fall of 1942).
>
> Well, one difference is that the Germans at Stalingrad didn't keep going
> away and coming back. At Merv, one of the magnates who came along and set
> himself up as ruler really started to rebuild the walls and irrigation and
> everything. With hindsight, we know the Mongols came back and killed
> everybody again, but they couldn't have known that. The guy's brief reign
> must have seemed like an attractive prospect to all landless peasants --
> lots of opportunity, as a brick-carrier if nothing else.
This, of course, was a possibility but situation was different from one
I used in my initial example: the big cities were not destroyed during
the RCW. They could be looted (to a different degree), there could be some
(individual or mass) executions but the cities remained to be relatively
intact.
>
> BTW, I saw "The Enemy at the Gates" the other day, about the Stalingrad
> sniper duel between Zaitsev and the German. Seen it?
Nope, and honestly, don't have any intention to, based on what I heard.
One more "Collective Farm 'Red Cranberry'".
>
> > > Yes, they were, but BG gave everyone the treatment, it wasn't just
> when provoked by JK. For instance, in a separate thread I quoted the McNeill
> > > hypothesis that the Black Death had been endemic in southern China,
> where the locals were either immune or had developed rodent-avoiding
> customs,
> >
> > You mean "rodent-eating"? :-)
>
> No, I mean keeping away from the things. Killing, but not touching.
AFAIK, they are still a part of the national cuisine (saw some juicy
pictures in the National Geographic while ago).
>
> > >and
> > > escaped from its pool when the Mongols linked the area to their
> > > international trade network. It wasn't as if they did this on purpose,
> but
> > > nevertheless the idea was insulting, discriminatory, racist and a
> tortious
> > > act against him personally. Apparently no evil of any kind must be
> spoken of
> > > any Mongolian, living or dead, ever.
> >
> > Did you point to him that ACTUALLY this was a positive Mongolian
> contribution?
> > They saved Europe from the overpopulation, eliminated leprosy (AFAIK)
>
> ??? woss?
Yes. AFAIK, after the Black Death, there was no leprosy in Europe. If true,
you can consider this as a valuable contribution to the health of European
population (think positively!).
>
> and
> > probably saved some endangered species (at least for a while). Not to
> > mention that extermination of the white christians (esp males) is
> definitely
> > PC. And that whatever fault was present, it was a Chinese fault (as a
> source),
> > while Mongols acted as the honest intermediaries by bringing this nice and
> > highly intelligent rodents into Europe (for which act Europeans should be
> > eternally grateful).
> > A proper explanation often helps to avoid hostility and unnecessary
> > aggravation. :-)
>
> You and I might enjoy playing around with such thoughts, but I don't
> think either of those two had much sense of self-irony.
Well, in this case they would take it seriously. :-)
>
> > > Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been planning
> an imperialist dictatorship for a decade.
> >
> > Ah yes, this is Paul's idea fix. :-)
>
> Mine too!
Did not get it. Paul think that there is a cabal and you think that there is
none. However, you are saying that you think the same thing as he does.
Isn't this a litle bit bizzare? :-)
>Why should Paul have all the fun?
He should not. AFAIK, the institutions with the padded walls in the rooms
and very comfortable (if somewhat unusual clothes) are widely available
all over the civilized world. :-)
>
> Oh yes. There were numerous theories about Himmler's theories. He was a
> > little bit crazy about all this Aryan stuff and, unlike Hitler himself,
> > took it completely seriously.
>
> Yes indeed. Can you imagine Himmler as a talk.origins loon? :-)
Did not visit this group but easily can imagine him in shm.
>
> And now can you imagine an American talk.origins loon of your choice as
> head of state security? :-(
David, you definitely don't understand something important. America did not
have any idea of a "security" for quite a while. Mostly because population
had been sure that nothing can happen to _them_ (US being too <whatever>).
9/11 came as a complete cultural shock, which indicated, among many other
things, that the existing services are not adequate to defend the country
against the new type of a danger. There was (still is) a huge outcry to
take some immediate measures for country's protection. The idea of a new
beurocracy was and is supported by both parties and the main points of
argument are how much money to put into it and who will control the new
beurocracy (Reps through administration or Dems through the unions and hack
protection measures).
With almost complete absense of any tradition and the huge size of a problem,
it's quite obvious that the 1st steps are often not efficient and sometimes
even ridiculuous (as advice about the duct tape). OTOH, can anybody offer
ready AND good solutions to deal with the problems of uncontrolled
immigration, tracing the terrorists, etc.? With a caveat that these measures
should not offend ANYBODY, that there should be no strenghtening (or even
enforcement) of the existing laws, etc. And that everything should be
done really fast so that administration is not accussed of doing nothing.
Now, you can try and come with your set of the proposals. :-)
>
> > > No, I only remember the Great Helms they were wearing!
> > >Very sinister.
> >
> > AFAIK, designed by Eisenstein personally and specifically for this effect.
> > Can't figure out why this piece of crap is so well-known outside Russia.
> > Well, music is good and it's a good example of how to make a political
> > propaganda. But besides this, it sucks in each and every scene (well,
> purely> "graphic" effects are sometimes impressive but mostly stolen from
> Fritz
> > Lang). Technically, it is way, way, way, behind the european and american
> > standards of the time.
>
> I don't know enough to know whether this is a sound assessment or an
> Alex idiosyncracy,
Don't worry, in these issues I usually put idiosyncracies aside and also
tend to know what I'm talking about. :-)
You see, by this time Soviet cinema just recently stopped being silent and
Eisenstein made his name with the silent movies (which had been heavily
influenced by the German cinema). As a result, part of the effects had been
inherited from the old-style cinema and not typical for the "new" style
(add an absense of color). Second, most of the leading roles had been played
by the theater actors, with all related differences in the style of acting.
A purely "technical" side of movie making was ages behind the "western"
level, partially due to the low budgets. How many different "environments"
are shown in the movie? Very few, as far as the city-related action is
involved: few shots of the city walls and the churches and a couple of the
house interiors. The rest are the open spaces with the natural trees and
plywood "extras". Did you pay attention to how "ice" breaks? Did you pay
attention to the fact that snow brushes off the people in somewhat unusual
way (too "dry")? It's because salt had been used as a substitute. Most
of the extras had not been taught how to move so that they just keep
"hitting" each other with their cardboard swords.
The "ideological" content of the movie related in the bizzare things like
the peasants clad into the immaculate white shirts (no overcoats whatsoever)
climbing out of the burned out (but probably very clean inside) hidings and
flocking after Alexander on his way to Novgorod. Very touchy but a complete
BS on many practical levels. Or the aromourer (a comic sidekick) giving
away his fares to the citizens rushing into his shop (why is the rush?
were they going to start running into the enemy's direction in the next 5
minutes?). Novgorod was a rich city republic with its "well-regulated militia"
(oops, it's from a wrong document) that was powerful enough to fight the
city princes on a regular basis. There was no need for the citizens to run
as the headless chicken in a search of a free weaponry. Of which use the
peasants could be in such an army is alittle bit beyond me (AFAIK, when
we are talking about Novgorod's western equivalents, we are talking about
the burgher militia, not about the farmers).
A purely military part of the movie is a jewel on its own right. The Macedonian
(or Swiss?) phalanx of the Russians with their long spears and the Order's
infantry without any visible weapons running (for how long?) with the
galloping cavalry. BTW, what exactly was the purpose of these long spears if
the attacker broke through them without any effort?
>so I'm copying to Eve :-)
>
Who is Eve?
> > > Maybe Alexander Nevsky should have a Hollywood remake called "Blonder
> than Thou"? People will see it because they think it's a sequel to "Blonde
> and Blonder". :-)
> >
> > Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's
> attempts (mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the
> Russian
> history (Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a
> "Collective
> Farm Red Cranberry". :-)
>
> Not sure I get that reference..... any relation to "Europudding"?
Can't tell about this one. The term is from the old play in a popular
Moscow puppet theater. The subject was making a movie based on "Carmen".
"Screenplay" somewhat deviates from the original and part of the action
happens in the Russia in collective farm "Red Cranberry". You can more or
less figure out authentiticity of the rest. :-)
>
> Didn't know they made a film of Taras Bulba.
With Y.Brinner (so this role was at least somewhat "authentic" even if
absolutely unrelated to the original novel) and Tony Curtis (well, he was
more or less "universal").
>The BBC did "War and Peace"
> as a series, cast the diminutive and restrained Antony Hopkins as Pierre,
> which was ridiculous.
Did you see American version? Except for Audrey Hepburn, the rest was
completely absurd. Henry Fonda as Pierre, etc.(and the "environment"!!! brrr).
Yes. Being a part of a superior entity should be really exciting. The "entity"
is important: personally, you may be stupid, lazy and dishonest but "entity"
makes these personal falls unimportant. Besides, all your problems are due to
"the enemy".
E. C. Lee
> > AFAIK, designed by Eisenstein personally and specifically for this effect.
> > Can't figure out why this piece of crap is so well-known outside Russia.
> > Well, music is good and it's a good example of how to make a political
> > propaganda. But besides this, it sucks in each and every scene (well,
> purely> "graphic" effects are sometimes impressive but mostly stolen from
> Fritz
> > Lang). Technically, it is way, way, way, behind the european and american
> > standards of the time.
>
> I don't know enough to know whether this is a sound assessment or an
> Alex idiosyncracy, so I'm copying to Eve :-)
>
Oh Lord! Dragging me into things again! It's been a long time that
I've even seen these these things, let alone studied them, but I'll do
my best.
I'd hardly call it "a piece of crap". I'm more inclined to call it a
great film. Of course, I'm visually oriented so I liked the striking
effects. (I also liked Von Sternberg's "Scarlet Empress"--whadja
think of that one, Alex?) And Eisenstein was brilliant when it came
to editting (derived of course, from Pudovkin and Kuleshov). The
great Russians moviemakers were fantastic with theory, an intellectual
approach to filmmaking and the imaginative use of editting. Have you
ever read Eisenstein's writings? And BTW, the score is truly great in
Nevsky, but part of the greatness is also in how Eisenstein integrates
rhythms of the visuals with the music.
Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films. The costumes of the
teutonic knights in "Nevsky" were derived from the headgear of Rudiger
in Lang's "Siegfried". I'd hardly call them "stolen". Eisenstein
was also influenced by German Expressionist painter and filmmaker Paul
Leni in some of his more dramatic imagery for the film "Ivan the
Terrible". But IMHO there's a big difference between "stealing" and
being influenced. IMHO, Martin Scorcese is the greatest film director
of our times and he's always using things derived by his study of
other directors.
> > Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's
> attempts (mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the
> Russian
> history (Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a
> "Collective
> Farm Red Cranberry". :-)
>
You forgot the film "Reds". I thought that one was awful.
JMHO,
Eve
Alex
> "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message news:<CS68a.33297$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > AFAIK, designed by Eisenstein personally and specifically for this effect.
> > > Can't figure out why this piece of crap is so well-known outside Russia.
> > > Well, music is good and it's a good example of how to make a political
> > > propaganda. But besides this, it sucks in each and every scene (well,
> > purely> "graphic" effects are sometimes impressive but mostly stolen from
> > Fritz
> > > Lang). Technically, it is way, way, way, behind the european and american
> > > standards of the time.
> >
> > I don't know enough to know whether this is a sound assessment or an
> > Alex idiosyncracy, so I'm copying to Eve :-)
> >
> Oh Lord! Dragging me into things again! It's been a long time that
> I've even seen these these things, let alone studied them, but I'll do
> my best.
>
> I'd hardly call it "a piece of crap". I'm more inclined to call it a
> great film.
Well, one person's crap is another person's great movie. I still consider
it's a piece of crap in most respects except music and propaganda (as a
piece of a propaganda, it's brilliant).
> Of course, I'm visually oriented so I liked the striking
> effects.
There were very few of them, mostly related to the Order-related scenes.
> (I also liked Von Sternberg's "Scarlet Empress"--whadja
> think of that one, Alex?)
I'm afraid that the title in Russian could be different. Are you talking
about one with Marlen Dietrich playing Catherine? Saw it ages ago and
don't remember too much except for it's being a complete nonsense historically
with the impressive visual effects.
> And Eisenstein was brilliant when it came
> to editting (derived of course, from Pudovkin and Kuleshov).
Actually, all of them "borrowed" editing from Protazanov (and Griffits), who
did not write any revolutionary theories but just kept making the very
popular movies as long as he was allowed.
>The
> great Russians moviemakers
I have very serious doubts about their "greatness".
>were fantastic with theory,
I much prefer when the director is fantastic in practice.
>an intellectual
> approach to filmmaking and the imaginative use of editting.
I can't recall a single "watchable" movie made by Pudovkin. "End of
St-Petersburg" was an annoying propaganda with the good editing, the same
for E's "October", etc. Interestingly, they were very similar to the Nazies'
propaganda pieces. Actually, not a big surprise: almost the same views
regarding place of the art in society.
>Have you
> ever read Eisenstein's writings?
God forbid! Who cares about the director's writings? The results should
be on the screen, not on paper.
>And BTW, the score is truly great in
> Nevsky,
Yes. AFAIK, it was not written by E. :-)
>but part of the greatness is also in how Eisenstein integrates
> rhythms of the visuals with the music.
Oh please, what he "integrates" is mostly a total nonsense, insulting for
viewer's intelligence. There was nothing unusual in integration music and
the image on the screen. What and how happens on the screen is more
important. And these "what and how" are mostly below any criticism.
Most of the actors (and some, like Ohlopkov, were the very good theater
actors) could not move on the screen (practically no experience) and the
"masses" look pitifully inept, practically no interesting angles of the
shooting, the battle scenes are terrible and "technology" was years behind
the level of the time. What's left? Couple scenes with the Order Knights
(IMO, too many crosses and eagles but let it be) and the final apotheosis.
>
> Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
Of course. Lang was the great director.
> The costumes of the
> teutonic knights in "Nevsky" were derived from the headgear of Rudiger
> in Lang's "Siegfried".
I don't think so. The helmets in the "Niebelungs" were mostly conic with
a lot of wings, horns and other (not necessarily historic) things attached.
They are not explicitly "menacing" and don't carry too much of an ideological
weight. The German helmets in "A N" are bucket-shaped and carry quite
explicit ideological burden, just as the faces of the Order's leaders: all
of them are menacing to the point of being a caricature. This all made
sense within the movie's framework: to be a piece of the anti-German (Nazy)
propaganda. Within this framework (as an piece of a propaganda), the movie
is superb. As a piece of art.... Well, I already expressed my opinion.
> I'd hardly call them "stolen".
I said that effects had been stolen, not the helmets.
> Eisenstein
> was also influenced by German Expressionist painter and filmmaker Paul
> Leni in some of his more dramatic imagery for the film "Ivan the
> Terrible".
Yes. Some pieces look supiciously "familiar", if you saw "Nibelungs".
> But IMHO there's a big difference between "stealing" and
> being influenced.
Well, you can call it whatever you wish. This does not improve "A N" too
much. Too many flaws.
> IMHO, Martin Scorcese is the greatest film director
> of our times
He is? Well, I don't have any fixed opinion on this subject and don't
have any criteria to define who is Number 1.
>and he's always using things derived by his study of
> other directors.
Well, as one critic remarked, most of the "serious" modern cinema is
derived from "Citizen Cain" but there is a difference between a derivation
and copying.
>
> > > Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's
> > attempts (mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the
> > Russian
> > history (Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a
> > "Collective
> > Farm Red Cranberry". :-)
> >
> You forgot the film "Reds". I thought that one was awful.
Never saw more than 10 minutes of it but this one is different. It's
pretty much like the recent Bond's (and not only) movies: a foreigner
acting in the exotic environment.
David C Pugh
> > > This was supossed to be a compliment to underscore environmental (and
> > > <whatever> else) awareness of your movement.
> >
> > Ah, sorry, not used to compliments from this quarter :-)
>
> Don't you think that a permanent conract with the liberal ("PC" by
definition)> environment of SHM should somehow rub-in?
It doesn't need to "rub in", unlike Dukakis I'm a liberal that is not
ashamed to speak his name. For every day that passes with Amerika as sole
superpower, I move N centimetres further left. :-)
Besides, I'm trying to be> cooperative and use the terms that are flattering
to my correspondent.
Oh, then I thank you for your cooperation. :-)
> Somehow, I doubt that statement: "You are a real reactionary!" will be
> considered as a compliment. :-)
On that basis, though, I can say it to you, can't I? ;-)
> And your claim that there is "no room" confirms what I said: that
everything
> else will be a deviation from the "prefect" level (in other words,
"inferior").
> E.g., the ordinary low rank demons are definitely inferior to the Satan.
I'm hopelessly confused now......
> No, about "the cat and the mustard" principle.
???? Cats don't eat mustard. Is that the principle?
> > BTW, I saw "The Enemy at the Gates" the other day, about the
Stalingrad sniper duel between Zaitsev and the German. Seen it?
>
> Nope, and honestly, don't have any intention to, based on what I heard.
> One more "Collective Farm 'Red Cranberry'".
IMHO the visuals were good, the acting was good, the dialogue wasn't,
the romantic triangle was very silly. It's nice to have a pro-Russian film
for a change, though. The opening scene of the conscripts being thrown
across the river under fire and then given one rifle and five bullets per
man ..... brrrrr!
> > > Did you point to him that ACTUALLY this was a positive Mongolian
> > contribution?
> > > They saved Europe from the overpopulation, eliminated leprosy (AFAIK)
> >
> > ??? woss?
>
> Yes. AFAIK, after the Black Death, there was no leprosy in Europe.
Immediately after, I don't know. Ever after, that's quite wrong. Hey,
I'm living in the city where the lepra bacillus was discovered, in the
leprosarium here. In the 19th century, leprosy was endemic on the West
Norwegian coast, no one knows why. And no, we didn't escape the Black Death,
au contraire, it hit us harder than anywhere else, because life in Norway is
a bit marginal to begin with.
> > > > Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been
planning an imperialist dictatorship for a decade.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, this is Paul's idea fix. :-)
> >
> > Mine too!
>
> Did not get it. Paul think that there is a cabal and you think that there
is none.
The "here" in the above sentence refers to my country, not Paul's.
There's no contradiction.
> > Yes indeed. Can you imagine Himmler as a talk.origins loon? :-)
>
> Did not visit this group but easily can imagine him in shm.
The difference is, I think, immaterial, with the cross-posting that goes
on......
> > And now can you imagine an American talk.origins loon of your choice
as head of state security? :-(
>
> David, you definitely don't understand something important. America did
not have any idea of a "security" for quite a while. Mostly because
population
> had been sure that nothing can happen to _them_ (US being too <whatever>).
So what was J. Edgar Hoover chasing people for, and how?
> 9/11 came as a complete cultural shock, which indicated, among many other
> things, that the existing services are not adequate to defend the country
> against the new type of a danger. There was (still is) a huge outcry to
> take some immediate measures for country's protection.
As long as it doesn't involve federalisation of airport security, I
gather.......
> With almost complete absense of any tradition and the huge size of a
problem,> it's quite obvious that the 1st steps are often not efficient and
sometimes> even ridiculuous (as advice about the duct tape).
A Keystone Kops version of Fatherland Security can still be pretty nasty
to innocent people involved. The problem with *all* security services --
perhaps of all police -- is that they disbelieve in innocence as a concept,
and prefer to adjust the evidence rather than admit they have the wrong guy.
We're all guilty, they're not sure of what. :-(
OTOH, can anybody offer> ready AND good solutions to deal with the problems
of uncontrolled> immigration, tracing the terrorists, etc.? With a caveat
that these measures> should not offend ANYBODY
And the Administration is striving for this noble goal? Can't say I'd
noticed.
> >so I'm copying to Eve :-)
> >
>> Who is Eve?
I think you've found out by now :-)
> Can't tell about this one. The term is from the old play in a popular
> Moscow puppet theater. The subject was making a movie based on "Carmen".
> "Screenplay" somewhat deviates from the original and part of the action
> happens in the Russia in collective farm "Red Cranberry". You can more or
> less figure out authentiticity of the rest. :-)
Yup.
> Did you see American version? Except for Audrey Hepburn, the rest was
> completely absurd. Henry Fonda as Pierre, etc.(and the "environment"!!!
brrr).
No. Was Audrey Hepburn playing Natasha? That sounds right. So who would
our dream Pierre be?
> > The way I like to put it, you attribute all negative aspects of
human beings to some category of which you are not yourself a member, and
this
has the wonderful consequence that you can thereafter consider yourself free
of these negative characteristics and can fall down and worship yourself.
>
> Yes. Being a part of a superior entity should be really exciting. The
"entity" is important: personally, you may be stupid, lazy and dishonest but
"entity" makes these personal falls unimportant. Besides, all your problems
are due to "the enemy"
We are definitely on the same wavelength here. With this as a common
starting-point, how do we end up on opposite sides of most everything else?
:-)
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > > > This was supossed to be a compliment to underscore environmental (and
> > > > <whatever> else) awareness of your movement.
> > >
> > > Ah, sorry, not used to compliments from this quarter :-)
> >
> > Don't you think that a permanent conract with the liberal ("PC" by
> definition)> environment of SHM should somehow rub-in?
>
> It doesn't need to "rub in", unlike Dukakis I'm a liberal that is not
> ashamed to speak his name.
Dukakis being ashamed of being a liberal? The next thing I know The Senior
Baloon from MA will start pretending that he is a Republican. :-)
>For every day that passes with Amerika as sole
> superpower, I move N centimetres further left. :-)
I think that I already mentioned it somewhere. Situation with a sole superpower
is an unhealthy one if this superpower is trying to be everywhere. The
"healthier" situation would be a return to the imperialistic era with the
smaller powers playing The Top Man in their respective "spheres of influence".
This way, hate will be more equally distributed and the fear of a neighbour
bully will make superpower more necessary and better loved.
I think that reappearence of the aggressive Russia (with the "european
ambitions") would do miracles to your (and "european" in general) attitude
toward US. Look at the eastern europeans: they are still afraid of Russia
and, as a result, much more friendly toward US. As you may notice, I'm
advocating US withdrawl from NATO: you guys can solve your own problems
with our intervention (well, not exactly, as Balkans demonstrated, but it's
rather irrelevant) and, OTOH, we can solve most of our military problems
without a help from Belgium. Looks like this arrangement should make everybody
happy. Strangely, Soren got really upset with this idea and insisted that
US should stay for its own good. :-)
>
> Besides, I'm trying to be> cooperative and use the terms that are flattering
> to my correspondent.
>
> Oh, then I thank you for your cooperation. :-)
>
> > Somehow, I doubt that statement: "You are a real reactionary!" will be
> > considered as a compliment. :-)
>
> On that basis, though, I can say it to you, can't I? ;-)
Yes. I'll be flattered to be in the same group with Bismark. :-)
>
> > And your claim that there is "no room" confirms what I said: that
> everything
> > else will be a deviation from the "prefect" level (in other words,
> "inferior").
> > E.g., the ordinary low rank demons are definitely inferior to the Satan.
>
> I'm hopelessly confused now......
I'll try to make it simple. You said that you are proudly staying at the
very bottom of the hill. I explained that this position implies "perfection"
(as with Ed Wood): nobody can beat you at being bad. Just as with the Satan:
he is on the bottom of HIS hill (aka, much worse than any of his
subordinates), which makes him "perfect" in his area (Absolute Evil).
>
> > No, about "the cat and the mustard" principle.
>
> ???? Cats don't eat mustard. Is that the principle?
The problem with you libs is that you can't figure out the simplest things.
Take a spoonful of a mustard and place it under cat's tail (you can
figure the details). Cat WILL eat mustard voluntarily, for her own goood,
and even with a song. :-)
>
> > > BTW, I saw "The Enemy at the Gates" the other day, about the
> Stalingrad sniper duel between Zaitsev and the German. Seen it?
> >
> > Nope, and honestly, don't have any intention to, based on what I heard.
> > One more "Collective Farm 'Red Cranberry'".
>
> IMHO the visuals were good, the acting was good, the dialogue wasn't,
> the romantic triangle was very silly. It's nice to have a pro-Russian film
> for a change, though.
I found that I really don't care one way or another.
>The opening scene of the conscripts being thrown
> across the river under fire and then given one rifle and five bullets per
> man ..... brrrrr!
Don't think that this is necessarily realistic for mid '42.
>
> > > > Did you point to him that ACTUALLY this was a positive Mongolian
> contribution?
> > > > They saved Europe from the overpopulation, eliminated leprosy (AFAIK)
> > >
> > > ??? woss?
> >
> > Yes. AFAIK, after the Black Death, there was no leprosy in Europe.
>
> Immediately after, I don't know. Ever after, that's quite wrong. Hey,
> I'm living in the city where the lepra bacillus was discovered, in the
> leprosarium here. In the 19th century, leprosy was endemic on the West
> Norwegian coast, no one knows why.
Well, this was a big gap. You can't have it all all the time.
>And no, we didn't escape the Black Death,
> au contraire, it hit us harder than anywhere else, because life in Norway is
> a bit marginal to begin with.
>
> > > > > Sure, but I don't think there is a cabal here who has been
> planning an imperialist dictatorship for a decade.
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, this is Paul's idea fix. :-)
> > >
> > > Mine too!
> >
> > Did not get it. Paul think that there is a cabal and you think that there
> is none.
>
> The "here" in the above sentence refers to my country, not Paul's.
> There's no contradiction.
>
> > > Yes indeed. Can you imagine Himmler as a talk.origins loon? :-)
> >
> > Did not visit this group but easily can imagine him in shm.
>
> The difference is, I think, immaterial, with the cross-posting that goes
> on......
>
> > > And now can you imagine an American talk.origins loon of your choice
> as head of state security? :-(
> >
> > David, you definitely don't understand something important. America did
> not have any idea of a "security" for quite a while. Mostly because
> population
> > had been sure that nothing can happen to _them_ (US being too <whatever>).
>
> So what was J. Edgar Hoover chasing people for, and how?
It was long ago and it was ridiculed and happily forgotten. People lived in
a happy "nothing wrong can happen here" limbo.
>
> > 9/11 came as a complete cultural shock, which indicated, among many other
> > things, that the existing services are not adequate to defend the country
> > against the new type of a danger. There was (still is) a huge outcry to
> > take some immediate measures for country's protection.
>
> As long as it doesn't involve federalisation of airport security, I
> gather.......
>
Well, people still like their comforts and this securty are mostly the
same morons as earlier placed on the federal payroll. Instead of attracting
the best people, Congress went for the job security for the existing ones,
with Dems leading the charge (unions, unions, unions). What can you expect
from our lawmakers of any persuasion?
> > With almost complete absense of any tradition and the huge size of a
> problem,> it's quite obvious that the 1st steps are often not efficient and
> sometimes> even ridiculuous (as advice about the duct tape).
>
> A Keystone Kops version of Fatherland Security can still be pretty nasty
> to innocent people involved.
Yes, but the same people will be bitching if they don't see any. The visible
and annoying idiots are demonstrating that "something" is being done and
collective mind works in the mysterious but rather predictable ways.
>The problem with *all* security services --
> perhaps of all police -- is that they disbelieve in innocence as a concept,
> and prefer to adjust the evidence rather than admit they have the wrong guy.
> We're all guilty, they're not sure of what. :-(
To start with, you have to have a lot of intelligent people involved. This
is not going to happen because all these services are well entrenched and
guarded from within.
>
> OTOH, can anybody offer> ready AND good solutions to deal with the problems
> of uncontrolled> immigration, tracing the terrorists, etc.? With a caveat
> that these measures> should not offend ANYBODY
>
> And the Administration is striving for this noble goal? Can't say I'd
> noticed.
It's very difficult to tell. After all, the new Home Security just had been
created and did not have enough time to show anything substantial one way
or another. As for the immigration, something is being done but this is,
of course, not enough. OTOH, with all these "advocates" of <whatever rights>
and laywers, it's rather difficult to achieve something substantial in a
short period of time.
>
> > >so I'm copying to Eve :-)
> > >
> >> Who is Eve?
>
> I think you've found out by now :-)
I did. :-)
>
> > Can't tell about this one. The term is from the old play in a popular
> > Moscow puppet theater. The subject was making a movie based on "Carmen".
> > "Screenplay" somewhat deviates from the original and part of the action
> > happens in the Russia in collective farm "Red Cranberry". You can more or
> > less figure out authentiticity of the rest. :-)
>
> Yup.
>
> > Did you see American version? Except for Audrey Hepburn, the rest was
> > completely absurd. Henry Fonda as Pierre, etc.(and the "environment"!!!
> brrr).
>
> No. Was Audrey Hepburn playing Natasha? That sounds right.
Who else could she play? Kutuzov?
>So who would
> our dream Pierre be?
Henry Fonda.... Even Bondarchuk was better in this role.
>
> > > The way I like to put it, you attribute all negative aspects of
> human beings to some category of which you are not yourself a member, and
> this
> has the wonderful consequence that you can thereafter consider yourself free
> of these negative characteristics and can fall down and worship yourself.
> >
> > Yes. Being a part of a superior entity should be really exciting. The
> "entity" is important: personally, you may be stupid, lazy and dishonest but
> "entity" makes these personal falls unimportant. Besides, all your problems
> are due to "the enemy"
>
> We are definitely on the same wavelength here. With this as a common
> starting-point, how do we end up on opposite sides of most everything else?
> :-)
Well, because you are going the traditional way of a liberal intelligencia
(started by Russian). You dislike what you see (Tzarism was bad but
changeable), you ally yourself with the opponents (SR's, bolsheviks,
Ayatolla, Red Khmers, etc.) on a basis that they are enemies of your enemies
and without thinking about _their_ qualities (unmodifyably evil).
If, God forbid, they win, you are in the 1st group being ... er ... "removed".
Of course, you, Paul, etc. are reasonably safe in US and Europe but the
pattern is the same, including inability to learn on other people's
mistakes. Mostly (IMO) happens due to the feeling of a personal security. :-)
I came from a different school.
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message news:<CS68a.33297$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > great film.
>
> Well, one person's crap is another person's great movie.
True enough. So I'm not going to argue or try to convince you
otherwise. Much is a matter of taste. I found it effective, you
didn't.
I still consider
> it's a piece of crap in most respects except music and propaganda (as a
> piece of a propaganda, it's brilliant).
>
We do agree that the music and propaganda were brilliant.
> > Of course, I'm visually oriented so I liked the striking
> > effects.
>
> There were very few of them, mostly related to the Order-related scenes.
>
I remember being impressed with the film when I saw it. However, it
has been a long time. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still be impressed, but
I'm not prepared to argue with you about it based on scenes as it's
been too long for me to make specific references (last time I saw it
had to be at least 25 years ago).
> > (I also liked Von Sternberg's "Scarlet Empress"--whadja
> > think of that one, Alex?)
>
> I'm afraid that the title in Russian could be different. Are you talking
> about one with Marlen Dietrich playing Catherine? Saw it ages ago and
> don't remember too much except for it's being a complete nonsense historically
> with the impressive visual effects.
>
Yep. That's the one. And it was nonsense historically. But most
Hollywood films are. In this period they weren't trying to do
otherwise, so it doesn't bother me. But it was incredible visually
(incorrect visually from an historical POV, but very striking) and a
wonderful star vehicle for Dietrich. Incredible set design, lighting,
costumes and photography. Stylish, imaginative and bizarre.
> > And Eisenstein was brilliant when it came
> > to editting (derived of course, from Pudovkin and Kuleshov).
>
> Actually, all of them "borrowed" editing from Protazanov (and Griffits), who
> did not write any revolutionary theories but just kept making the very
> popular movies as long as he was allowed.
>
>
> >The
> > great Russians moviemakers
>
> I have very serious doubts about their "greatness".
>
> >were fantastic with theory,
>
> I much prefer when the director is fantastic in practice.
>
Well, again, we disagree here as to the result in practice, but so be
it! There are other filmmakers that I have more of an interest in
taking the time to defend than them. When you criticize any of those,
I'll let you know! ;-)
> >an intellectual
> > approach to filmmaking and the imaginative use of editting.
>
> I can't recall a single "watchable" movie made by Pudovkin. "End of
> St-Petersburg" was an annoying propaganda with the good editing, the same
> for E's "October", etc. Interestingly, they were very similar to the Nazies'
> propaganda pieces. Actually, not a big surprise: almost the same views
> regarding place of the art in society.
>
I recall liking "Mother" but once again, this might be personal taste.
OTH, I found the Nazi films were way too heavy handed and most of them
are not terribly good. Partly because they chased away most of their
best directors and other important studio personnel (to Hollywood's
gain). Early German cinema is quite incredible. I particularly love
the Murnau films.
> >Have you
> > ever read Eisenstein's writings?
>
> God forbid! Who cares about the director's writings?
Ummm, people interested in filmmaking?
The results should
> be on the screen, not on paper.
>
I think they are, but I also find it an added reward when I find out
how the artist does what he/she does and why. Actually, there's a
lot of art that I initially don't like simply because I'm not sure how
to look at it. This can be because I'm looking at it from my limited
experiences or in the same way I'm used to looking at other dissimilar
things. In this case it's the fault of the art, but in my POV. I
don't mind getting a little extra help in seeing things in a new light
if that will increase my enjoyment of anything.
> >And BTW, the score is truly great in
> > Nevsky,
>
> Yes. AFAIK, it was not written by E. :-)
>
Yes. But I like how he used it.
> >but part of the greatness is also in how Eisenstein integrates
> > rhythms of the visuals with the music.
>
> Oh please, what he "integrates" is mostly a total nonsense, insulting for
> viewer's intelligence. There was nothing unusual in integration music and
> the image on the screen. What and how happens on the screen is more
> important. And these "what and how" are mostly below any criticism.
I disagree. If I recall the music and editing were carefully
orchestrated.
> Most of the actors (and some, like Ohlopkov, were the very good theater
> actors) could not move on the screen (practically no experience) and the
> "masses" look pitifully inept, practically no interesting angles of the
> shooting, the battle scenes are terrible and "technology" was years behind
> the level of the time. What's left? Couple scenes with the Order Knights
> (IMO, too many crosses and eagles but let it be) and the final apotheosis.
>
Again, I haven't seen it for a while, so I can't comment on this.
>
> > Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> > great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
>
> Of course. Lang was the great director.
>
Well, we do agree that Lang was A great director. ;-)
> > The costumes of the
> > teutonic knights in "Nevsky" were derived from the headgear of Rudiger
> > in Lang's "Siegfried".
>
> I don't think so.
Actually, I got this from Eisner's "The Haunted Screen" a history of
the German cinema. It's a pretty good book, left over from a
graduate level class on German film that I took. Not that it couldn't
be wrong and I haven't seen either film recently so I can't check it
out personally, but that was her call.
The helmets in the "Niebelungs" were mostly conic with
> a lot of wings, horns and other (not necessarily historic) things attached.
> They are not explicitly "menacing" and don't carry too much of an ideological
> weight. The German helmets in "A N" are bucket-shaped and carry quite
> explicit ideological burden, just as the faces of the Order's leaders: all
> of them are menacing to the point of being a caricature. This all made
> sense within the movie's framework: to be a piece of the anti-German (Nazy)
> propaganda. Within this framework (as an piece of a propaganda), the movie
> is superb. As a piece of art.... Well, I already expressed my opinion.
>
Again, these are opinions and that can't be argued. Just giving you
mine. I found the film memorable and affecting. Thumbs up from this
quarter! ;-)
>
> > I'd hardly call them "stolen".
>
> I said that effects had been stolen, not the helmets.
>
I still wouldn't call them stolen, anymore than I'd call the Agincourt
battle scene in Olivier's "Henry V" stolen (whoa! Snuck in something
on topic!)
.> > Eisenstein
> > was also influenced by German Expressionist painter and filmmaker Paul
> > Leni in some of his more dramatic imagery for the film "Ivan the
> > Terrible".
>
> Yes. Some pieces look supiciously "familiar", if you saw "Nibelungs".
>
I did. Lang was also influenced by Expressionism. And so were almost
all the Hollywood horror films at Univeral, and the eventual style
known as "film noir" (of course, part of this was also do to the fact
that by this time Hollywood was people with UFA refugees). It was a
powerful style.
> > But IMHO there's a big difference between "stealing" and
> > being influenced.
>
> Well, you can call it whatever you wish. This does not improve "A N" too
> much. Too many flaws.
>
I guess part of it is I'm willing to overlook some flaws in films if I
feel there's enough in it otherwise that tips the scales.
It's almost impossible to make a flawless film. There are very few in
which you can't find something questionable. Too many elements. I
can still find a film "great" based on some elements even if it has
limitations in others.
> > IMHO, Martin Scorcese is the greatest film director
> > of our times
>
> He is?
As I said, "in my humble opinion". I should probably have qualified
that "living" director. There's at least one who died recently that
IMHO could also share that claim. But at this moment, I can't t hink
of another director today that I admire over him, although I do like
many others. That said, I was disappointed in "Gangs of New York". I
had heard there was a lot of interference in the production and I
suspect he tried to cram in way too many messages and story points
when he should have concentrated on the film's basics.
Well, I don't have any fixed opinion on this subject and don't
> have any criteria to define who is Number 1.
>
No problem. It's a tough thing to do on anything. My least
favorite questions are things like "What's your favorite film?"
"What's the greates film ever made?" or almost anything concerning
favorites in art. It's hard to pit one thing against another when
they are often good in different ways.
> >and he's always using things derived by his study of
> > other directors.
>
> Well, as one critic remarked, most of the "serious" modern cinema is
> derived from "Citizen Cain" but there is a difference between a derivation
> and copying.
I agree that there's a difference between derivation and copying. I
always thought John Carpenter copied way too much from Hitchcock. But
I recently saw a film of his again and decided that he was doing
enough that was different to make it more interesting than I
originally thought. So I'm gradually opening up to his claim of doing
"homage". OTH, I thought "The Big Chill" was a rip off of the less
well known "Return of the Secausus Seven". I think part of this was
not so much because it was a whole "lifting" of the storyline, as it
was taking a basic idea and doing something "less" than the original.
Again, matter of opinion. Now Rueben Mamoulian did a film called
"Love Me Tonight", which is often called more Lubistch, than Lubitsch.
I'd probably put that one up there as an all time favorite film.
BTW, when you come down to it, "Kane" was also a tribute to all the
films that came before it. If you notice that each "little" segment
was done in a different style relating to the art of its time. New
things were done (and not only WERE they done, but many of them were
done within an interesting context), but there were also older
techniques that went back all the way to DW Griffith, were also used.
It was HOW they were used that made them great (you could make a case,
if you wanted to, that most film technique could be traced in one way
or another to the works of Griffith.) In any case, I won't argue that
"Kane" wasn't an astounding and influencial film. It was. But it
didn't come out of Zeus's head fully formed, either. You can usually
find a precursor for everything, even Griffith.
> > > > Now, this would be a good idea but, unfortunately, all Hollywood's
> > > attempts (mostly couple decades ago) to make something related to the
> > > Russian
> > > history (Dr. Zivago, Taras Bulba, War and Peace, etc.) resulted in a
> > > "Collective
> > > Farm Red Cranberry". :-)
> > >
> > You forgot the film "Reds". I thought that one was awful.
>
> Never saw more than 10 minutes of it
You're lucky. That one embarassed me. Might have been decent if it
was in the hands of a different director (and casting director). I
think it won a bunch of Oscars, too. IMHO, Jack Nicolsen was the only
decent part of it, but he wasn't enough to make it worth your time.
but this one is different. It's
> pretty much like the recent Bond's (and not only) movies: a foreigner
> acting in the exotic environment.
So is it worth seeing, if only for a giggle, or should I avoid it?
Eve (somewhat miffed that you never heard of me seeing as I've been
fairly active on this list for OVER THREE YEARS! <sigh>)
E. C. Lee
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message news:<CS68a.33297$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > > > "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:f8e58188.03022...@posting.google.com...
Critical correction of a typo here in my previous post.
I said
"In this case it's the fault of the art, but in my POV."
What I should have said was
"In this case it's NOT the fault of the art, but in my POV."
Go on with the rest of your business....
Eve
Brian M. Scott
news:xNF8a.33722$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no in
soc.history.medieval:
[...]
> ???? Cats don't eat mustard. [...]
This strikes me as a *very* rash statement, as it denies the
inherent contrariness of cats. I've heard before that cats
don't eat X (for various values of X), and every time I've
subsequently learned of at least one cat that positively dotes
on X.
[...]
Brian
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message news:<CS68a.33297$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
[AN]
> >
> I remember being impressed with the film when I saw it. However, it
> has been a long time. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still be impressed, but
> I'm not prepared to argue with you about it based on scenes as it's
> been too long for me to make specific references (last time I saw it
> had to be at least 25 years ago).
I see. 1st time I watched it long, long ago and was impressed (I was
supossed to be impressed, after all it was Soviet "classics" and I saw
too many "other" movies). Sinse then, I watched it more than once and
each time got more and more dissapointed.
> > I can't recall a single "watchable" movie made by Pudovkin. "End of
> > St-Petersburg" was an annoying propaganda with the good editing, the same
> > for E's "October", etc. Interestingly, they were very similar to the Nazies'
> > propaganda pieces. Actually, not a big surprise: almost the same views
> > regarding place of the art in society.
> >
> I recall liking "Mother" but once again, this might be personal taste.
Probably you did not have to study the book in school. :-)
The movie is too much of a propaganda for me to enjoy any other aspect
of it.
> > >Have you
> > > ever read Eisenstein's writings?
> >
> > God forbid! Who cares about the director's writings?
>
> Ummm, people interested in filmmaking?
Probably, but I'm interested in filmwatching. :-)
> >
> > Oh please, what he "integrates" is mostly a total nonsense, insulting for
> > viewer's intelligence. There was nothing unusual in integration music and
> > the image on the screen. What and how happens on the screen is more
> > important. And these "what and how" are mostly below any criticism.
>
> I disagree. If I recall the music and editing were carefully
> orchestrated.
I'm talking about the different thing. Yes, the scenes are well "orhestrated"
with the music. But the scenes themselves are mostly unbelievably stupid.
> > > Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> > > great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
> >
> > Of course. Lang was the great director.
> >
> Well, we do agree that Lang was A great director. ;-)
My usual problem with the articles :-(
> > Well, you can call it whatever you wish. This does not improve "A N" too
> > much. Too many flaws.
> >
> I guess part of it is I'm willing to overlook some flaws in films if I
> feel there's enough in it otherwise that tips the scales.
So am I. As everything else, this is a personal judgement.
> > > You forgot the film "Reds". I thought that one was awful.
> >
> > Never saw more than 10 minutes of it
>
> You're lucky. That one embarassed me. Might have been decent if it
> was in the hands of a different director (and casting director). I
> think it won a bunch of Oscars, too. IMHO, Jack Nicolsen was the only
> decent part of it, but he wasn't enough to make it worth your time.
>
> but this one is different. It's
> > pretty much like the recent Bond's (and not only) movies: a foreigner
> > acting in the exotic environment.
>
> So is it worth seeing, if only for a giggle, or should I avoid it?
Can't tell: it's a matter of taste. Basically, too much explosions and
computer graphics, Bronsan (IMO) can't replace Connery, not enough sense
of humor.
>
> Eve (somewhat miffed that you never heard of me seeing as I've been
> fairly active on this list for OVER THREE YEARS! <sigh>)
Sorry. After I asked David this question, I figured out that he meant you.
But sometimes it takes a while to link people with an unexpected reference.
BTW, the question did not imply that I never heard of you, just that you
did not jump immediately into my mental "list".
Alex
> On 03 Mar 2003 "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in
> news:xNF8a.33722$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no in
> soc.history.medieval:
>
> [...]
>
> > ???? Cats don't eat mustard. [...]
>
> This strikes me as a *very* rash statement,
"Immature", I'd call it. :-)
>as it denies the
> inherent contrariness of cats.
>I've heard before that cats
> don't eat X (for various values of X), and every time I've
> subsequently learned of at least one cat that positively dotes
> on X.
Good observation: my friend's cat always comes to me to get
petted contrary to my repeated attempts to tear its tail off (it
would make a great duster). According to David's view, this cat
should run away and not bother me with its demands to be rubbed and
scratched.
However, this was not the point. And the point was that everyone
(including a cat) can be convinced to volunteer (does not matter for
what) if he/she/it is properly stimulated. :-)
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "David C Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message news:<CS68a.33297$Rc7.4...@news2.e.nsc.no>...
>
> [AN]
> > >
> > I remember being impressed with the film when I saw it. However, it
> > has been a long time. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still be impressed, but
> > I'm not prepared to argue with you about it based on scenes as it's
> > been too long for me to make specific references (last time I saw it
> > had to be at least 25 years ago).
>
> I see. 1st time I watched it long, long ago and was impressed (I was
> supossed to be impressed, after all it was Soviet "classics" and I saw
> too many "other" movies). Sinse then, I watched it more than once and
> each time got more and more dissapointed.
>
first, then I'll see it years later and I'll reevaluate it to find
more than I initially saw. But who knows? It's possible that my
opinion might change in the opposite direction. Or it might not.
It's also possible that you and I are looking for different things
here and we both come with our own particular likes and prejudices
which brings us to opposite conclusions.
Of course, at the time I did see it I was in heavy movie watching
mode. At least 4 or more a week and they were all considered "great"
so the competition for my attention was intense. I wasn't impressed
by all of them. I wasn't particularly impressed with French New Wave,
although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
excited about what was then called "The New German cinema", but who
knows? Some experimental cinema is genuniely interesting, but a lot
of it really does deserve to be called "crap" or at least a waste of t
ime. I always go in wanting to like a film, but I am very critical, a
combination of my education and being a Leo on a strong Virgo cusp
(highly critical with a need to let everyone know it!) And I don't
let the opinions of others, even big shots, color my views. "Leaving
Las Vegas" was highly touted by the critics, I thought it utter
garbage.
>
> > > I can't recall a single "watchable" movie made by Pudovkin. "End of
> > > St-Petersburg" was an annoying propaganda with the good editing, the same
> > > for E's "October", etc. Interestingly, they were very similar to the Nazies'
> > > propaganda pieces. Actually, not a big surprise: almost the same views
> > > regarding place of the art in society.
> > >
> > I recall liking "Mother" but once again, this might be personal taste.
>
> Probably you did not have to study the book in school. :-)
No, that definitely wasn't a part of my education. Don't know how
they managed to skip it! :-)
> The movie is too much of a propaganda for me to enjoy any other aspect
> of it.
>
Well, I try not to let that influence my opinions as to something's
artistic worth. A great deal of art IS some sort of propaganda. A
truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything. OTH,
it's hard to abandon one's bias when it's something that affects us
personally.
> > > >Have you
> > > > ever read Eisenstein's writings?
> > >
> > > God forbid! Who cares about the director's writings?
> >
> > Ummm, people interested in filmmaking?
>
> Probably, but I'm interested in filmwatching. :-)
>
I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything (except
current events, where the more I end up in a deep depression). Of
course, one's initial impression is essensial and you can only
experience it once. That's why I hated classes where they'd have you
read about the film before you see it. But I like a movie which I
can see repeatedly, getting something new out of it on each viewing.
A bit of knowledge can tip me off to look for special things.
> > > Oh please, what he "integrates" is mostly a total nonsense, insulting for
> > > viewer's intelligence. There was nothing unusual in integration music and
> > > the image on the screen. What and how happens on the screen is more
> > > important. And these "what and how" are mostly below any criticism.
> >
> > I disagree. If I recall the music and editing were carefully
> > orchestrated.
>
> I'm talking about the different thing. Yes, the scenes are well "orhestrated"
> with the music. But the scenes themselves are mostly unbelievably stupid.
>
Well, that's a content issue. I'm talking about the film's structure.
"Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content, but is an
amazing film.
> > > > Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> > > > great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
> > >
> > > Of course. Lang was the great director.
> > >
> > Well, we do agree that Lang was A great director. ;-)
>
> My usual problem with the articles :-(
>
Oh. I thought you were just doing a comparison thing there!
> > > Well, you can call it whatever you wish. This does not improve "A N" too
> > > much. Too many flaws.
> > >
<snip--some other movie whose name I can't recall>
> >
> > but this one is different. It's
> > > pretty much like the recent Bond's (and not only) movies: a foreigner
> > > acting in the exotic environment.
> >
> > So is it worth seeing, if only for a giggle, or should I avoid it?
>
> Can't tell: it's a matter of taste. Basically, too much explosions and
> computer graphics, Bronsan (IMO) can't replace Connery, not enough sense
> of humor.
>
Charles Bronson? I kinda like him. Loved "Once Upon a Time in the
West". I'm not particularly big on explosions though.
> >
> > Eve (somewhat miffed that you never heard of me seeing as I've been
> > fairly active on this list for OVER THREE YEARS! <sigh>)
>
> Sorry. After I asked David this question, I figured out that he meant you.
> But sometimes it takes a while to link people with an unexpected reference.
Well, film is one of my "things".
> BTW, the question did not imply that I never heard of you, just that you
> did not jump immediately into my mental "list".
LOL! Nice to know that I'm so memorable! ;-)
Eve
Alex
> > > >
> > > I remember being impressed with the film when I saw it. However, it
> > > has been a long time. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still be impressed, but
> > > I'm not prepared to argue with you about it based on scenes as it's
> > > been too long for me to make specific references (last time I saw it
> > > had to be at least 25 years ago).
> >
> > I see. 1st time I watched it long, long ago and was impressed (I was
see
> > too many "other" movies). Sinse then, I watched it more than once and
> > each time got more and more dissapointed.
> >
> Well, I normally have the opposite reaction. I won't like a movie at
> first, then I'll see it years later and I'll reevaluate it to find
> more than I initially saw.
Sometimes this happens with me as well but "AN" was a different case. I was
taught that it is a great movie and initially I was too young to question
this statement. Not to mention that I did not see too many foreign movies
at this time. With some experience and material for comparison I started
noticing that actually <that> and <this> are not so great and that by most
parameters movie was on the level of early 30's in the "western" cinema.
Of course, critics (including at least one French socialist) had been
extatic about it. But they also had been extatic about Dovzenko's movies
(and I did not, yet, a person who liked not because "critics said so").
Later, when I listened enough of the professional critics (in my favorite
movie theater most of the movies had been preceeded by the lectures made
by "professionals"), I developed a very low opinion about value of their
assesments and their intellectual abilities in general. So, whatever any
of them says, except for purely factual material, is of a little value to
me.
> But who knows? It's possible that my
> opinion might change in the opposite direction. Or it might not.
> It's also possible that you and I are looking for different things
> here and we both come with our own particular likes and prejudices
> which brings us to opposite conclusions.
Quiet possible. Art perception is highly individula and what I consider
as a serious flaw you may simply shrug off as an insignificant detail
(and vice versa).
>
> Of course, at the time I did see it I was in heavy movie watching
> mode. At least 4 or more a week and they were all considered "great"
> so the competition for my attention was intense. I wasn't impressed
> by all of them. I wasn't particularly impressed with French New Wave,
I like only French "cinema bis" (sp). What they consider a "serious art"
is usually boring and needs a lot of explanations like "director does not
have concept of the time" or "director does not use professional actors
because he considers acting unimportant" (why should I care if result is
boring).
> although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
> excited about what was then called "The New German cinema",
You mean Von Trotta, Schlendorf (sp) & Co? Too boring for me. But I liked
Hungarians (Zabo, Yancho, Hussaric) simply because their movies had been
extremely unusual.
>but who
> knows? Some experimental cinema is genuniely interesting, but a lot
> of it really does deserve to be called "crap" or at least a waste of t
> ime. I always go in wanting to like a film, but I am very critical, a
> combination of my education and being a Leo on a strong Virgo cusp
> (highly critical with a need to let everyone know it!)
You are critical? It was difficult to notice so far. :-)
The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
well enough).
> >
> > > > I can't recall a single "watchable" movie made by Pudovkin. "End of
> > > > St-Petersburg" was an annoying propaganda with the good editing, the same
> > > > for E's "October", etc. Interestingly, they were very similar to the Nazies'
> > > > propaganda pieces. Actually, not a big surprise: almost the same views
> > > > regarding place of the art in society.
> > > >
> > > I recall liking "Mother" but once again, this might be personal taste.
> >
> > Probably you did not have to study the book in school. :-)
>
> No, that definitely wasn't a part of my education. Don't know how
> they managed to skip it! :-)
Perhaps because you did not attend a Soviet school?
>
> > The movie is too much of a propaganda for me to enjoy any other aspect
> > of it.
> >
> Well, I try not to let that influence my opinions as to something's
> artistic worth. A great deal of art IS some sort of propaganda.
Well, there are different degrees of it and the item in question was
made with the strongly expressed propaganda intentions.
> A
> truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything.
Well, I'd assume that truly PC person should enjoy propaganda Soviet-style
(it was extremely PC).
> OTH,
> it's hard to abandon one's bias when it's something that affects us
> personally.
>
> > > > >Have you
> > > > > ever read Eisenstein's writings?
> > > >
> > > > God forbid! Who cares about the director's writings?
> > >
> > > Ummm, people interested in filmmaking?
> >
> > Probably, but I'm interested in filmwatching. :-)
> >
> I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
> additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything
You REALLY want to know a recepie of the food in the chinese restaurant? :-)
>(except
> current events, where the more I end up in a deep depression). Of
> course, one's initial impression is essensial and you can only
> experience it once. That's why I hated classes where they'd have you
> read about the film before you see it.
That's Soviet-style teaching: learning about the things you are not suppossed
to see, read or hear. I remember some wonderful critical books about
American literature (we did not study it in school, because there was
nothing valuable to study outside Russia). It was very interesting to look
for the factual mistakes (in most cases authors did not read the original
and relied on the books written by another critic who may or may not read
it: the same mistakes could be found in the different books).
>But I like a movie which I
> can see repeatedly, getting something new out of it on each viewing.
Ah well, I'm planning to go to see "Chicago" again: one can definitely
get something new (or at least interesting) watching Zita-Jones in the
underwear. :-)
> A bit of knowledge can tip me off to look for special things.
Indeed....
>
> > > > Oh please, what he "integrates" is mostly a total nonsense, insulting for
> > > > viewer's intelligence. There was nothing unusual in integration music and
> > > > the image on the screen. What and how happens on the screen is more
> > > > important. And these "what and how" are mostly below any criticism.
> > >
> > > I disagree. If I recall the music and editing were carefully
> > > orchestrated.
> >
> > I'm talking about the different thing. Yes, the scenes are well "orhestrated"
> > with the music. But the scenes themselves are mostly unbelievably stupid.
> >
> Well, that's a content issue. I'm talking about the film's structure.
> "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
It does? I did not notice.... (you may say that the movies by Pudovkin and
Eisenstein have a lot of the same content but from the opposite point of
view and nobody called it appalling).
>but is an
> amazing film.
Yes. Just as "Intolerance".
>
> > > > > Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> > > > > great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
> > > >
> > > > Of course. Lang was the great director.
> > > >
> > > Well, we do agree that Lang was A great director. ;-)
> >
> > My usual problem with the articles :-(
> >
> Oh. I thought you were just doing a comparison thing there!
No. The Russian language does not have a concept of an article and, as much
as I'm trying, I'm often making this mistake.
>
> > > > Well, you can call it whatever you wish. This does not improve "A N" too
> > > > much. Too many flaws.
> > > >
> <snip--some other movie whose name I can't recall>
> > >
> > > but this one is different. It's
> > > > pretty much like the recent Bond's (and not only) movies: a foreigner
> > > > acting in the exotic environment.
> > >
> > > So is it worth seeing, if only for a giggle, or should I avoid it?
> >
> > Can't tell: it's a matter of taste. Basically, too much explosions and
> > computer graphics, Bronsan (IMO) can't replace Connery, not enough sense
> > of humor.
> >
> Charles Bronson?
No, P.Bronsan. He is cute. Too cute.
> I kinda like him. Loved "Once Upon a Time in the
> West".
Ah yes, and Claudia Cardinale.... Surprisingly, Bridgit Bardot was much
less used by Hollywood.
> I'm not particularly big on explosions though.
In this case, no new J.B. for you: too many explosions. After certain
amount, all this destruction becames annoying.
I remember one movie (but not the title) with this idiot Cluny and one
of the bimbos (Ryan or Kidman) playing ... of course, a specialist on the
nuclear <whatever> who just picks the phone and calls President of US.
This couple started their destructive activities (shooting, crushing the
bad guy's car, destroying everything around) in the middle of Vienna with
no police around, non arrests, nothing. Then they just used helicopter
of US Air Force to fly on the Russian territory (without asking for permission)
to kill the rest of the bad guys with the stolen nukes, etc.
I'm not against a little bit of a breakage on the screen when it made
tastefully and preferably with a bit of an irony (Belmondo was great in
this genre). But when it is deadly serious..... One of the persistent
problems in the American movies is that directors can't stop the chase
and a fist fighting.
> > >
> > > Eve (somewhat miffed that you never heard of me seeing as I've been
> > > fairly active on this list for OVER THREE YEARS! <sigh>)
> >
> > Sorry. After I asked David this question, I figured out that he meant you.
> > But sometimes it takes a while to link people with an unexpected reference.
>
> Well, film is one of my "things".
>
But we did not discuss movies with you before so it did not "click" :-(
D. Spencer Hines
West_, one of the truly great films about America [as seen through the eyes of
an admiring Italian] and one of the greatest of all Westerns.
The first, and only, scene with Henry Fonda and the McBains has been referred
to as the greatest ever put on film.
Sergio Leone had wanted Clint Eastwood to play the Bronson role.
You demonstrate excellent taste if you like that flick.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
| afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
| > Charles Bronson?
|
| No, P. Bronsan. He is cute. Too cute.
David C Pugh
This got lost for a few days.....
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > > Don't you think that a permanent conract with the liberal ("PC" by
> > definition)> environment of SHM should somehow rub-in?
> >
> > It doesn't need to "rub in", unlike Dukakis I'm a liberal that is
not
> > ashamed to speak his name.
>
> Dukakis being ashamed of being a liberal? The next thing I know The Senior
> Baloon from MA will start pretending that he is a Republican. :-)
Don't you remember the election campaign? He was afraid to use the L
Word about himself (which is when and why we started saying "L Word") in
debates and interviews. Apparently being a liberal qualified you for the
Un-American Activities treatment even then. Everyone has to be a
conservative, and the only question is what kind. Elsewhere, this has been
called The Leading Role of the Party ;-)
> >For every day that passes with Amerika as sole
> > superpower, I move N centimetres further left. :-)
>
> I think that I already mentioned it somewhere. Situation with a sole
superpower
> is an unhealthy one if this superpower is trying to be everywhere.
True.
The
> "healthier" situation would be a return to the imperialistic era with the
> smaller powers playing The Top Man in their respective "spheres of
influence".
> This way, hate will be more equally distributed and the fear of a
neighbour
> bully will make superpower more necessary and better loved.
I agree (what's wrong with me?)
> I think that reappearence of the aggressive Russia (with the "european
> ambitions") would do miracles to your (and "european" in general) attitude
> toward US.
Wrong way around. It is the disappearance of the Soviet Union (a poor
alternative, but at least something of an alternative) that has done
miracles (of the Voldemort kind) for the US' attitude towards us Euros. If
we needed you to keep the Russians out, Murricans needed us not to get
absorbed by the Russians. Otherwise it would be a very powerful Eurasia
glaring across the pond.
Now, after more than a century of revolutionary turmoil, which
necessitated concessions by the ruling class (social democracy, welfare
capitalism, whatever), for fear of defection to the admittedly poor
alternative,
said ruling class is now able to announce, "Guess what. folks. Party's over.
Hand it all back."
Look at the eastern europeans: they are still afraid of Russia
> and, as a result, much more friendly toward US.
They'll learn......
As you may notice, I'm
> advocating US withdrawl from NATO: you guys can solve your own problems
> with our intervention (well, not exactly, as Balkans demonstrated, but
it's
> rather irrelevant) and, OTOH, we can solve most of our military problems
> without a help from Belgium. Looks like this arrangement should make
everybody
> happy. Strangely, Soren got really upset with this idea and insisted that
> US should stay for its own good. :-)
Not radical enough. I think we should grant political asylum to all the
Americans who believe that non-American lives have some value and can find
France on the map; leave the militiamen, crackers and religious kooks
behind; mine the wossname parallel and Mexican border and all the ports; and
colour the map ocean blue. As you say, this will make everyone happy :-)
:-)
> Yes. I'll be flattered to be in the same group with Bismark. :-)
As believing in social welfare, you mean? :-)
> I'll try to make it simple. You said that you are proudly staying at the
> very bottom of the hill. I explained that this position implies
"perfection"
> (as with Ed Wood): nobody can beat you at being bad. Just as with the
Satan:
> he is on the bottom of HIS hill (aka, much worse than any of his
> subordinates), which makes him "perfect" in his area (Absolute Evil).
That's clearer, yes. Right, no one can beat me at being a nerd. :-)
> >
> > > No, about "the cat and the mustard" principle.
> >
> > ???? Cats don't eat mustard. Is that the principle?
>
> The problem with you libs is that you can't figure out the simplest
things.
> Take a spoonful of a mustard and place it under cat's tail (you can
> figure the details). Cat WILL eat mustard voluntarily, for her own goood,
> and even with a song. :-)
Sashka, if I see you anywhere near MY beloved cat, you're dead meat :-)
> > > Yes. AFAIK, after the Black Death, there was no leprosy in Europe.
> >
> > Immediately after, I don't know. Ever after, that's quite wrong.
Hey, I'm living in the city where the lepra bacillus was discovered, in the
> > leprosarium here. In the 19th century, leprosy was endemic on the West
> > Norwegian coast, no one knows why.
>
> Well, this was a big gap. You can't have it all all the time.
Yes, it might have come back from somewhere. I'll defer to Simon on
that.
> > So what was J. Edgar Hoover chasing people for, and how?
>
> It was long ago and it was ridiculed and happily forgotten.
Paul remembers......... :-)
People lived in a happy "nothing wrong can happen here" limbo.
And then *you* arrived...... ;-) ;-)
> > > With almost complete absense of any tradition and the huge size of a
> > problem,> it's quite obvious that the 1st steps are often not efficient
and sometimes> even ridiculuous (as advice about the duct tape).
No worse than putting your head between your legs when you see the flash
of the nuclear bomb, I suppose.
> > A Keystone Kops version of Fatherland Security can still be pretty
nasty to innocent people involved.
>
> Yes, but the same people will be bitching if they don't see any.
That's an empirical question. Might be different people bitching.
> >The problem with *all* security services --
> > perhaps of all police -- is that they disbelieve in innocence as a
concept, and prefer to adjust the evidence rather than admit they have the
wrong
guy.
> > We're all guilty, they're not sure of what. :-(
>
> To start with, you have to have a lot of intelligent people involved. This
> is not going to happen because all these services are well entrenched and
> guarded from within.
Yup. In the UK, you had to go to public school. Only bounders from the
wrong school betrayed their country, except for Burgess, McLean, Philby,
Blunt etc. etc. According to Paul, the US equivalent is Yalies.
OTOH, with all these "advocates" of <whatever
rights>> and laywers, it's rather difficult to achieve something substantial
in a
> short period of time.
Are you *sure* you're not a Bolshevik after all?
> > I think you've found out by now :-)
>
> I did. :-)
Well don't forget again! :-)
> Who else could she play? Kutuzov?
I think John Rhys-Davis (Gimli) should play Kutuzov......
> > We are definitely on the same wavelength here. With this as a common
> > starting-point, how do we end up on opposite sides of most everything
else?
> > :-)
>
> Well, because you are going the traditional way of a liberal intelligencia
> (started by Russian). You dislike what you see (Tzarism was bad but
> changeable), you ally yourself with the opponents (SR's, bolsheviks,
> Ayatolla, Red Khmers, etc.) on a basis that they are enemies of your
enemies> and without thinking about _their_ qualities (unmodifyably evil).
If you think you know me that well, I condemn you to live with your
illusions :-)
But the type does exist. I remember an English academic called Caldwell
who defended the Khmer Rouge genocide as "historical necessity". He'd never
been to the region. Challenged by outraged persons (possibly John Pilger),
he visited Indochina and was immediately murdered by someone. Historical
necessity, I guess.........
> If, God forbid, they win, you are in the 1st group being ... er ...
"removed".
I wonder what the coming Redneck-and-kook-ocracy will do with *you* when
its power is complete :-)
> Of course, you, Paul, etc. are reasonably safe in US and Europe but the
> pattern is the same, including inability to learn on other people's
> mistakes. Mostly (IMO) happens due to the feeling of a personal security.
:-)
Good point. "They can't do that to a free-born Briton (American)!" I bet
that statement is very alien to the Russian mind, eh?
> I came from a different school
Right now I've got awful backache, but one day I shall "deconstruct" you
back......
E. C. Lee
> > Well, I normally have the opposite reaction. I won't like a movie at
> > first, then I'll see it years later and I'll reevaluate it to find
> > more than I initially saw.
>
> Sometimes this happens with me as well but "AN" was a different case. I was
> taught that it is a great movie and initially I was too young to question
> this statement. Not to mention that I did not see too many foreign movies
> at this time. With some experience and material for comparison I started
> noticing that actually <that> and <this> are not so great and that by most
> parameters movie was on the level of early 30's in the "western" cinema.
> Of course, critics (including at least one French socialist) had been
> extatic about it. But they also had been extatic about Dovzenko's movies
> (and I did not, yet, a person who liked not because "critics said so").
> Later, when I listened enough of the professional critics (in my favorite
> movie theater most of the movies had been preceeded by the lectures made
> by "professionals"), I developed a very low opinion about value of their
> assesments and their intellectual abilities in general. So, whatever any
> of them says, except for purely factual material, is of a little value to
> me.
>
Well, I came from the opposite direction. My focus was on classic
Hollywood films. Nevertheless AN still made an impact on me.
But I do agree that one must be cautious following the words of
various professional critics. There was one in Chicago, David Kehr,
who did quite well for himself. It was a joke around here that you
couldn't go wrong following the opposite of all his suggestions. I'm
also suspicious of anyone who takes Jerry Lewis seriously. A lot of
critics come from journalism. Some from literature. I came out of
the visual arts and theatre. I tend to be more interested in
production than theory.
> > But who knows? It's possible that my
> > opinion might change in the opposite direction. Or it might not.
> > It's also possible that you and I are looking for different things
> > here and we both come with our own particular likes and prejudices
> > which brings us to opposite conclusions.
>
> Quiet possible. Art perception is highly individula and what I consider
> as a serious flaw you may simply shrug off as an insignificant detail
> (and vice versa).
>
Agreed.
> > Of course, at the time I did see it I was in heavy movie watching
> > mode. At least 4 or more a week and they were all considered "great"
> > so the competition for my attention was intense. I wasn't impressed
> > by all of them. I wasn't particularly impressed with French New Wave,
>
> I like only French "cinema bis" (sp). What they consider a "serious art"
> is usually boring and needs a lot of explanations like "director does not
> have concept of the time" or "director does not use professional actors
> because he considers acting unimportant" (why should I care if result is
> boring).
>
Well, French New Wave at its best is innovative and stylish. At it's
worst it's boring and pretentious. Of course, some people consider
best what I consider worst and vice versa! I can't understand French
comedy, but I do love many of the earlier French films. And there are
greats like Cocteau, who is one of my all time favorite directors.
> > although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
> > excited about what was then called "The New German cinema",
>
> You mean Von Trotta, Schlendorf (sp) & Co? Too boring for me.
You mean Schlondorff.? Yep. Boring. Not even stylish. JMHO. I
liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
But I liked
> Hungarians (Zabo, Yancho, Hussaric) simply because their movies had been
> extremely unusual.
>
I haven't really pursued the Hungarians or anything from Eastern
Europe. I've no doubt seen a few, but nothing sticks out in my mind.
Perhaps sometime I'll give them more of a shot. I haven't been all
that active in pursuing films these days. Too many other things to
do.
> >but who
> > knows? Some experimental cinema is genuniely interesting, but a lot
> > of it really does deserve to be called "crap" or at least a waste of t
> > ime. I always go in wanting to like a film, but I am very critical, a
> > combination of my education and being a Leo on a strong Virgo cusp
> > (highly critical with a need to let everyone know it!)
>
> You are critical? It was difficult to notice so far. :-)
>
Pick the right topic and I'll turn it on full blast! However, I don't
like to give criticism unless I feel prepared to back it up. I can't
go into detail on something I haven't watched or studied in 20 years.
Of course, this doesn't mean I'm wrong in my views, just that I'm not
prepared to go into battle! ;-)
> The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
> what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
> movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
> what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
> usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
> well enough).
>
I'm sure you were the life of the party. Ummm, were you ever invited
back? ;-)
BTW, I tell you honestly that I recall loving "Andrei Rublev", but
when I went to see "Solaris" it was so awful I walked out. I never
bothered with him after that.
<snip>
> > > > I recall liking "Mother" but once again, this might be personal taste.
> > >
> > > Probably you did not have to study the book in school. :-)
> >
> > No, that definitely wasn't a part of my education. Don't know how
> > they managed to skip it! :-)
>
> Perhaps because you did not attend a Soviet school?
>
Good call!
> > > The movie is too much of a propaganda for me to enjoy any other aspect
> > > of it.
> > >
> > Well, I try not to let that influence my opinions as to something's
> > artistic worth. A great deal of art IS some sort of propaganda.
>
> Well, there are different degrees of it and the item in question was
> made with the strongly expressed propaganda intentions.
>
It might have seemed even stronger to you since it was something that
affected you. Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, on topic again!) was not all
that different in terms of propaganda (actually, I think I mentioned
that his film was influenced by Eisenstein).
> > A
> > truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything.
>
> Well, I'd assume that truly PC person should enjoy propaganda Soviet-style
> (it was extremely PC).
>
Well, I suppose depends on which "political" one is trying to be
"correct" about. Nowadays, to be "politically correct" is probably
considered politically incorrect.
> > I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
> > additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything
>
> You REALLY want to know a recepie of the food in the chinese restaurant? :-)
>
Ummm, yeah. I also want to know where they buy their ingredients,
the recipe's region of origin, the history of the dish and influences
of neighboring cuisines, the backgrounds of the chefs and owners, etc.
I might also be interested in how they run their business and I'd
probably also be checking out the decor while I'm waiting for the
menu. (warning--food and cooking is one of my other "things"!)
> >(except
> > current events, where the more I end up in a deep depression). Of
> > course, one's initial impression is essensial and you can only
> > experience it once. That's why I hated classes where they'd have you
> > read about the film before you see it.
>
> That's Soviet-style teaching: learning about the things you are not suppossed
> to see, read or hear. I remember some wonderful critical books about
> American literature (we did not study it in school, because there was
> nothing valuable to study outside Russia). It was very interesting to look
> for the factual mistakes (in most cases authors did not read the original
> and relied on the books written by another critic who may or may not read
> it: the same mistakes could be found in the different books).
>
In studying the art history I ended up with the paradox of studying
and writing about many things that I never actually saw in person ( a
very common situation). In grad school I finally was able to go
Europe to see most of the art I had previously studied only in
reproductions. The encounter was truly shocking. I felt as
everything I had done before was useless and that I needed to start my
education all over again.
> >But I like a movie which I
> > can see repeatedly, getting something new out of it on each viewing.
>
> Ah well, I'm planning to go to see "Chicago" again: one can definitely
> get something new (or at least interesting) watching Zita-Jones in the
> underwear. :-)
>
And again, we look at things for different reasons. I'd probably go
to see her in her underwear to determine how that costume help define
her character or served as a visual element in the dance. You're
probably checking for fit! ;-)
> > "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
>
> It does? I did not notice....
Ummm, I tend to think freed slaves with their barefeet up on the
chairs of the Legislature (or some similar place) while eating
watermelon, and the valiant Klu Klux Klan riding to the rescue of an
innocent white girl in the clutches of an evil mulatto, is a tad
racist.
(you may say that the movies by Pudovkin and
> Eisenstein have a lot of the same content but from the opposite point of
> view and nobody called it appalling).
>
I might. However, I'm more likely to point out the racism in "Birth
of a Nation" because it's something that's closer to my experience and
more of a hot button in my community. I'd still call "Brith of a
Nation" a great movie because of it's achievements AS a movie, even
though I disagree with its content.
> >but is an
> > amazing film.
>
> Yes. Just as "Intolerance".
>
Actually, "Birth of a Nation" was concidered appalling in its own
time, which is why Griffith made "Intolerance". He felt he was being
harshly judged. IMHO, "Intolerance" is an even more impressive movie.
BTW, speaking of great American silents, did you ever see "Greed"?
Astounding flick, but it was edited to shreds by the studio. There
was a book that was written a few years back which filled in the
missing scenes.
> > > > > > Lang and Eisenstein were both very visual directors. Eisenstein was a
> > > > > > great admirer of Lang and studied Lang's films.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course. Lang was the great director.
> > > > >
> > > > Well, we do agree that Lang was A great director. ;-)
> > >
> > > My usual problem with the articles :-(
> > >
> > Oh. I thought you were just doing a comparison thing there!
>
> No. The Russian language does not have a concept of an article and, as much
> as I'm trying, I'm often making this mistake.
>
OK. I'll keep in mind. And you keep in mind that I'm a fast and
inaccuate typer who was educated by the Chicago Municipal School
system (which isn't that far from saying I was raised by wolves). So
if you see any errors in my posts, chalk it up to that!
<snip>
> > Charles Bronson?
>
> No, P.Bronsan. He is cute. Too cute.
>
Oh, yes, I see what you mean.
> > I kinda like him. Loved "Once Upon a Time in the
> > West".
>
> Ah yes, and Claudia Cardinale.... Surprisingly, Bridgit Bardot was much
> less used by Hollywood.
>
I was never that impressed with Bardot. Probably a guy thing. I
thought "And God Created Woman" (that the name?) was dreadful. I did
enjoy "Viva Maria" but she just looked pretty in that, with Jean
Moreau diooing most of the interesting stuff. Not a *great* movie,
mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
> I remember one movie (but not the title) with this idiot Cluny and one
> of the bimbos (Ryan or Kidman) playing ... of course, a specialist on the
> nuclear <whatever> who just picks the phone and calls President of US.
> This couple started their destructive activities (shooting, crushing the
> bad guy's car, destroying everything around) in the middle of Vienna with
> no police around, non arrests, nothing. Then they just used helicopter
> of US Air Force to fly on the Russian territory (without asking for permission)
> to kill the rest of the bad guys with the stolen nukes, etc.
>
Sounds like something that I'd skip.
> I'm not against a little bit of a breakage on the screen when it made
> tastefully and preferably with a bit of an irony (Belmondo was great in
> this genre).
Yum, I loved Belmondo!
But when it is deadly serious..... One of the persistent
> problems in the American movies is that directors can't stop the chase
> and a fist fighting.
>
This is one of the things I can't stand in contemporary film. The
pointless action and gratuitous violence that are seems ubiquitous in
the cinema. When there's a reason for it, I've no complaint. I
recently saw "25th Hour" which I thought an excellent movie, and the
violence was an understandable outgrowth of the movie. In
"Adaptation" I thought it clever and imaginative. But in a film like
"Bridget Jones", even though it was done for laughs, it was a stupid
and pointless add on that took away from the cleverness of the book.
I could almost hear the suits on the project arguing that it wouldn't
be a real movie unless they add a fight scene!
> > > >
> > > > Eve (somewhat miffed that you never heard of me seeing as I've been
> > > > fairly active on this list for OVER THREE YEARS! <sigh>)
> > >
> > > Sorry. After I asked David this question, I figured out that he meant you.
> > > But sometimes it takes a while to link people with an unexpected reference.
> >
> > Well, film is one of my "things".
> >
>
> But we did not discuss movies with you before so it did not "click" :-(
Actually, I don't recall us discussing anything with you before now.
This is sort of a "first".
Eve
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > [AN snips]
>
> > > Well, I normally have the opposite reaction. I won't like a movie at
> > > first, then I'll see it years later and I'll reevaluate it to find
> > > more than I initially saw.
> >
> > Sometimes this happens with me as well but "AN" was a different case. I was
> > taught that it is a great movie and initially I was too young to question
> > this statement. Not to mention that I did not see too many foreign movies
> > at this time. With some experience and material for comparison I started
> > noticing that actually <that> and <this> are not so great and that by most
> > parameters movie was on the level of early 30's in the "western" cinema.
> > Of course, critics (including at least one French socialist) had been
> > extatic about it. But they also had been extatic about Dovzenko's movies
> > (and I did not, yet, a person who liked not because "critics said so").
> > Later, when I listened enough of the professional critics (in my favorite
> > movie theater most of the movies had been preceeded by the lectures made
> > by "professionals"), I developed a very low opinion about value of their
> > assesments and their intellectual abilities in general. So, whatever any
> > of them says, except for purely factual material, is of a little value to
> > me.
> >
> Well, I came from the opposite direction. My focus was on classic
> Hollywood films. Nevertheless AN still made an impact on me.
Perhaps one of the reason was that it was different in many aspects. To start
with, there was unquestionably good music (well, this is not really unique
if you are talking about the Hollywood's classics, but it was different).
Then it was unusual style (partially because in H this style became obsolete
except for the "suspecnce" well before late 30's). Then it was unusual
acting (much more "theatrical" than Hollywood's but different from Olivier's).
A lot of "exotics", which, unlike Hollywood, looked authentic. And you
probably did not have a developed anti-propaganda immunitet. Yes, the movie
should make impact on you.
>
> But I do agree that one must be cautious following the words of
> various professional critics. There was one in Chicago, David Kehr,
> who did quite well for himself. It was a joke around here that you
> couldn't go wrong following the opposite of all his suggestions. I'm
> also suspicious of anyone who takes Jerry Lewis seriously. A lot of
> critics come from journalism. Some from literature. I came out of
> the visual arts and theatre. I tend to be more interested in
> production than theory.
Belmondo had been asked by (a very tactful) journalist, what does he think
about rather sceptical attitude of the critics comparing to the adoration
of the viewers. His answer was: "It's just fine by me. I'm making movies
for the public, not for the critics."
> > > Of course, at the time I did see it I was in heavy movie watching
> > > mode. At least 4 or more a week and they were all considered "great"
> > > so the competition for my attention was intense. I wasn't impressed
> > > by all of them. I wasn't particularly impressed with French New Wave,
> >
> > I like only French "cinema bis" (sp). What they consider a "serious art"
> > is usually boring and needs a lot of explanations like "director does not
> > have concept of the time" or "director does not use professional actors
> > because he considers acting unimportant" (why should I care if result is
> > boring).
> >
> Well, French New Wave at its best is innovative and stylish.
Whom do you have in mind?
> At it's
> worst it's boring and pretentious. Of course, some people consider
> best what I consider worst and vice versa! I can't understand French
> comedy,
Really? Now, if you did not enjoy the movies with Fernandel and de Funes,
you really missed a lot. Actually, Belmondo made a number of the very
good "action-comedies" as well. Can't tell about the modern French comedy:
what little I saw, was not impressive.
>but I do love many of the earlier French films.
I mostly don't with the exception of the early Fernandel's movies and
those made by Christian-Jacques. Did you see "Fanfan the Tulip" or
"Francouis I"?
> And there are
> greats like Cocteau, who is one of my all time favorite directors.
I see. He was very stylish, indeed. Something like "Orpheus Testament"
I presume?
His friend and favorite actor, Jean Mareau (sp), later "found" himself
as an action actor and was really great in climbing the walls, fencing,
etc. A little bit too serious but still very impressive: climbing on a
high tower using the daggers and not using either stuntman or a safety
net (a "naive" shot from the top shows absense of the second and the
... er ... sorry, book tells about the absense of the first).
>
> > > although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
> > > excited about what was then called "The New German cinema",
> >
> > You mean Von Trotta, Schlendorf (sp) & Co? Too boring for me.
>
> You mean Schlondorff.? Yep. Boring.
Thanks.
> Not even stylish.
Waith a minute! He was suppossed to be "stylish"!
> JMHO. I
> liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
Never impressed me. And his favorite actress (Shikula?), well, woman with
such a figure should not be seen on screen naked. :-)
>
> But I liked
> > Hungarians (Zabo, Yancho, Hussaric) simply because their movies had been
> > extremely unusual.
> >
> I haven't really pursued the Hungarians
It's your loss. Actually, they had (when in The Camp) two quiote different
cinemas. One involved very stilish movies and another (among various trash)
very good "light comedies", esp. those with Eva Rutkay. Some of them, like
"The history of my stupidity" actually had very long teeth.
>or anything from Eastern
> Europe.
... they have a good food (speaking about "anything") :-)
> I've no doubt seen a few, but nothing sticks out in my mind.
Poles were good and, IMO, the best "historic" movie is "Potop"
but they also had their share of the "serious" directors (some of whom
made really good movies).
> Perhaps sometime I'll give them more of a shot. I haven't been all
> that active in pursuing films these days. Too many other things to
> do.
>
> > >but who
> > > knows? Some experimental cinema is genuniely interesting, but a lot
> > > of it really does deserve to be called "crap" or at least a waste of t
> > > ime. I always go in wanting to like a film, but I am very critical, a
> > > combination of my education and being a Leo on a strong Virgo cusp
> > > (highly critical with a need to let everyone know it!)
> >
> > You are critical? It was difficult to notice so far. :-)
> >
> Pick the right topic and I'll turn it on full blast!
Which one would be right?
> However, I don't
> like to give criticism unless I feel prepared to back it up. I can't
> go into detail on something I haven't watched or studied in 20 years.
> Of course, this doesn't mean I'm wrong in my views, just that I'm not
> prepared to go into battle! ;-)
>
Absense of knowledge should not be the reason for staying out of the argument.
On the contrary, you are not distracted by the annoying facts and unnecessary
doubts.
> > The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
> > what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
> > movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
> > what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
> > usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
> > well enough).
> >
> I'm sure you were the life of the party. Ummm, were you ever invited
> back? ;-)
>
All the time. Even by the people on whom I was playing this game. :-)
> BTW, I tell you honestly that I recall loving "Andrei Rublev",
Oh well, some good pieces, some not so good. A funny thing: did you notice
that all these naked women had untanned traces of the underpants? A big
flop for the director who prided himself for the "authentity". :-)
BTW, ideology of the last novel "The Bell" was, according to the author
himself, rather fascist (he did not say and perhaps did not even think so,
but it's still the fact): the inspired leader leads and the "masses" must
follow without asking the questions.
>but
> when I went to see "Solaris" it was so awful I walked out.
Usually, I'm saying that "Solaris" is T's ticket to greatness. Only a truly
great director could pull an impossible task of making Natalia Bondarchuk
look sexy.
[I don't like T but one had to be objective to be credible]
>
> > > > The movie is too much of a propaganda for me to enjoy any other aspect
> > > > of it.
> > > >
> > > Well, I try not to let that influence my opinions as to something's
> > > artistic worth. A great deal of art IS some sort of propaganda.
> >
> > Well, there are different degrees of it and the item in question was
> > made with the strongly expressed propaganda intentions.
> >
> It might have seemed even stronger to you since it was something that
> affected you. Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, on topic again!) was not all
> that different in terms of propaganda (actually, I think I mentioned
> that his film was influenced by Eisenstein).
To start with, the play itself is just a piece of a nationalistic propaganda
so O was somewhat restricted by the material. Yes, I know that HV was
influenced by AN (every Soviet book on the Sheakespear-based movies would
remind about this fact) but there are very few similarities on the screen.
Instead of menacing Germans, there are funny French. Oilvier was unmeasurably
better actor than Chercassov (AN), which made propaganda part a little bit
more bearable. And the humor was not limited to a single sidekick: after all,
"scenario" was written by a genius. But in many aspects, HV is rather naive
and "primitive" (still, I liked it better than the recent one).
>
> > > A
> > > truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything.
> >
> > Well, I'd assume that truly PC person should enjoy propaganda Soviet-style
> > (it was extremely PC).
> >
> Well, I suppose depends on which "political" one is trying to be
> "correct" about. Nowadays, to be "politically correct" is probably
> considered politically incorrect.
>
By whom? Definitely not by the politically correct people. AFAIK, we are
still talking euphmeisms like "African American", etc.
> > > I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
> > > additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything
> >
> > You REALLY want to know a recepie of the food in the chinese restaurant? :-)
> >
> Ummm, yeah. I also want to know where they buy their ingredients,
Caught in the gutter?
> the recipe's region of origin,
Local Chinatown?
>the history of the dish and influences
> of neighboring cuisines, the backgrounds of the chefs and owners, etc.
> I might also be interested in how they run their business
Successfully, if they are still open.
>and I'd
> probably also be checking out the decor while I'm waiting for the
> menu. (warning--food and cooking is one of my other "things"!)
>
> > >But I like a movie which I
> > > can see repeatedly, getting something new out of it on each viewing.
> >
> > Ah well, I'm planning to go to see "Chicago" again: one can definitely
> > get something new (or at least interesting) watching Zita-Jones in the
> > underwear. :-)
> >
> And again, we look at things for different reasons. I'd probably go
> to see her in her underwear to determine how that costume help define
> her character
It helped very well....
>or served as a visual element in the dance.
... like keeping her mammaries restrained?
> You're
> probably checking for fit! ;-)
You got a point. :-)
>
> > > "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
> >
> > It does? I did not notice....
>
> Ummm, I tend to think freed slaves with their barefeet up on the
> chairs of the Legislature (or some similar place) while eating
> watermelon,
Do you seriously think that these ex-slaves suddenly got manners and
culture as a side effect of their emancipation? Judging by the behavior
of the "liberated" classes in post-revolutionary Russia, movie rather
erred on a nice side.
There is a historic liberal misunderstanding that an oppressed person is
inherently good just because he/she/it is oppressed and that a simple
removal of the oppressing factor gives you an angel. AFAIK, in practice
it's often far from the truth and, additionally, the formerly oppressed
people often have a well-developed hatred against the former oppressors
(not the people who oppressed them personally but an identifiable group
of the "oppressors"). And when they are given a power, ... well, their
behavior is not always perfect, to put it mildly. This is not a racial
but a social issue. With your fondness of the early Soviet cinema, you
can probably find in your memory the "positive" examples of the similar
behavior of the "winning proletariat". In other words, I may find the
scenes a little bit biased but I don't think that they are unrealistic.
>and the valiant Klu Klux Klan riding to the rescue of an
> innocent white girl in the clutches of an evil mulatto, is a tad
> racist.
>
AH, of course, to show a black who is not exactly Uncle Tom (BTW, AFAIK,
author of the book was from New England and not necessarily expert on
the subject, there were some interesting thingies in the book) is racism.
Probably all the blacks who are now in jail are simply the victims of
racism.
> (you may say that the movies by Pudovkin and
> > Eisenstein have a lot of the same content but from the opposite point of
> > view and nobody called it appalling).
> >
> I might. However, I'm more likely to point out the racism in "Birth
> of a Nation" because it's something that's closer to my experience and
> more of a hot button in my community.
Indeed. Personally, I think that this was a simple realism but realism
is definitely un-PC. :-)
>I'd still call "Brith of a
> Nation" a great movie because of it's achievements AS a movie, even
> though I disagree with its content.
>
> > >but is an
> > > amazing film.
> >
> > Yes. Just as "Intolerance".
> >
> Actually, "Birth of a Nation" was concidered appalling in its own
> time, which is why Griffith made "Intolerance". He felt he was being
> harshly judged. IMHO, "Intolerance" is an even more impressive movie.
>
> BTW, speaking of great American silents, did you ever see "Greed"?
Pieces of it. Very impressive.
[]
> > > Charles Bronson?
> >
> > No, P.Bronsan. He is cute. Too cute.
> >
> Oh, yes, I see what you mean.
>
> > > I kinda like him. Loved "Once Upon a Time in the
> > > West".
> >
> > Ah yes, and Claudia Cardinale.... Surprisingly, Bridgit Bardot was much
> > less used by Hollywood.
> >
> I was never that impressed with Bardot.
Did you see "Babetta goes to war"? This was her most famous movie. There
even a popular hairstyle "Babetta" worn all over the Europe and even in SU.
>Probably a guy thing. I
> thought "And God Created Woman" (that the name?) was dreadful. I did
> enjoy "Viva Maria"
This was a lousy movie.
>but she just looked pretty in that, with Jean
> Moreau diooing most of the interesting stuff.
Well, J M was/is (?) a great actress and Bardot....
> Not a *great* movie,
> mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
> always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
> roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
(a) AFAIK, she was suppossed being the extreme of the "Italian standard"
and for Italians she was an "exotic" woman (being from North Africa).
(b) There was a movie (parody on western) where CC and BB played together
and both were just equal both in their charms (they were a little bit
on the older side at this time) and in their acting skills.
(c) BB was extremely "credible" in the proper roles.
>
> > I remember one movie (but not the title) with this idiot Cluny and one
> > of the bimbos (Ryan or Kidman) playing ... of course, a specialist on the
> > nuclear <whatever> who just picks the phone and calls President of US.
> > This couple started their destructive activities (shooting, crushing the
> > bad guy's car, destroying everything around) in the middle of Vienna with
> > no police around, non arrests, nothing. Then they just used helicopter
> > of US Air Force to fly on the Russian territory (without asking for permission)
> > to kill the rest of the bad guys with the stolen nukes, etc.
> >
> Sounds like something that I'd skip.
There are dozens of them....
>
> > I'm not against a little bit of a breakage on the screen when it made
> > tastefully and preferably with a bit of an irony (Belmondo was great in
> > this genre).
>
> Yum, I loved Belmondo!
ANd you said that you don't understand French comedy? Did you see "The
Magnificient" or "The Ogre"?
>
> But when it is deadly serious..... One of the persistent
> > problems in the American movies is that directors can't stop the chase
> > and a fist fighting.
> >
> This is one of the things I can't stand in contemporary film.
It's an old problem. You can find it in John Wayn's movies as well.
> The
> pointless action and gratuitous violence that are seems ubiquitous in
> the cinema. When there's a reason for it, I've no complaint. I
> recently saw "25th Hour"
Did not see it.
> which I thought an excellent movie, and the
> violence was an understandable outgrowth of the movie. In
> "Adaptation" I thought it clever and imaginative. But in a film like
> "Bridget Jones",
SOunds familiar but almost definitely I did not see it.
>even though it was done for laughs, it was a stupid
> and pointless add on that took away from the cleverness of the book.
Definitely did not read it.
> I could almost hear the suits on the project arguing that it wouldn't
> be a real movie unless they add a fight scene!
Did you see "Amadeus"? Public should know where to applaud! :-)
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
reading>
> > >
> > Well, I came from the opposite direction. My focus was on classic
> > Hollywood films. Nevertheless AN still made an impact on me.
>
> Perhaps one of the reason was that it was different in many aspects.
That might be true.
To start
> with, there was unquestionably good music (well, this is not really unique
> if you are talking about the Hollywood's classics, but it was different).
> Then it was unusual style (partially because in H this style became obsolete
> except for the "suspecnce" well before late 30's).
Keep in mind that I WAS watching the very earliest of Hollywood movies
at this time. Ever seen "Musketeers of Pig Alley""? Wonderful film.
Early DW Griffith. As were many, many silents throughout the range of
the silent period. Then I concentrated on American films of the 30s
(my thesis was on Gilbert Adrian).
Then it was unusual
> acting (much more "theatrical" than Hollywood's but different from Olivier's).
Not unusual acting for me. I've studied early acting styles.
> A lot of "exotics", which, unlike Hollywood, looked authentic.
Don't know if I'd say that. Remember I was also watching films from
other countries at the same time that came from the same period and
earlier. It did have stylistic differences that set it apart, but it
wasn't as if I'd never encountered any stylistic differences before.
And IMHO "authentic" is NOT a necessary criteria for a good film.
And you
> probably did not have a developed anti-propaganda immunitet. Yes, the movie
> should make impact on you.
>
Hmmmm. I think you are assuming that I liked the film or was
impressed with the film because I bought the propaganda and that the
impact I felt was a belief in the rightness of what the film had to
say. Not so. What impresses me is the manner in which an artist
makes his/her propaganda effective. I might get caught up in feelings
of a film while I'm watching it because that's the nature of the
experience, however I'm not about to change my POV based on a film's
sleight of hand. In fact, by approaching film from the production and
historic end, it usually demystifies things, making one LESS likely
to be influenced by the film's story (though not necessarily
unmoved). One way or another, film is illusion. I like to know how
the illusion is created and why.
>
> > But I do agree that one must be cautious following the words of
> > various professional critics. There was one in Chicago, David Kehr,
> > who did quite well for himself. It was a joke around here that you
> > couldn't go wrong following the opposite of all his suggestions. I'm
> > also suspicious of anyone who takes Jerry Lewis seriously. A lot of
> > critics come from journalism. Some from literature. I came out of
> > the visual arts and theatre. I tend to be more interested in
> > production than theory.
>
> Belmondo had been asked by (a very tactful) journalist, what does he think
> about rather sceptical attitude of the critics comparing to the adoration
> of the viewers. His answer was: "It's just fine by me. I'm making movies
> for the public, not for the critics."
>
Although a good critic can help steer the audience towards quality and
can help an artist strive to better their works. But the key word
here is "good".
>
<snip>
> > Well, French New Wave at its best is innovative and stylish.
>
> Whom do you have in mind?
>
I normally don't like Godard, but I did like "Breathless". Another
good one was "Shoot the Piano Player".
> > At it's
> > worst it's boring and pretentious. Of course, some people consider
> > best what I consider worst and vice versa! I can't understand French
> > comedy,
>
> Really? Now, if you did not enjoy the movies with Fernandel and de Funes,
> you really missed a lot.
Perhaps. I'm not familiar with either. OTH, isn't Tati supposed to
be one of the big comic names. I found him a huge yawn.
Actually, Belmondo made a number of the very
> good "action-comedies" as well.
Titles? I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
Can't tell about the modern French comedy:
> what little I saw, was not impressive.
>
> >but I do love many of the earlier French films.
>
> I mostly don't with the exception of the early Fernandel's movies and
> those made by Christian-Jacques. Did you see "Fanfan the Tulip" or
> "Francouis I"?
>
I don't think so, but I did see a wonderful film series a while back
on popular French films of the 30s through 50s. It gave me a thing
for Gerard Phillipe! I'd really like to see more of that.
Of course there are the greats. Cocteau, as mentioned before, Renoir.
And Carne's "Children of Pardise". That was magnificent. I also
liked the Marius trilogy. There was an early one I remember really
liking, I think it was called "Atlantique".
> > And there are
> > greats like Cocteau, who is one of my all time favorite directors.
>
> I see. He was very stylish, indeed. Something like "Orpheus Testament"
> I presume?
>
"Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
There's so much in it, hard to follow unless you really concentrate.
It took me three times to sit completely through it, but once I did I
thought it was brilliant. OTH, do you mean "Orpheus"? That's a
different film. Now that's one EVERYONE should see. Incredible. And
even children can enjoy his beautiful "Beauty and the Beast" (assuming
they can either understand French or read subtitles!) I also liked
"Blood of a Poet", but I understand how that one wouldn't be for all
tastes.
> >
> > > > although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
> > > > excited about what was then called "The New German cinema",
> > >
> > > You mean Von Trotta, Schlendorf (sp) & Co? Too boring for me.
> >
> > You mean Schlondorff.? Yep. Boring.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Not even stylish.
>
> Waith a minute! He was suppossed to be "stylish"!
>
Not to me.
> > JMHO. I
> > liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
>
> Never impressed me. And his favorite actress (Shikula?), well, woman with
> such a figure should not be seen on screen naked. :-)
>
Looking back at the list of his works, I see l liked "Marriage of
Maria Braun" but that was about it. I took a German history of film
class in grad school. I absolutely loved the first part, was in agony
for the second half.
> >
> > But I liked
> > > Hungarians (Zabo, Yancho, Hussaric) simply because their movies had been
> > > extremely unusual.
> > >
> > I haven't really pursued the Hungarians
>
> It's your loss.
Probably. But you can't see everything and do everything. I'm
already stretched too thin. Maybe some day. The only thing that
sticks in my mind is some Eastern European film where the female
protagonist is making struedel by stretching the dough across the
table. I'm sure there was some deep political message going on, but
that's the sole scene that I recall.
>
> >or anything from Eastern
> > Europe.
>
> ... they have a good food (speaking about "anything") :-)
>
Well, I didn't mean "anything" in quite so broad a sense. Fantastic
pasteries. Nice needlwork as well. ;-)
> > > You are critical? It was difficult to notice so far. :-)
> > >
> > Pick the right topic and I'll turn it on full blast!
>
> Which one would be right?
>
I can't tell you. That would ruin the element of surprise! ;-)
> > However, I don't
> > like to give criticism unless I feel prepared to back it up. I can't
> > go into detail on something I haven't watched or studied in 20 years.
> > Of course, this doesn't mean I'm wrong in my views, just that I'm not
> > prepared to go into battle! ;-)
> >
>
> Absense of knowledge should not be the reason for staying out of the argument.
> On the contrary, you are not distracted by the annoying facts and unnecessary
> doubts.
>
Hmmmm, I think I heard this argument recently on another thread...;-)
> > > The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
> > > what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
> > > movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
> > > what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
> > > usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
> > > well enough).
> > >
> > I'm sure you were the life of the party. Ummm, were you ever invited
> > back? ;-)
> >
>
> All the time. Even by the people on whom I was playing this game. :-)
>
Perhaps they were predicting what you would be saying before you would
arrive? ;-)
> > BTW, I tell you honestly that I recall loving "Andrei Rublev",
>
> Oh well, some good pieces, some not so good. A funny thing: did you notice
> that all these naked women had untanned traces of the underpants?
If I ever see it again, I'll keep that in mind.
<snip>
>> Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, on topic again!) was not all
> > that different in terms of propaganda (actually, I think I mentioned
> > that his film was influenced by Eisenstein).
>
> To start with, the play itself is just a piece of a nationalistic propaganda
> so O was somewhat restricted by the material.
It wasn't restricted by it. It was specifically chosen because it was
nationalistic propaganda.
Yes, I know that HV was
> influenced by AN (every Soviet book on the Sheakespear-based movies would
> remind about this fact) but there are very few similarities on the screen.
How 'bout one of the most significant and impressive scenes in the
film?
> Instead of menacing Germans, there are funny French.
Seeing as the French were allies at the time (though no doubt looked
upon as ineffectual) and the Germans were still the enemy, it seems a
pretty good choice.
Oilvier was unmeasurably
> better actor than Chercassov (AN),
Olivier is unmeasurably better than most actors.
which made propaganda part a little bit
> more bearable. And the humor was not limited to a single sidekick: after all,
> "scenario" was written by a genius. But in many aspects, HV is rather naive
> and "primitive" (still, I liked it better than the recent one).
>
Naive and "primitive"? How so? (now let's see if Alex has read my
previous threads on this subject!)
> >
> > > > A
> > > > truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything.
> > >
> > > Well, I'd assume that truly PC person should enjoy propaganda Soviet-style
> > > (it was extremely PC).
> > >
> > Well, I suppose depends on which "political" one is trying to be
> > "correct" about. Nowadays, to be "politically correct" is probably
> > considered politically incorrect.
> >
>
> By whom? Definitely not by the politically correct people.
Well, I see a "new" politically correct in action. And one of the
main conditions of this new "politically correct" is to always make
fun of the term "politically correct".
IMHO the whole concept of the past "politically correct" was foolish
people carrying some good and some not so good ideas to idiotic
extremes as well as others with so little ability to make their own
decisions they relied on a guide of what they should and shouldn't
think. It became a joke and anything kernel of meaning that might
have been was therefore rendered it harmless.
AFAIK, we are
> still talking euphmeisms like "African American", etc.
>
This sort of thing doesn't bother me. It's not a big deal. If some
people are uncomfortable with how people label them, and would rather
be referred to by their cultural background as opposed to the color of
their skins, I can see their point. It's also no big deal for me to
make the switch. The only problem is that I got so used to the
previous term that they chose at times it's hard to make the
transition and I don't always do so.
> > > > I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
> > > > additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything
> > >
> > > You REALLY want to know a recepie of the food in the chinese restaurant? :-)
> > >
> > Ummm, yeah. I also want to know where they buy their ingredients,
>
> Caught in the gutter?
>
You obviously go to different Chinese restaurants than I do.
> > the recipe's region of origin,
>
> Local Chinatown?
>
We've several local Chinatowns. One that's old and settled, another
that's filled with recent immigrants mostly from Southeast Asia (not
even sure why it's called Chinatown, because ii's really dominated by
Viet Namese.) As a result there's a major difference in taste.
As in most American cities, Cantonese food dominates, but the past few
decades there was an increase in Mongolian, Szewhan (sp?) and Hunan
cuisine. These became so popular that most Chinese restaurants will
serve a combination of recipes from the various regions. Someone from
one area usually doesn't do the recipe of another area the same as
someone who originated there.
There are also lesser represented regional styles such as Hakki (sp?).
I found in San Francisco, but not around Chicago. I've also noticed
a big difference between restaurants where the owner has been in
America for a while and where the owner is a recent immigrant.
There's also a difference in restaurants that specialize in Chinese
food for the American public (or English public, which can be
different from Chinese American food) and food for other Chinese. One
of the absolute best Chinese restaurants I was ever at was originally
located in Viet Nam. Obviously their style had evolved into something
that pleased their Vietnamese patrons. There are also Chinese
restaurants owned by other nationalities. I was in one that was owned
by a Burmese. He featured both Burmese and Chinese dishes, the
latter for those too afraid to try something more exotic (which is a
shame as the Burmese food is certainly going to be more outstanding at
a Burmese restaurant than Chinese food at a Burmese restaurant.)
> >the history of the dish and influences
> > of neighboring cuisines, the backgrounds of the chefs and owners, etc.
> > I might also be interested in how they run their business
>
> Successfully, if they are still open.
>
Was this due to location, good management, good advertising, an
attentive staff and comfortable surroundings, low prices or simply
food so good nothing they could do could screw up their success?
Most people might not find this interesting, but there's a part of me
that finds marketing fascinating, so I like to know this stuff and it
increases my enjoyment to know the details. And it's also helpful
information when recommending the place to others.
> >
> > > >But I like a movie which I
> > > > can see repeatedly, getting something new out of it on each viewing.
> > >
> > > Ah well, I'm planning to go to see "Chicago" again: one can definitely
> > > get something new (or at least interesting) watching Zita-Jones in the
> > > underwear. :-)
> > >
> > And again, we look at things for different reasons. I'd probably go
> > to see her in her underwear to determine how that costume help define
> > her character
>
> It helped very well....
>
> >or served as a visual element in the dance.
>
> ... like keeping her mammaries restrained?
>
Well. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But the costume designer did
have to think about the choice of color, style, etc. In this case
he/she probably didn't spend days agonizing over it, and I probably
won't either. In the case of other decisions it might be a different
story,
> > You're
> > probably checking for fit! ;-)
>
> You got a point. :-)
>
<Dead faint>
> > > > "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
> > >
> > > It does? I did not notice....
> >
> > Ummm, I tend to think freed slaves with their barefeet up on the
> > chairs of the Legislature (or some similar place) while eating
> > watermelon,
>
> Do you seriously think that these ex-slaves suddenly got manners and
> culture as a side effect of their emancipation?
Ummm, they did have a culture. And I'm sure many of them even had
nice European manners as if they didn't they wouldn't be allowed to
work in the house. Some of them might have even brought along values
of their own, seeing as they weren't REALLY wild animals taken out of
the jungle, but as I said, had their own culture and then had another
that was adapted from their masters. Were many ex-slaves crude and
ignorant? Sure. I've no doubt there was a range of behavior, it
would be ignorant to think otherwise. But that's not the point. Do
you think all White Southerners were noble, ethical and paragons of
virtue? According to Griffith's movie, that is what we get. Stupid
comic black folks, idealized heroic white folk and evil mulattos
(because though Griffith did not think that blacks are not bad, but
merely dumb and childlike, he did think that to mix the races would
create an abomination!) This is a critical theme in the film. Now I
don't believe any of this, and I think it's unquestionably racist POV
and it was so blatant that it was even offensive in its own time.
Nevertheless, on many other levels "Birth of a Nation" was one of the
greatest films in history.
Judging by the behavior
> of the "liberated" classes in post-revolutionary Russia, movie rather
> erred on a nice side.
Oh please! If Griffith was going to show the ex-slaves as morons, he
might as well show the Southern gentlemen as morons as well. I'm sure
they could be boorish a lot of other unsavory things to boot. But he
didn't do this. He was stacking the deck. And just as there were no
doubt some bright compassionate Southern whites, there were also
intelligent savvy Southern blacks. This was not an attempt at a
realistic depiction of life during the period of reconstruction. This
was a statement made in terms of stereotypes to push through a
particular agenda. And AN did the same thing. No one here is saying
any different.
> There is a historic liberal misunderstanding that an oppressed person is
> inherently good just because he/she/it is oppressed and that a simple
> removal of the oppressing factor gives you an angel.
No. I don't think that's a liberal misunderstanding. I think that's
the misunderstanding of a fool. Unlike some, I don't consider the two
the same thing. OTH, a common reactionary's misconception might
think so.
AFAIK, in practice
> it's often far from the truth and, additionally, the formerly oppressed
> people often have a well-developed hatred against the former oppressors
> (not the people who oppressed them personally but an identifiable group
> of the "oppressors"). And when they are given a power, ... well, their
> behavior is not always perfect, to put it mildly. This is not a racial
> but a social issue.
Alex, this is something that I have never questioned. It's something
that I agreed with and always have. Are you assuming that I thought
otherwise and that you're telling me something new?
With your fondness of the early Soviet cinema, you
> can probably find in your memory the "positive" examples of the similar
> behavior of the "winning proletariat". In other words, I may find the
> scenes a little bit biased but I don't think that they are unrealistic.
>
Hold on there! You are automatically assuming that I'm embracing the
content of the film, the politics of the film, etc. etc. despite the
fact that I repeatedly told you that this was NOT the basis of why I
liked the film. You are also assuming a fondness for early Soviet
Cinema. All I have said is that I liked SOME of the early Soviet
films and considered some of them significant within the history of
filmmaking. I have NEVER said anything in terms of the film content.
Despite this you repeatedly put these words in my mouth. I have also
said nothing in terms of whether or not any of these films are or are
not realistic. IMHO that's not an issue unless you make it one. I
would say that none of these film are realistic and very few films
really are. And I would probably also ask if you are defining realism
as a style or in terms of verisimilitude, because in artistic terms
those are also very different things.
For further reference, since you seem to think otherwise, I don't
idealize anyone. Not any person, not any group. If I am dealing with
reality I like to see it clearly without the blinders of any ideology.
However, art is not reality, and I try not to look at it as if it
were.
> >and the valiant Klu Klux Klan riding to the rescue of an
> > innocent white girl in the clutches of an evil mulatto, is a tad
> > racist.
> >
>
> AH, of course, to show a black who is not exactly Uncle Tom
No, I don't think that's why at all. And this isn't about a "black".
This is about someone who is mixed race who wants to further infect
the white race through rape. It was meant to show that the mixing of
races was a dangerous thing and all hell would break loose if it
happened. And the movie was, if you excuse the expression, black
and white. There was no subtly or shades of gray.
(BTW, AFAIK,
> author of the book was from New England and not necessarily expert on
> the subject, there were some interesting thingies in the book) is racism.
> Probably all the blacks who are now in jail are simply the victims of
> racism.
>
When did you last see "Birth of a Nation"? The slant is very, very
obvious. And anything to do with the book isn't important in this
discussion because we are talking about the movie.
I never said that the bias in AN was not equally obvious. I do recall
it being so. What I have been saying in both cases this is not a
factor in whether or not I considered these films classics.
As for all blacks in jail being victims of racism--what are you
talking about? How does this comment relate to anything we've been
discussing? Have you automatically decided that I am an evil liberal
who thinks anyone in a favored minority is pure and good? I suggest
you get to know my opinions a lot better before making such
assumptions. I might not fall into your stereotype.
> > (you may say that the movies by Pudovkin and
> > > Eisenstein have a lot of the same content but from the opposite point of
> > > view and nobody called it appalling).
> > >
> > I might. However, I'm more likely to point out the racism in "Birth
> > of a Nation" because it's something that's closer to my experience and
> > more of a hot button in my community.
>
> Indeed. Personally, I think that this was a simple realism but realism
> is definitely un-PC. :-)
>
Realism is that all blacks are stupid children and all whites (except
for any that might want a mixing of the races) are noble and true?
And that mulattos are evil? I'm not inclined to call that realism.
And I don't even think Griffith would call himself a realist, probably
more of a romantic idealist. In his world, that was no doubt what he
was.
<snip>
> >
> > BTW, speaking of great American silents, did you ever see "Greed"?
>
> Pieces of it. Very impressive.
>
>
Try to see more if you can. Von Stroheim was an incredible director.
> > I was never that impressed with Bardot.
>
> Did you see "Babetta goes to war"? This was her most famous movie. There
> even a popular hairstyle "Babetta" worn all over the Europe and even in SU.
>
No. Missed that one. I'll keep that in mind.
> >Probably a guy thing. I
> > thought "And God Created Woman" (that the name?) was dreadful. I did
> > enjoy "Viva Maria"
>
> This was a lousy movie.
>
As I said, It wasn't a great movie. It was a piece of mindless
entertaining fluff. I enjoyed it enough on that level. I don't think
it tried to be anything else.
> >but she just looked pretty in that, with Jean
> > Moreau diooing most of the interesting stuff.
>
> Well, J M was/is (?) a great actress and Bardot....
>
> > Not a *great* movie,
> > mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
> > always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
> > roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
>
>
> (a) AFAIK, she was suppossed being the extreme of the "Italian standard"
> and for Italians she was an "exotic" woman (being from North Africa).
> (b) There was a movie (parody on western) where CC and BB played together
> and both were just equal both in their charms (they were a little bit
> on the older side at this time) and in their acting skills.
> (c) BB was extremely "credible" in the proper roles.
>
Well, part of it is personal taste. BBs pouty tease thing doesn't do
a thing for me, might be a guy thing. IMHO, CC gives off healthy
sexuality and that's something that transcends gender.
>
> ANd you said that you don't understand French comedy? Did you see "The
> Magnificient" or "The Ogre"?
>
Nope. I will keep it in mind.
> > But when it is deadly serious..... One of the persistent
> > > problems in the American movies is that directors can't stop the chase
> > > and a fist fighting.
> > >
> > This is one of the things I can't stand in contemporary film.
>
> It's an old problem. You can find it in John Wayn's movies as well.
>
I think it's gotten worse.
> > The
> > pointless action and gratuitous violence that are seems ubiquitous in
> > the cinema. When there's a reason for it, I've no complaint. I
> > recently saw "25th Hour"
>
> Did not see it.
>
I liked it, but I've no clue as to whether.
> > which I thought an excellent movie, and the
> > violence was an understandable outgrowth of the movie. In
> > "Adaptation" I thought it clever and imaginative. But in a film like
> > "Bridget Jones",
>
> SOunds familiar but almost definitely I did not see it.
>
You might see "Adaptation", though I don't know how you'd feel about
it. Skip "BJ".
> >even though it was done for laughs, it was a stupid
> > and pointless add on that took away from the cleverness of the book.
>
> Definitely did not read it.
>
I think it's more of a woman's book. The female author was making
lovingly funny of other women in a screwball comedy, "I Love Lucy"
sort of way. But much of it was in-jokes and I'm not sure if many
guys would understand the humor.
My fingers are tired....
Eve
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
[AN]
>
> And you
> > probably did not have a developed anti-propaganda immunitet. Yes, the movie
> > should make impact on you.
> >
> Hmmmm. I think you are assuming that I liked the film or was
> impressed with the film because I bought the propaganda
The other way around. With me, "the propaganda counter" starts
clicking:
here these grotesque Order Khights and their chaplain, there these
tall,
good looking, and mostly blond Slavs, now we have a surge of the
popular
enthusiasm at a sight of The Leader, etc.
> > > But I do agree that one must be cautious following the words of
> > > various professional critics. There was one in Chicago, David Kehr,
> > > who did quite well for himself. It was a joke around here that you
> > > couldn't go wrong following the opposite of all his suggestions. I'm
> > > also suspicious of anyone who takes Jerry Lewis seriously. A lot of
> > > critics come from journalism. Some from literature. I came out of
> > > the visual arts and theatre. I tend to be more interested in
> > > production than theory.
> >
> > Belmondo had been asked by (a very tactful) journalist, what does he think
> > about rather sceptical attitude of the critics comparing to the adoration
> > of the viewers. His answer was: "It's just fine by me. I'm making movies
> > for the public, not for the critics."
> >
> Although a good critic can help steer the audience towards quality and
> can help an artist strive to better their works. But the key word
> here is "good".
One of the popular publishers in XIX century Russia made a very
cynical
remark about writing the negative reviews: "You (critic) will write
that
the performance was bad but the reader will ask his neighbour and
believe
his recommendation, not yours. Write that theater's roof is falling
and
nobody will attend the performance."
In SU a positive critical review almost definitely meant: "don't
bother to
watch". OTOH, most of the REALLY popular movies got very little of the
critic's attention (esp. a positive attention).
A simple question: did you notice existence of Protazanov in the
Soviet
cinema of 20's-30's? While all these "greats" had been busy writing
the
theories and making the movies that nobody wanted to watch, he was
making
the most popular comedies of the time.
> >
> <snip>
>
> > > Well, French New Wave at its best is innovative and stylish.
> >
> > Whom do you have in mind?
> >
> I normally don't like Godard, but I did like "Breathless".
Please! Not this one! To make a boring movie with Belmondo!
> Another
> good one was "Shoot the Piano Player".
>
Did not see this one.
> > > At it's
> > > worst it's boring and pretentious. Of course, some people consider
> > > best what I consider worst and vice versa! I can't understand French
> > > comedy,
> >
> > Really? Now, if you did not enjoy the movies with Fernandel and de Funes,
> > you really missed a lot.
>
> Perhaps. I'm not familiar with either. OTH, isn't Tati supposed to
> be one of the big comic names. I found him a huge yawn.
I was bored with him and Burville but French have strange taste. :-)
>
> Actually, Belmondo made a number of the very
> > good "action-comedies" as well.
>
> Titles?
See below. One that I did not mention was "A couple of the 3rd year of
Republic" (or something like this, in SU the title was "Second
Marriage").
A beutiful satire that makes you laugh on not-so funny events of the
French
Revolution.
> I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
> think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
> time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
>
Yes, he is not bad.
> Can't tell about the modern French comedy:
> > what little I saw, was not impressive.
> >
> > >but I do love many of the earlier French films.
> >
> > I mostly don't with the exception of the early Fernandel's movies and
> > those made by Christian-Jacques. Did you see "Fanfan the Tulip" or
> > "Francouis I"?
> >
> I don't think so, but I did see a wonderful film series a while back
> on popular French films of the 30s through 50s. It gave me a thing
> for Gerard Phillipe!
A main role in "Fanfan....", with a young Lolobridgida!
> I'd really like to see more of that.
>
> Of course there are the greats. Cocteau, as mentioned before, Renoir.
> And Carne's "Children of Pardise".
With Marua Cazares... Yes, I remember.
> That was magnificent. I also
> liked the Marius trilogy. There was an early one I remember really
> liking, I think it was called "Atlantique".
>
> > > And there are
> > > greats like Cocteau, who is one of my all time favorite directors.
> >
> > I see. He was very stylish, indeed. Something like "Orpheus Testament"
> > I presume?
> >
> "Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
A very interesting one and rather unusual for its time.
> There's so much in it, hard to follow unless you really concentrate.
> It took me three times to sit completely through it, but once I did I
> thought it was brilliant. OTH, do you mean "Orpheus"?
Nope.
> That's a
> different film. Now that's one EVERYONE should see. Incredible.
Actually, I was not EXTREMELY excited about this one but it was
interesting.
>And
> even children can enjoy his beautiful "Beauty and the Beast" (assuming
> they can either understand French or read subtitles!)
Agree.
> I also liked
> "Blood of a Poet", but I understand how that one wouldn't be for all
> tastes.
Did not see it.
> > >
> > > > > although I've since warmed up to it. I don't think I'll ever get that
> > > > > excited about what was then called "The New German cinema",
> > > >
> > > > You mean Von Trotta, Schlendorf (sp) & Co? Too boring for me.
> > >
> > > You mean Schlondorff.? Yep. Boring.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > Not even stylish.
> >
> > Waith a minute! He was suppossed to be "stylish"!
> >
> Not to me.
For critics! :-)
>
> > > JMHO. I
> > > liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
> >
> > Never impressed me. And his favorite actress (Shikula?), well, woman with
> > such a figure should not be seen on screen naked. :-)
> >
> Looking back at the list of his works, I see l liked "Marriage of
> Maria Braun" but that was about it.
This is one I was referencing to. :-)
> I took a German history of film
> class in grad school. I absolutely loved the first part, was in agony
> for the second half.
They had some very good comedies, like "We, wunderkinds" (sp)
> >
> > Absense of knowledge should not be the reason for staying out of the argument.
> > On the contrary, you are not distracted by the annoying facts and unnecessary
> > doubts.
> >
> Hmmmm, I think I heard this argument recently on another thread...;-)
Perhaps. :-)
>
> > > > The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
> > > > what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
> > > > movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
> > > > what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
> > > > usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
> > > > well enough).
> > > >
> > > I'm sure you were the life of the party. Ummm, were you ever invited
> > > back? ;-)
> > >
> >
> > All the time. Even by the people on whom I was playing this game. :-)
> >
> Perhaps they were predicting what you would be saying before you would
> arrive? ;-)
Nope. They had been too sincere. :-)
>
> > > BTW, I tell you honestly that I recall loving "Andrei Rublev",
> >
> > Oh well, some good pieces, some not so good. A funny thing: did you notice
> > that all these naked women had untanned traces of the underpants?
>
> If I ever see it again, I'll keep that in mind.
"Authentisity" :-)
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, on topic again!) was not all
> > > that different in terms of propaganda (actually, I think I mentioned
> > > that his film was influenced by Eisenstein).
> >
> > To start with, the play itself is just a piece of a nationalistic propaganda
> > so O was somewhat restricted by the material.
>
> It wasn't restricted by it. It was specifically chosen because it was
> nationalistic propaganda.
I know. But it had Olivier in it.
>
> Yes, I know that HV was
> > influenced by AN (every Soviet book on the Sheakespear-based movies would
> > remind about this fact) but there are very few similarities on the screen.
>
> How 'bout one of the most significant and impressive scenes in the
> film?
The problem was that (regarless of the "source"), the battle scene had
been
quite different (to start with the absense of the arrows in AN and
ending
with the absense of a "menace").
>
> > Instead of menacing Germans, there are funny French.
>
> Seeing as the French were allies at the time (though no doubt looked
> upon as ineffectual) and the Germans were still the enemy, it seems a
> pretty good choice.
>
> Oilvier was unmeasurably
> > better actor than Chercassov (AN),
>
> Olivier is unmeasurably better than most actors.
Hear, hear! :-)
>
> which made propaganda part a little bit
> > more bearable. And the humor was not limited to a single sidekick: after all,
> > "scenario" was written by a genius. But in many aspects, HV is rather naive
> > and "primitive" (still, I liked it better than the recent one).
> >
> Naive and "primitive"? How so? (now let's see if Alex has read my
> previous threads on this subject!)
Well, the play was a pure and uninhibited propaganda of a most
primitive
sort. Of course, propaganda written by genius, is still a work of
genius
and it shows in many places and makes the whole bearasble and
enjoyable.
The movie started as a theatrical performance (which was, IMO,
brilliant)
and, probably due to the limited budget, continued to be "theatrical"
in
many aspects (to a certain degree, RIII is largely "theatrical" as
well
but). Background is often an unmasked decoration, etc. Performance of
the
comical personages is "theatrical" (means "not completely realistic")
as
well. One can consider this either a drawback or an intentional design
to create some "mixed" genre. For me it did not matter too much
because,
as in RIII, I had been watching Olivier.
> > >
> > > > > A
> > > > > truly PC person would be incapable of enjoying almost anything.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I'd assume that truly PC person should enjoy propaganda Soviet-style
> > > > (it was extremely PC).
> > > >
> > > Well, I suppose depends on which "political" one is trying to be
> > > "correct" about. Nowadays, to be "politically correct" is probably
> > > considered politically incorrect.
> > >
> >
> > By whom? Definitely not by the politically correct people.
>
> Well, I see a "new" politically correct in action. And one of the
> main conditions of this new "politically correct" is to always make
> fun of the term "politically correct".
>
Many of these guys are well beyond an irony. :-)
> IMHO the whole concept of the past "politically correct" was foolish
> people carrying some good and some not so good ideas to idiotic
> extremes as well as others with so little ability to make their own
> decisions they relied on a guide of what they should and shouldn't
> think.
The danger is that things like this make "masses" out of the people.
And
I don't like the "masses": they are too easy to guide in any
direction.
>It became a joke and anything kernel of meaning that might
> have been was therefore rendered it harmless.
>
> AFAIK, we are
> > still talking euphmeisms like "African American", etc.
> >
> This sort of thing doesn't bother me. It's not a big deal.
I disagree. It is being used to create a "special" groop with requests
for the extra privileges, etc. Besides, it is misleading (the whites
from
North and/or South Africa would not qualify and the people who came
from
the Caribbean islands will qualify).
>If some
> people are uncomfortable with how people label them, and would rather
> be referred to by their cultural background as opposed to the color of
> their skins, I can see their point.
Two major problems:
(a) Most of the claimants don't have any traceable "cultural"
background
because there is no unified culture of the "Black Africa" and the
initial
cultural background dissapeared long ago (not to mention that quite a
few
of them came from the "intermadiate" places that developed culture of
their own). So, when they invent the "African names" for themselves,
these
names are taken from the arbitrary regions that may or may not be the
place
of their lost origin.
(b) African American explicitly implies color of the skin. AFAIK,
Egypt still
is in Africa but the person who came immediately from Egypt will not
be
"African American", while Colin Powell whose family came from
Carribean
is "AA" simply because he is black.
>It's also no big deal for me to
> make the switch. The only problem is that I got so used to the
> previous term that they chose at times it's hard to make the
> transition and I don't always do so.
They can call themselves how they want. WHat I'm against is the sudden
discovery that the old names are offensive. Funnily, in Russian,
"Negro"
is not offensive while equivalent of "black" is. :-)
>
> > > > > I find knowing about a film increases my watching pleasure. Just as
> > > > > additional knowledge increases my pleasure in everything
> > > >
> > > > You REALLY want to know a recepie of the food in the chinese restaurant? :-)
> > > >
> > > Ummm, yeah. I also want to know where they buy their ingredients,
> >
> > Caught in the gutter?
> >
> You obviously go to different Chinese restaurants than I do.
No, I'm going to the Japanese restaurants. :-)
>
> > > the recipe's region of origin,
> >
> > Local Chinatown?
> >
> We've several local Chinatowns. One that's old and settled, another
> that's filled with recent immigrants mostly from Southeast Asia (not
> even sure why it's called Chinatown, because ii's really dominated by
> Viet Namese.) As a result there's a major difference in taste.
My point. :-)
>
> > > > > "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
> > > >
> > > > It does? I did not notice....
> > >
> > > Ummm, I tend to think freed slaves with their barefeet up on the
> > > chairs of the Legislature (or some similar place) while eating
> > > watermelon,
> >
> > Do you seriously think that these ex-slaves suddenly got manners and
> > culture as a side effect of their emancipation?
>
> Ummm, they did have a culture.
By "culture" I mean education. Those in the movie are mostly the field
hands.
> And I'm sure many of them even had
> nice European manners as if they didn't they wouldn't be allowed to
> work in the house.
To start with, I doubt that too many of the Southerners had "european"
manners themselves. As for the house servants, a "historic experience"
(of the emancipated and then post-revolutionary) Russia brought not
very good results for this social category. Not to mention that quite
a
few of them hated their former owners/masters/employers.
> Some of them might have even brought along values
> of their own,
Definitely, but he shows one particular group of them, which is not so
far from the description of this group given in "Gone ....". Behavior
of
even individually good people in the similar situations are often
different
from this in the normal situation. Look at the Russian
post-Revolutionary
peasantry. With the (invisible) exceptions they started looting the
estates
of the nobility, got engaged in the senseless murders and did many
other
things that were not "normal". Most of them had been reasonably
religious
and decent people but when a cataclism came, something inside got
broken.
>seeing as they weren't REALLY wild animals taken out of
> the jungle, but as I said, had their own culture and then had another
> that was adapted from their masters.
>Were many ex-slaves crude and
> ignorant? Sure. I've no doubt there was a range of behavior, it
> would be ignorant to think otherwise. But that's not the point. Do
> you think all White Southerners were noble, ethical and paragons of
> virtue?
No, AFAIK, they created a very peculiar society with most "values"
wrong and
rather supreficial.
> According to Griffith's movie, that is what we get.
Of course, he engaged in some idealization. But look from another
perspective.
Their world was only superficially nice, good and "cultured" and
slavery
was not something to be proud of. But their world suddenly had been
attacked
(with a very lame excuse) and shattered. And out of the wreckage came
the
new "power": the former slaves supported by the victors. And the
victors
behaved not as in the another room of the un"divided house" but as in
a
foreign territory. The conquerors of this type do not necessarily use
the
best, most honest and brightest among the "liberated" groups to act as
a
supporting base. And the people who suddenly got the power and feel
some
(justified) grudge, usually behave in the very definite and often
nasty
ways. Griffith probably could think about the better title because no
new "nation" is born in his movie.
> Stupid
> comic black folks, idealized heroic white folk and evil mulattos
> (because though Griffith did not think that blacks are not bad, but
> merely dumb and childlike, he did think that to mix the races would
> create an abomination!)
Well, he was rather romantic about the white girl and Chinese....
OTOH, if one thinks about Lannie Gueneer (sp) and the likes.... :-)
>This is a critical theme in the film. Now I
> don't believe any of this, and I think it's unquestionably racist POV
> and it was so blatant that it was even offensive in its own time.
Strangley, nobody took offense on the bad drunken white bully killed
by a peaceful gentle Chinese....
> Nevertheless, on many other levels "Birth of a Nation" was one of the
> greatest films in history.
>
> Judging by the behavior
> > of the "liberated" classes in post-revolutionary Russia, movie rather
> > erred on a nice side.
>
> Oh please! If Griffith was going to show the ex-slaves as morons, he
> might as well show the Southern gentlemen as morons as well.
This would be a comedy and he was not very good in this genre.
> I'm sure
> they could be boorish a lot of other unsavory things to boot.
What was the name of Buster Keaton's movie? "Southern Hospitality"?
:-)
> But he
> didn't do this.
In the movies like this you have the bad people and the good people.
Both
groups should be easily identifiable with the clear super-villians and
the
lilly-white (in soul) heroes. If you are making them all "real life",
it's
a different genre, which (AFAIK) did not exist yet at the time of
"BoN".
The good hero (white KKK, feminist, it does not really matter) will
remain "good" regardless of what he/she/it is doing on the screen and
the
villians (blacks, whites, police, CIA, etc.) will be bad regardless of
their actions. We are beyond the realm of a common sense and we know
for
whom we should and for whom we should not feel sorry.
> He was stacking the deck. And just as there were no
> doubt some bright compassionate Southern whites, there were also
> intelligent savvy Southern blacks. This was not an attempt at a
> realistic depiction of life during the period of reconstruction.
No, it was not. G was not making the realistic movies. Neither did
Chaplin,
Fairbanks, etc.
>This
> was a statement made in terms of stereotypes to push through a
> particular agenda. And AN did the same thing. No one here is saying
> any different.
>
Yes, but somehow you did not complain about the "nationalistic" (or
"racist"?) representation of the Order Knights. AFter all, Alexander
was
not an ideal hero (his greediness provoked a popular upraising in
Novgorod
few years after the events shown in the movie). OTOH, there definitely
were
some reasonably well-mannered, educated or at least reasonably normal
looking members of the Order.... :-)
> > There is a historic liberal misunderstanding that an oppressed person is
> > inherently good just because he/she/it is oppressed and that a simple
> > removal of the oppressing factor gives you an angel.
>
> No. I don't think that's a liberal misunderstanding. I think that's
> the misunderstanding of a fool.
Well, AFAIK, this was an idea of Prince Kropotkin and everybody
considered
him a very wise (even if excessively kind) person. :-)
>Unlike some, I don't consider the two
> the same thing. OTH, a common reactionary's misconception might
> think so.
Neah. I'm a reactionary and I don't think so.
>
> AFAIK, in practice
> > it's often far from the truth and, additionally, the formerly oppressed
> > people often have a well-developed hatred against the former oppressors
> > (not the people who oppressed them personally but an identifiable group
> > of the "oppressors"). And when they are given a power, ... well, their
> > behavior is not always perfect, to put it mildly. This is not a racial
> > but a social issue.
>
> Alex, this is something that I have never questioned. It's something
> that I agreed with and always have. Are you assuming that I thought
> otherwise and that you're telling me something new?
>
In this case why are you objecting? Just because G did not make a
"balanced"
movie? I'm afraid that you are asking for too much.
> With your fondness of the early Soviet cinema, you
> > can probably find in your memory the "positive" examples of the similar
> > behavior of the "winning proletariat". In other words, I may find the
> > scenes a little bit biased but I don't think that they are unrealistic.
> >
> Hold on there! You are automatically assuming that I'm embracing the
> content of the film, the politics of the film, etc. etc. despite the
> fact that I repeatedly told you that this was NOT the basis of why I
> liked the film.
I'm talking about the issues you DID NOT like.
> You are also assuming a fondness for early Soviet
> Cinema. All I have said is that I liked SOME of the early Soviet
> films and considered some of them significant within the history of
> filmmaking.
But you liked "Mother". Or did I miss something?
> I have NEVER said anything in terms of the film content.
I see. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Probably because you did not
comment
on content of those and discussed context of "BoN".
>
> > >and the valiant Klu Klux Klan riding to the rescue of an
> > > innocent white girl in the clutches of an evil mulatto, is a tad
> > > racist.
> > >
> >
> > AH, of course, to show a black who is not exactly Uncle Tom
>
> No, I don't think that's why at all. And this isn't about a "black".
> This is about someone who is mixed race who wants to further infect
> the white race through rape. It was meant to show that the mixing of
> races was a dangerous thing and all hell would break loose if it
> happened. And the movie was, if you excuse the expression, black
> and white. There was no subtly or shades of gray.
A standard "disease" of the time.
>
> (BTW, AFAIK,
> > author of the book was from New England and not necessarily expert on
> > the subject, there were some interesting thingies in the book) is racism.
> > Probably all the blacks who are now in jail are simply the victims of
> > racism.
> >
> When did you last see "Birth of a Nation"? The slant is very, very
> obvious.
I know. But it was a very popular slant in his and even later times.
Many
people objected against it but many shared it. When a "positive
result" of
a mixed marriage appeared in Hollywood movies? In Poitiers' movies or
a
little bit earlier? You can't make jumps in time.
It's like criticising Pushkin for anti-semitism (present in the
noticeable
quantities but this was a "habit" of his time).
> <snip>
> > >
> > > BTW, speaking of great American silents, did you ever see "Greed"?
> >
> > Pieces of it. Very impressive.
> >
> >
> Try to see more if you can. Von Stroheim was an incredible director.
>
> > > I was never that impressed with Bardot.
> >
> > Did you see "Babetta goes to war"? This was her most famous movie. There
> > even a popular hairstyle "Babetta" worn all over the Europe and even in SU.
> >
> No. Missed that one. I'll keep that in mind.
A jewel of wisdom from the French "Madam" on the German victory over
France:
"If they manage to put us on our backs, it will not be for free!" :-)
>
> > >Probably a guy thing. I
> > > thought "And God Created Woman" (that the name?) was dreadful. I did
> > > enjoy "Viva Maria"
> >
> > This was a lousy movie.
> >
> As I said, It wasn't a great movie. It was a piece of mindless
> entertaining fluff. I enjoyed it enough on that level. I don't think
> it tried to be anything else.
>
> > >but she just looked pretty in that, with Jean
> > > Moreau diooing most of the interesting stuff.
> >
> > Well, J M was/is (?) a great actress and Bardot....
> >
> > > Not a *great* movie,
> > > mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
> > > always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
> > > roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
> >
> >
> > (a) AFAIK, she was suppossed being the extreme of the "Italian standard"
> > and for Italians she was an "exotic" woman (being from North Africa).
> > (b) There was a movie (parody on western) where CC and BB played together
> > and both were just equal both in their charms (they were a little bit
> > on the older side at this time) and in their acting skills.
> > (c) BB was extremely "credible" in the proper roles.
> >
> Well, part of it is personal taste. BBs pouty tease thing doesn't do
> a thing for me, might be a guy thing. IMHO, CC gives off healthy
> sexuality and that's something that transcends gender.
>
You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
attraction? :-)
Personally, I agree but CC's husband left her for even more exotic
creature with much less ...er... prominent advantage in this area.
> >
> > ANd you said that you don't understand French comedy? Did you see "The
> > Magnificient" or "The Ogre"?
> >
> Nope. I will keep it in mind.
The last one was, AFAIK, under the different title ("Stuntman"?) in
US. It also featured Raquel Welch.
>
> > > But when it is deadly serious..... One of the persistent
> > > > problems in the American movies is that directors can't stop the chase
> > > > and a fist fighting.
> > > >
> > > This is one of the things I can't stand in contemporary film.
> >
> > It's an old problem. You can find it in John Wayn's movies as well.
> >
> I think it's gotten worse.
Yes, more and more "tricky" and boring.
I expected that western will die after "Unforgiven" (there is nothing
left
to say) but they keep doing the moronic things like "The Quick and the
Dead".
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
>
> [AN]
> >
> > And you
> > > probably did not have a developed anti-propaganda immunitet. Yes, the movie
> > > should make impact on you.
> > >
> > Hmmmm. I think you are assuming that I liked the film or was
> > impressed with the film because I bought the propaganda
>
> The other way around.
Do you mean that you thought I bought the propaganda and therefore I
automatically liked the film? I'm not sure why you should think that.
I never bought the propaganda, before or after the film. I've never
given any indication that I did. My interest in the film, as I said
before, was not due to its content.
With me, "the propaganda counter" starts
> clicking:
And it clicks with me as well. I get an alert "this is propaganda"
and I disgard that aspect of the film and concentrate on other things.
Or I decide to see HOW they use images (or whatever) to make an
effective or not effective image to promote their propaganda. Or I
consider the intent of the filmmaker in making the film in terms of
the film's history.
Actually, I'd have to be pretty gullible to expect a film from that
time and that place NOT to be loaded with propaganda. IMHO, a greater
danger comes when unexpected propaganda sneaks in on you. Subtle
propaganda.
> here these grotesque Order Khights and their chaplain, there these
> tall,
> good looking, and mostly blond Slavs, now we have a surge of the
> popular
> enthusiasm at a sight of The Leader, etc.
>
Not particularly subtle, no doubt effective in its own time. Perhaps
audiences nowadays are probably a bit more sophisticated than that,
but maybe not. I'm often amazed at how easily people can be
manipulated.
> A simple question: did you notice existence of Protazanov in the
> Soviet
> cinema of 20's-30's? While all these "greats" had been busy writing
> the
> theories and making the movies that nobody wanted to watch, he was
> making
> the most popular comedies of the time.
>
I can only notice those things that are brought to my attention.
AFAIK these movies were not even available in the States at the time I
was involved with film. And even if they were, they weren't shown.
The "classic" films were shown because they actually did influence or
in some way illustrate something critical in the history of motion
pictures (such as the significance of editing). If I WAS programming
for a film society these comedies sounds like the perfect sort of
thing to show. Something not a lot of people are familiar with and
yet significant in some way. This would not be illustrative of the
evolution of the film art, but would tell something about popular
taste in Russia at the time. Both interesting, but different topics.
And if they were as entertaining as you say, so much the better!
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Well, French New Wave at its best is innovative and stylish.
> > >
> > > Whom do you have in mind?
> > >
> > I normally don't like Godard, but I did like "Breathless".
>
> Please! Not this one! To make a boring movie with Belmondo!
>
You never saw "Is Paris Burning?" ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
> > Another
> > good one was "Shoot the Piano Player".
> >
>
> Did not see this one.
>
You might like it. It's a Truffaut film with Charles Aznevour. It
has more of the New Wave's interest in Hollywood than in the
"experimental" sort of stuff.
>
> > I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
> > think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
> > time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
> >
>
> Yes, he is not bad.
>
Not bad? He's beautiful! ;-) (It's a girl thing.)
> I did see a wonderful film series a while back
> > on popular French films of the 30s through 50s. It gave me a thing
> > for Gerard Phillipe!
>
> A main role in "Fanfan....", with a young Lolobridgida!
>
Then I must see it! In addition to the GP factor I always liked GL!
> > >
> > "Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
>
> A very interesting one and rather unusual for its time.
>
Probably unusual for any time.
> > There's so much in it, hard to follow unless you really concentrate.
> > It took me three times to sit completely through it, but once I did I
> > thought it was brilliant. OTH, do you mean "Orpheus"?
>
> Nope.
>
> > That's a
> > different film. Now that's one EVERYONE should see. Incredible.
>
> Actually, I was not EXTREMELY excited about this one but it was
> interesting.
>
Again, you must have a different criteria than I do. I can't imagine
a more stunning piece of visual poetry.
>
> > I also liked
> > "Blood of a Poet", but I understand how that one wouldn't be for all
> > tastes.
>
> Did not see it.
>
I suspect you wouldn't like it, judging by your reaction to "Orpheus".
In fact, it's more abstract than "Orpheus" so you'd probably like it
even less.
> > > > JMHO. I
> > > > liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
> > >
> > > Never impressed me. And his favorite actress (Shikula?), well, woman with
> > > such a figure should not be seen on screen naked. :-)
Hanna Schygulla?
> > Looking back at the list of his works, I see l liked "Marriage of
> > Maria Braun" but that was about it.
>
> This is one I was referencing to. :-)
>
Actually, I recall enjoying "Lili Marlene". It's not that I thought
either film astoundingly great. It was more that I was amazed that I
found them somewhat enjoyable compared to his other movies. But then,
these were more conventional films than the others.
> > > > > The usual "critical" entertainment of my youth was to start predicting
> > > > > what the person who did not yet came to the party will tell about the new
> > > > > movie by Tarkovsky and after my predictions proved to be correct, explain
> > > > > what exactly was bad in this movie. Part of the fun was in the fact that
> > > > > usually I did not see the "subject" of a discussion (but knew T's stereotypes
> > > > > well enough).
> > > > >
> > > > I'm sure you were the life of the party. Ummm, were you ever invited
> > > > back? ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > All the time. Even by the people on whom I was playing this game. :-)
> > >
> > Perhaps they were predicting what you would be saying before you would
> > arrive? ;-)
>
> Nope. They had been too sincere. :-)
>
Those are the ones you REALLY have to watch out for! ;-)
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Olivier's "Henry V" (hey, on topic again!) was not all
> > > > that different in terms of propaganda (actually, I think I mentioned
> > > > that his film was influenced by Eisenstein).
> > >
> > > To start with, the play itself is just a piece of a nationalistic propaganda
> > > so O was somewhat restricted by the material.
> >
> > It wasn't restricted by it. It was specifically chosen because it was
> > nationalistic propaganda.
>
> I know. But it had Olivier in it.
>
And directing it. And he did a good job on that count as well.
> > Yes, I know that HV was
> > > influenced by AN (every Soviet book on the Sheakespear-based movies would
> > > remind about this fact) but there are very few similarities on the screen.
> >
> > How 'bout one of the most significant and impressive scenes in the
> > film?
>
> The problem was that (regarless of the "source"), the battle scene had
> been
> quite different (to start with the absense of the arrows in AN and
> ending
> with the absense of a "menace").
>
If I recall, it wasn't a question of content as much as how the
editing was done.
<snip>
> But in many aspects, HV is rather naive
> > > and "primitive" (still, I liked it better than the recent one).
> > >
> > Naive and "primitive"? How so? (now let's see if Alex has read my
> > previous threads on this subject!)
>
> Well, the play was a pure and uninhibited propaganda of a most
> primitive
> sort. Of course, propaganda written by genius, is still a work of
> genius
> and it shows in many places and makes the whole bearasble and
> enjoyable.
>
> The movie started as a theatrical performance (which was, IMO,
> brilliant)
> and, probably due to the limited budget, continued to be "theatrical"
> in
> many aspects (to a certain degree,
No. It did have a limited budget, but it was not "theatrical". Even
the theater scene did not restrict itself to the stage. We went
backstage, into the various levels of the crowds, etc. In fact, it
had the greatest use of spacial depth in the film!
The intention was to go from the documentary theatrical performance,
the "art form" of Shakespeare's time to the illuminated manuscripts,
the "art form" of the historical Henry's time. The structure was done
in a circular form made up of various "styles" with the actual peak
action being the montage, which reflected the art of "our time".
Although someone like Arnheim might say that this was the most "real"
because it reflected the disjointed images that we get in the human
thought process, in many ways it's the most artificial. In addition,
there were a couple other styles in smaller scenes that worked in the
sense of the scenes. A more 17th century genre image for the scenes
with Faust, a more 19th century romantic image for Henry's
introspective soliloquy in front of the fire. For each "image" there
was an appropriate use of color, space and movement (for the
manuscripts, for example, there was an emphasis on two dimensional
space and shallow movement.) In some scenes there were specific
references to works of art, such as the February page from the "Tres
Riches Heures" of the Duke of Berry. In this case, the camera pans in
the same way that the eye would be manipulated by the artist through
line. Olivier also used his own innovations. The use of certain long
and close up shots, for example, during the St. Crispen Day speech was
an innovation.
There was much, much more on this order, so I'd call this a very
complex sophisticated film rather than naive and theatrical. And if
you say, well, you really needed to be educated to pick up on all
this, yes, for some of it you do and there were many who were.
However, the film was also a popular success and worked also worked on
the simple level of emotion, beauty and spectacle.
RIII is largely "theatrical" as
> well
> but). Background is often an unmasked decoration, etc. Performance of
> the
> comical personages is "theatrical" (means "not completely realistic")
> as
> well. One can consider this either a drawback or an intentional design
> to create some "mixed" genre. For me it did not matter too much
> because,
> as in RIII, I had been watching Olivier.
>
It was an intentional design. Same is true of Hamlet, which was
conceived of as an "etching" and also used visual motifs in parallel
to some of Shakespeare's literary motifs.
I was also watching Olivier, because I'm interested in acting (and I
have a thing for him anyway ;-)) but I'm also watching the sets, the
costumes, the lighting, make-up, hair styles, editing and photography.
Those are some of MY interests and a possible reason that I might
find some films great when you don't.
>
> > IMHO the whole concept of the past "politically correct" was foolish
> > people carrying some good and some not so good ideas to idiotic
> > extremes as well as others with so little ability to make their own
> > decisions they relied on a guide of what they should and shouldn't
> > think.
>
> The danger is that things like this make "masses" out of the people.
> And
> I don't like the "masses": they are too easy to guide in any
> direction.
>
I don't like masses not just for this reason, but because if find them
dehumanizing. I'm not particularly fond of any labels. JMHO.
> > AFAIK, we are
> > > still talking euphmeisms like "African American", etc.
> > >
> > This sort of thing doesn't bother me. It's not a big deal.
>
> I disagree. It is being used to create a "special" groop with requests
> for the extra privileges, etc.
IMHO this is a minor issue. There are bigger fish to fry. There are
special group requests that I find offensive, dangerous, expensive,
time wasting, etc. Calling someone this or that is no great shakes.
I agree. It's not exact and has a lot of flaws. True of most labels.
But IMHO it's not a big deal. There are big deals. I'm not going to
waste my energy on something minor like this. Perhaps if I was a
white South African or from the Caribbean it be a more button issue.
>
> >It's also no big deal for me to
> > make the switch. The only problem is that I got so used to the
> > previous term that they chose at times it's hard to make the
> > transition and I don't always do so.
>
> They can call themselves how they want. WHat I'm against is the sudden
> discovery that the old names are offensive. Funnily, in Russian,
> "Negro"
> is not offensive while equivalent of "black" is. :-)
>
Well, I'm sure they have their reasons. I know "Negro" was a bit
loaded of a term in its day. New name, new start?
> > You obviously go to different Chinese restaurants than I do.
>
> No, I'm going to the Japanese restaurants. :-)
>
I shall refrain from a comparison of Tokyo and Kyoto styles.
> > > > the recipe's region of origin,
> > >
> > > Local Chinatown?
> > >
> > We've several local Chinatowns. One that's old and settled, another
> > that's filled with recent immigrants mostly from Southeast Asia (not
> > even sure why it's called Chinatown, because ii's really dominated by
> > Viet Namese.) As a result there's a major difference in taste.
>
> My point. :-)
>
I wasn't quite sure what your point was. Glad to know that was it (I
think...)
> > > > > > "Birth of a Nation" has some pretty appalling content,
> > > > >
> > > > > It does? I did not notice....
> > > >
> > > > Ummm, I tend to think freed slaves with their barefeet up on the
> > > > chairs of the Legislature (or some similar place) while eating
> > > > watermelon,
> > >
> > > Do you seriously think that these ex-slaves suddenly got manners and
> > > culture as a side effect of their emancipation?
> >
> > Ummm, they did have a culture.
>
> By "culture" I mean education. Those in the movie are mostly the field
> hands.
>
Glad you clarified that because culture is considerably different from
education.
In any case, why would the movie only feature field hands? You don't
think this could be another manipulation to guide our perception of
slavery?
> > And I'm sure many of them even had
> > nice European manners as if they didn't they wouldn't be allowed to
> > work in the house.
>
> To start with, I doubt that too many of the Southerners had "european"
> manners themselves.
And yet the film showed introduced them as "gentlemen" and "ladies".
I would say that the very wealthy were educated in a type of manners.
This may have also trickled down a bit to the social climbers.
Domestic servants would be taught appropriate manners so they could
smoothly function in the household.
As for the house servants, a "historic experience"
> (of the emancipated and then post-revolutionary) Russia brought not
> very good results for this social category. Not to mention that quite
> a
> few of them hated their former owners/masters/employers.
>
Sure. Was this in question? The issue was whether or not the slaves
had any sense of conventional "manners". Some did. Whether they kept
them or threw them off like a pair of uncomfortable shoes is probably
an individual things. Some might have realized that to succeed it
would help if they played that game. Others might have just wanted to
get rid of every vestige of their past lives. In any case, Griffith
did not show a range. He showed what he wanted to show. That these
people were basically ignorant animals totally dependent on the
divinity of white guidance.
> > Some of them might have even brought along values
> > of their own,
>
> Definitely, but he shows one particular group of them, which is not so
> far from the description of this group given in "Gone ....". Behavior
> of
> even individually good people in the similar situations are often
> different
> from this in the normal situation. Look at the Russian
> post-Revolutionary
> peasantry. With the (invisible) exceptions they started looting the
> estates
> of the nobility, got engaged in the senseless murders and did many
> other
> things that were not "normal". Most of them had been reasonably
> religious
> and decent people but when a cataclism came, something inside got
> broken.
>
Alex, he showed this one "sample" for a reason. To make a point. He
wasn't trying to show a cross section of the population. He wasn't
showing us an arbitrary selection of former slaves who just happened
to be the bad apples. He wasn't showing us how good people go bad in
unusual situations. He was specifically showing you his concept of
what these people were like to give us a specific opinion of these
people. This is a type of propaganda. What happened to your
propaganda clicker?
>
> >seeing as they weren't REALLY wild animals taken out of
> > the jungle, but as I said, had their own culture and then had another
> > that was adapted from their masters.
> >Were many ex-slaves crude and
> > ignorant? Sure. I've no doubt there was a range of behavior, it
> > would be ignorant to think otherwise. But that's not the point. Do
> > you think all White Southerners were noble, ethical and paragons of
> > virtue?
>
> No, AFAIK, they created a very peculiar society with most "values"
> wrong and
> rather supreficial.
>
Whatever their society was, THIS is the society that Griffith presents
us with in this movie.
> > According to Griffith's movie, that is what we get.
>
> Of course, he engaged in some idealization. But look from another
> perspective.
> Their world was only superficially nice, good and "cultured" and
> slavery
> was not something to be proud of. But their world suddenly had been
> attacked
> (with a very lame excuse) and shattered. And out of the wreckage came
> the
> new "power": the former slaves supported by the victors. And the
> victors
> behaved not as in the another room of the un"divided house" but as in
> a
> foreign territory. The conquerors of this type do not necessarily use
> the
> best, most honest and brightest among the "liberated" groups to act as
> a
> supporting base. And the people who suddenly got the power and feel
> some
> (justified) grudge, usually behave in the very definite and often
> nasty
> ways. Griffith probably could think about the better title because no
> new "nation" is born in his movie.
>
IMHO, his nation was the Klu Klux Klan. It was the white Southerners
taking action and creating a new order for themselves to protect
themselves from the threat of blacks and mulattos.
OK, you explained to me what I should understand about Griffith's POV
and the POV of the post- cival war South. And you know, I DID
understand that. I don't agree with many of their perceptions, but I
understand why they would feel that way. I always did. And I accept
that POV in the context of the movie, even though I don't believe in
it personally. And it's the same thing with AN. I don't necessarily
believe in what Eisenstein's POV. I understand why he's presenting
his POV. I can see how he's exaggerating some things, omitting some
things, not giving us a realistic viewpoint, dealing with stereotypes,
ennobling some who don't deserve it, trying to manipulate us into
seeing a skewed view of history, etc. etc. OK. "I" get it, and I
always did. What I've been trying to say that a great film CAN be a
great piece of propaganda and it doesn't even have to be a piece of
propaganda the represents something you agree with. It can be great
for OTHER reasons than it's subject matter. This is true of AN and
true in the case of "Birth of a Nation". And true in the case of
"Henry V," as well.
>
> > Stupid
> > comic black folks, idealized heroic white folk and evil mulattos
> > (because though Griffith did not think that blacks are not bad, but
> > merely dumb and childlike, he did think that to mix the races would
> > create an abomination!)
>
> Well, he was rather romantic about the white girl and Chinese....
> OTOH, if one thinks about Lannie Gueneer (sp) and the likes.... :-)
>
You mean in "Broken Blossoms"? Well, he was careful not to have any
real sexual suggestions in their relationship. But he also may not
have had the same bias towards the Chinese. as he did Blacks. If he
had come from San Francisco, perhaps it would have been a different
story. BTW, the Chinese man was played by Richard Barthelmess. Might
have also been different if the actor was actually Chinese. In any
case, a lovely movie.
> >This is a critical theme in the film. Now I
> > don't believe any of this, and I think it's unquestionably racist POV
> > and it was so blatant that it was even offensive in its own time.
>
> Strangley, nobody took offense on the bad drunken white bully killed
> by a peaceful gentle Chinese....
>
They might have had the girl and the gentle Chinese actually been
shown as lovers. And the bad drunken white bully was beating up
little Lillian Gish! Besides, the buttons are different here.
Griffith and his audience had different stereotypes going. At this
time a Bruce Lee type heroically saved little Lillian probably
wouldn't cut it. He needed to be small and meek.
(For some reason I can't copy the rest of my message and will continue
in another post)
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.0303...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message
> > Judging by the behavior
> > > of the "liberated" classes in post-revolutionary Russia, movie rather
> > > erred on a nice side.
> >
> > Oh please! If Griffith was going to show the ex-slaves as morons, he
> > might as well show the Southern gentlemen as morons as well.
>
> This would be a comedy and he was not very good in this genre.
>
Actually, I liked some of the humor in his films.
IMHO if he did this it wouldn't be good propaganda. He had a very
good idea as to who he wanted to show as his good guys and as a result
needed to idealize them as much as possible.
> > I'm sure
> > they could be boorish a lot of other unsavory things to boot.
>
> What was the name of Buster Keaton's movie? "Southern Hospitality"?
> :-)
>
All I can think of is "The General".
> > But he
> > didn't do this.
>
> In the movies like this you have the bad people and the good people.
> Both
> groups should be easily identifiable with the clear super-villians and
> the
> lilly-white (in soul) heroes.
Yes. And who you select as the good guys and the bad guys make a
difference. For someone like Griffith it was good whites, stupid
blacks, bad mulattos. In your Soviet films it was something else.
Same kind of deal. And there are still movies made the same way, with
different people in the good and bad roles depending on who the
filmmaker's POV.
If you are making them all "real life",
> it's
> a different genre, which (AFAIK) did not exist yet at the time of
> "BoN".
> The good hero (white KKK, feminist, it does not really matter) will
> remain "good" regardless of what he/she/it is doing on the screen and
> the
> villians (blacks, whites, police, CIA, etc.) will be bad regardless of
> their actions. We are beyond the realm of a common sense and we know
> for
> whom we should and for whom we should not feel sorry.
>
Of course. At any point did you think that I was unaware of this?
OTH, you said mentioned the DW's "realism" in his portraying blacks in
"Birth of a Nation". This is something I didn't understand. There
was no realism. Were you baiting me or being facecious without the
little smily?
>
> > He was stacking the deck. And just as there were no
> > doubt some bright compassionate Southern whites, there were also
> > intelligent savvy Southern blacks. This was not an attempt at a
> > realistic depiction of life during the period of reconstruction.
>
> No, it was not. G was not making the realistic movies. Neither did
> Chaplin,
> Fairbanks, etc.
>
That's right. And that's what *I* was saying all along. There aren't
a heck of a lot of "realistic" films. It's almost an impossibility.
Although there is a style called *realism* which is not completely
realistic either.
> >This
> > was a statement made in terms of stereotypes to push through a
> > particular agenda. And AN did the same thing. No one here is saying
> > any different.
> >
>
> Yes, but somehow you did not complain about the "nationalistic" (or
> "racist"?) representation of the Order Knights.
Because it wasn't an issue for me. I was never discussing the content
of the film. I was discussing it's form. And I brought up "Birth of
a Nation" as a similar example. If we were to discuss content, I
could also complain about "Birth of a Nation". However, I usually
don't think of it in terms of content. It's content is so heavy
handed that it's almost a joke. Yet, IMHO, "Birth of a Nation is a
classic" because it's a brilliant piece of filmmaking.
So MY point has been and always had been, that you may or may not
agree with the content of a film to STILL find it a great film. And
that a film does NOT have to be realistic to be a good film. If you'd
asked, "what do you think of the content of AN" I would have said,
it's propaganda. If you had asked, "do you think this is realistic" I
would have said, of course not. My evaluation of it as a worthwhile
film was based on it's worth as a piece of filmmaking. And I rather
suspect that most Western film scholars would say the same thing.
AFter all, Alexander
> was
> not an ideal hero (his greediness provoked a popular upraising in
> Novgorod
> few years after the events shown in the movie). OTOH, there definitely
> were
> some reasonably well-mannered, educated or at least reasonably normal
> looking members of the Order.... :-)
>
No argument here. I think the parallel between AN and "Birth of a
Nation" is a good one. Neither are realistic. Both are propaganda.
Both are great and significant movies for other reasons.
> > > There is a historic liberal misunderstanding that an oppressed person is
> > > inherently good just because he/she/it is oppressed and that a simple
> > > removal of the oppressing factor gives you an angel.
> >
> > No. I don't think that's a liberal misunderstanding. I think that's
> > the misunderstanding of a fool.
>
> Well, AFAIK, this was an idea of Prince Kropotkin and everybody
> considered
> him a very wise (even if excessively kind) person. :-)
>
But perhaps not the best role model in terms of understanding human
nature.
> >Unlike some, I don't consider the two
> > the same thing. OTH, a common reactionary's misconception might
> > think so.
>
> Neah. I'm a reactionary and I don't think so.
>
This might only apply to the common reactionary. Perhaps you are an
extraordinary reactionary? ;-)
> > AFAIK, in practice
> > > it's often far from the truth and, additionally, the formerly oppressed
> > > people often have a well-developed hatred against the former oppressors
> > > (not the people who oppressed them personally but an identifiable group
> > > of the "oppressors"). And when they are given a power, ... well, their
> > > behavior is not always perfect, to put it mildly. This is not a racial
> > > but a social issue.
> >
> > Alex, this is something that I have never questioned. It's something
> > that I agreed with and always have. Are you assuming that I thought
> > otherwise and that you're telling me something new?
> >
>
> In this case why are you objecting? Just because G did not make a
> "balanced"
> movie? I'm afraid that you are asking for too much.
>
I wasn't objecting. Nor was I asking for anything. I was just saying
that if we spoke about subject matter I find his subject offensive,
just as you find the subject matter of Eisenstein's offensive. But
despite any personal offense I might take, it doesn't keep me from
appreciating the movie.
> > With your fondness of the early Soviet cinema, you
> > > can probably find in your memory the "positive" examples of the similar
> > > behavior of the "winning proletariat". In other words, I may find the
> > > scenes a little bit biased but I don't think that they are unrealistic.
> > >
> > Hold on there! You are automatically assuming that I'm embracing the
> > content of the film, the politics of the film, etc. etc. despite the
> > fact that I repeatedly told you that this was NOT the basis of why I
> > liked the film.
>
> I'm talking about the issues you DID NOT like.
>
Are you? I never discussed what I didn't like about any Soviet film.
At times I also find the propaganda annoying. But it doesn't keep me
from enjoying the film.
> > You are also assuming a fondness for early Soviet
> > Cinema. All I have said is that I liked SOME of the early Soviet
> > films and considered some of them significant within the history of
> > filmmaking.
>
> But you liked "Mother". Or did I miss something?
>
Liking "Mother" might be considered "some" Soviet films, hardly "all".
> > I have NEVER said anything in terms of the film content.
>
> I see. Sorry, I misunderstood you. Probably because you did not
> comment
> on content of those and discussed context of "BoN".
>
I didn't discuss content because it wasn't all that much of interest
to me. The only reason I brought up the content of BofN was because
you were complaining about the content of AN as a reason why it wasn't
a good movie. I pointed out that BofN was an example of a movie where
I didn't like the content but nevertheless thought a good movie. Does
this make sense now? Then you kept expanding the argument to things
that were completely off what we were originally discussing.
> > > >and the valiant Klu Klux Klan riding to the rescue of an
> > > > innocent white girl in the clutches of an evil mulatto, is a tad
> > > > racist.
> > > >
> > >
> > > AH, of course, to show a black who is not exactly Uncle Tom
> >
> > No, I don't think that's why at all. And this isn't about a "black".
> > This is about someone who is mixed race who wants to further infect
> > the white race through rape. It was meant to show that the mixing of
> > races was a dangerous thing and all hell would break loose if it
> > happened. And the movie was, if you excuse the expression, black
> > and white. There was no subtly or shades of gray.
>
> A standard "disease" of the time.
>
Agreed.
> > (BTW, AFAIK,
> > > author of the book was from New England and not necessarily expert on
> > > the subject, there were some interesting thingies in the book) is racism.
> > > Probably all the blacks who are now in jail are simply the victims of
> > > racism.
> > >
> > When did you last see "Birth of a Nation"? The slant is very, very
> > obvious.
>
> I know. But it was a very popular slant in his and even later times.
> Many
> people objected against it but many shared it.
I agree. It's a part of history. That's simply how it is. I endorse
the film as a film even though I don't agree with what it has to say.
When a "positive
> result" of
> a mixed marriage appeared in Hollywood movies? In Poitiers' movies or
> a
> little bit earlier? You can't make jumps in time.
> It's like criticising Pushkin for anti-semitism (present in the
> noticeable
> quantities but this was a "habit" of his time).
>
Alex, I wasn't condemning Griffith. I was pointing out that he was
doing a type of propaganda. I found it interesting to see HOW he did
this propaganda. However, I can do this even though I don't
personally agree with him. I'm not saying, "I don't like what he
says, ban the film"! I'm saying this IS a great film. Not because I
believe in what he's saying, but because it's technically brilliant.
Understand now?
I don't know if you have difficulty understanding me for some reason
or if you are just jumping in the gun in what you *think* I'm saying
so that it fits into some sort of ready argument. I think I've been
pretty clear, but perhaps not?
<snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
> > >
> > > > Not a *great* movie,
> > > > mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
> > > > always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
> > > > roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
> > >
> > >
> > > (a) AFAIK, she was suppossed being the extreme of the "Italian standard"
> > > and for Italians she was an "exotic" woman (being from North Africa).
> > > (b) There was a movie (parody on western) where CC and BB played together
> > > and both were just equal both in their charms (they were a little bit
> > > on the older side at this time) and in their acting skills.
> > > (c) BB was extremely "credible" in the proper roles.
> > >
> > Well, part of it is personal taste. BBs pouty tease thing doesn't do
> > a thing for me, might be a guy thing. IMHO, CC gives off healthy
> > sexuality and that's something that transcends gender.
> >
>
> You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> attraction? :-)
>
Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
have worked in the fifties but other than that, it's been the other
way around, at least around here. Now we barely have hips at all.
> Personally, I agree but CC's husband left her for even more exotic
> creature with much less ...er... prominent advantage in this area.
>
I certainly hope that wasn't the only reason. If it was, she's was
well rid of him!
It's funny that you refer to CC as exotic. In my neck of the woods,
CCs were a lot more common than BBs. Unless, of course, you had a
bottle of peroxide. ;-)
Eve
Alex
[G]
> > This would be a comedy and he was not very good in this genre.
> >
> Actually, I liked some of the humor in his films.
Don't remember any humor but definitely remember an irony/satire
(and non-PC comments along the lines "when a woman does not attract
men, she becames politically active", or something of the kind in
"Intolerance"). :-)
>
> IMHO if he did this it wouldn't be good propaganda. He had a very
> good idea as to who he wanted to show as his good guys and as a result
> needed to idealize them as much as possible.
It's also possible that he was quite sincere in his beliefs, which were
a commonplace at his time.
>
> > > I'm sure
> > > they could be boorish a lot of other unsavory things to boot.
> >
> > What was the name of Buster Keaton's movie? "Southern Hospitality"?
> > :-)
> >
> All I can think of is "The General".
Well, one I mentioned was about a guy who inherited some delapidated
estate somewhere in the South and a family feud as an "extra". To make
things more interesting, he did not know about the feud and fall in love
with the daughter of the enemy. According to the Southern code of honor,
he could not be shot under the enemy's roof so big part of the movie
is dedicated to the failed attempts of the hosts to lure him from under
their roof, etc.
>
> > > But he
> > > didn't do this.
> >
> > In the movies like this you have the bad people and the good people.
> > Both
> > groups should be easily identifiable with the clear super-villians and
> > the
> > lilly-white (in soul) heroes.
>
> Yes. And who you select as the good guys and the bad guys make a
> difference. For someone like Griffith it was good whites, stupid
> blacks, bad mulattos.
Well, can you imagine him making a movie about the clever blacks, stupid
whites and bad mulattos (sorry, they just stuck in the middle)? He was not
working in our times.
> In your Soviet films it was something else.
> Same kind of deal. And there are still movies made the same way, with
> different people in the good and bad roles depending on who the
> filmmaker's POV.
Let's put it a different way. I strongly suspect that G was sincere in his
beliefs. I also strongly suspect that Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co were
simply comformists who wanted to have a comfortable life and to die in their
beds.
This does not necessarily reflects on the quality of their movies but
definitely reflects on my attitude.
> OTH, you said mentioned the DW's "realism" in his portraying blacks in
> "Birth of a Nation". This is something I didn't understand. There
> was no realism. Were you baiting me or being facecious without the
> little smily?
Perhaps I was not clear enough. "BoN" is not a realistic movie, we both
agree on this. WHat I was saying is that a "model" of behavior of the
"who was nobody, will be on the top" group of people is realistic (can
be easy mapped to the real life examples). Even the fact that the
"marginal" group (mulattos in "BoN") is shown as most mischevious,
brings certain associations: in Rusia the semi-educated revolutionaries
easily got on the local leading positions and had been much more
active and "inventive" than most of their followers.
So, while the movie is not realistic, certain schemas are (your comment
about them being unbalanced is taken).
> >
> No argument here. I think the parallel between AN and "Birth of a
> Nation" is a good one. Neither are realistic. Both are propaganda.
> Both are great and significant movies for other reasons.
Agreed.
>
> > > > There is a historic liberal misunderstanding that an oppressed person is
> > > > inherently good just because he/she/it is oppressed and that a simple
> > > > removal of the oppressing factor gives you an angel.
> > >
> > > No. I don't think that's a liberal misunderstanding. I think that's
> > > the misunderstanding of a fool.
> >
> > Well, AFAIK, this was an idea of Prince Kropotkin and everybody
> > considered
> > him a very wise (even if excessively kind) person. :-)
> >
> But perhaps not the best role model in terms of understanding human
> nature.
It's open for discussion but perhaps he was not, judging by the practices
of his followers.
>
> > >Unlike some, I don't consider the two
> > > the same thing. OTH, a common reactionary's misconception might
> > > think so.
> >
> > Neah. I'm a reactionary and I don't think so.
> >
> This might only apply to the common reactionary. Perhaps you are an
> extraordinary reactionary? ;-)
"Reactionary Extraordinary"? Thanks, do I have your permission to add it
to my other title? "Chief Imperial Henchman and Reactionary Extraordinary"
definitely sounds imprerssive. :-)
> <snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
> > > >
> > > > > Not a *great* movie,
> > > > > mind you, but entertaining. Anyway though not a master thesbian, I
> > > > > always thought Claudia had more charm AND more credibility in her
> > > > > roles. I also thought she was much hotter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (a) AFAIK, she was suppossed being the extreme of the "Italian standard"
> > > > and for Italians she was an "exotic" woman (being from North Africa).
> > > > (b) There was a movie (parody on western) where CC and BB played together
> > > > and both were just equal both in their charms (they were a little bit
> > > > on the older side at this time) and in their acting skills.
> > > > (c) BB was extremely "credible" in the proper roles.
> > > >
> > > Well, part of it is personal taste. BBs pouty tease thing doesn't do
> > > a thing for me, might be a guy thing. IMHO, CC gives off healthy
> > > sexuality and that's something that transcends gender.
> > >
> >
> > You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> > attraction? :-)
> >
> Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
> have worked in the fifties
60's and 70's.
> but other than that, it's been the other
> way around, at least around here. Now we barely have hips at all.
Nothing personal, but the "old ideal" is still attractive. As one smart
doggie said: "People think that we like the bones. Actually, we like the
meat." :-)
>
> > Personally, I agree but CC's husband left her for even more exotic
> > creature with much less ...er... prominent advantage in this area.
> >
> I certainly hope that wasn't the only reason. If it was, she's was
> well rid of him!
>
> It's funny that you refer to CC as exotic.
Well, it was not me. It was what a professional critic said about the Italians.
I just happened to agree with them.
>In my neck of the woods,
> CCs were a lot more common than BBs.
Sorry, but there are .... never mind. Let's put it in a different way: not
every woman with the wide hips is CC and not every trash-looking one is BB.
>Unless, of course, you had a
> bottle of peroxide. ;-)
Then you are getting Pamela Anderson but not BB. :-)
E. C. Lee
(oh dear!) that I had to break it into two posts. Check three posts
up! This is only the response to the second half.
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [G]
> > > This would be a comedy and he was not very good in this genre.
> > >
> > Actually, I liked some of the humor in his films.
>
> Don't remember any humor but definitely remember an irony/satire
> (and non-PC comments along the lines "when a woman does not attract
> men, she becames politically active", or something of the kind in
> "Intolerance"). :-)
>
Yes. I remember that one. I don't think that was intended as humor,
but as fact.
He also used amusing characters, such as the girl in the Babylonian
scene, for comic relief.
> > IMHO if he did this it wouldn't be good propaganda. He had a very
> > good idea as to who he wanted to show as his good guys and as a result
> > needed to idealize them as much as possible.
>
> It's also possible that he was quite sincere in his beliefs, which were
> a commonplace at his time.
>
There's not a doubt in my mind that he wasn't sincere. Nor that there
weren't others that agreed with him. Doesn't make it any less
propaganda.
> > > > But he
> > > > didn't do this.
> > >
> > > In the movies like this you have the bad people and the good people.
> > > Both
> > > groups should be easily identifiable with the clear super-villians and
> > > the
> > > lilly-white (in soul) heroes.
> >
> > Yes. And who you select as the good guys and the bad guys make a
> > difference. For someone like Griffith it was good whites, stupid
> > blacks, bad mulattos.
>
> Well, can you imagine him making a movie about the clever blacks, stupid
> whites and bad mulattos (sorry, they just stuck in the middle)?
Not him, but there have been others. I'd find that just as offensive.
In fact, I have seen movies like that (although the mulatto element
is more complex and translated better as "light skinned blacks" .)
He was not
> working in our times.
>
No kidding. I understand this completely and always have. I simply
don't agree with his PO . I don't agree with the Spanish Inquisition
either. Nevertheless neither of these opinons take away from my
appreciation of what the film nor take away from my interest in
history.
> > In your Soviet films it was something else.
> > Same kind of deal. And there are still movies made the same way, with
> > different people in the good and bad roles depending on who the
> > filmmaker's POV.
>
> Let's put it a different way. I strongly suspect that G was sincere in his
> beliefs. I also strongly suspect that Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co were
> simply comformists who wanted to have a comfortable life and to die in their
> beds.
> This does not necessarily reflects on the quality of their movies but
> definitely reflects on my attitude.
>
OK. It reflects YOUR attitude. And it does NOT effect the quality of
their movies. This is the main point I was getting at. From what I
know of Dante Gabriel Rosetti, he was a total jerk. However, many of
his pictures that I find truly beautiful. Who the person is should
not effect my judgement on their art. HOWEVER, sometimes things I
know about an artist or things within the work can upset me personally
to such an extent that I have trouble objectively looking at something
(a friend of mine dated a famous comediene and ever since it's
impossible for me to find him funny even though he may well be.)
HOWEVER, I TRY to be aware of when that's the case. Still, my
feelings never overcame me in either BofaN or Eisenstein's case. Yet
from what you say, such a thing may have effected your judgement with
Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co.
>
> > OTH, you said mentioned the DW's "realism" in his portraying blacks in
> > "Birth of a Nation". This is something I didn't understand. There
> > was no realism. Were you baiting me or being facecious without the
> > little smily?
>
> Perhaps I was not clear enough. "BoN" is not a realistic movie, we both
> agree on this. WHat I was saying is that a "model" of behavior of the
> "who was nobody, will be on the top" group of people is realistic (can
> be easy mapped to the real life examples).
That may well be, but IMHO in this case it was more a caracature.
And I am also of the opinion that DW's intention was not a noble
parable of the wheel of fate making its turn. IMHO he was showing
"look how awful things are now that WE are no longer in charge! Look
at the ignorant boorish children taking over!" IMHO it was not to
show the chaos ensues after a regime is toppled. It was intended to
have one group condescend to another.
Even the fact that the
> "marginal" group (mulattos in "BoN") is shown as most mischevious,
> brings certain associations:
"Mischevious" is a very mild description of it! He was trying to rape
a young girl, among other things! I don't think mulattos were
vilified because they were marginal, either, although the fact that
they didn't fit in either catagory did make them a greater danger. To
DW they were like bizarre mutants. They were the ultimate thing to be
feared. They were the world gone topsy turvey and didn't fit into a
neat world view. They were the infecting of the greatness within his
own race with something unclean.
in Rusia the semi-educated revolutionaries
> easily got on the local leading positions and had been much more
> active and "inventive" than most of their followers.
>
> So, while the movie is not realistic, certain schemas are (your comment
> about them being unbalanced is taken).
>
I think you are choosing the schema to suit your POV. I don't think
DW was taking the same one. You are saying, "the underclass once it
has power can create chaos due to it's lack of education, inexperience
and mob mentality". Well, that's a good point, but frankly, I don't
think that this was DW's I believe his intent was to show that "black
people are stupid children and can be nothing more than comical and
incompetant when they try to take charge. OTH those of mixed race are
evil and dangerous." It's like my saying that the final scene was
meant to show the horrors of rape. However, that wasn't really DW's
point. His point was that people of mixed race were so unscrupulous
that they would do something as horrific as rape a young sweet white
girl.
>
> > >
> > No argument here. I think the parallel between AN and "Birth of a
> > Nation" is a good one. Neither are realistic. Both are propaganda.
> > Both are great and significant movies for other reasons.
>
> Agreed.
>
Whew! ;-)
<snip>
> > This might only apply to the common reactionary. Perhaps you are an
> > extraordinary reactionary? ;-)
>
> "Reactionary Extraordinary"? Thanks, do I have your permission to add it
> to my other title? "Chief Imperial Henchman and Reactionary Extraordinary"
> definitely sounds imprerssive. :-)
>
Be my guest. Seems to suit you! Although I like the sound of it
more as originally stated! Has a bit more pizzazz. But "Reactionary
extrodinaire" has a nice ring, don't you think?;-)
>
>
> > <snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
> > >
> > > You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> > > attraction? :-)
> > >
> > Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
> > have worked in the fifties
>
> 60's and 70's.
>
Nah. That was the era of Twiggy. The hips kept shrinking and
shrinking.
> > but other than that, it's been the other
> > way around, at least around here. Now we barely have hips at all.
>
> Nothing personal, but the "old ideal" is still attractive.
I agree, and my hips are just fine, so nothing personal taken.
> Well, it was not me. It was what a professional critic said about the Italians.
> I just happened to agree with them.
>
> >In my neck of the woods,
> > CCs were a lot more common than BBs.
>
> Sorry, but there are .... never mind. Let's put it in a different way: not
> every woman with the wide hips is CC and not every trash-looking one is BB.
>
Actually, I wasn't referring to hips or to trashiness. I was
referring to coloring. Blondes have always been a novelty for me.
I've live among Greeks, Jews, Iranians, Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans,
Southern Italians, Latinos, Japanese, Chinese, Arabs, etc. Blondes
are not the norm. I know many beautiful dark haired women with olive
complexions and incredible bodies, but fair skinned blonde sex kittens
are hard to come by.
> >Unless, of course, you had a
> > bottle of peroxide. ;-)
>
> Then you are getting Pamela Anderson but not BB. :-)
I'm sure there are many men who'd have no objection to that!
JMHO,
Eve
Alex
> > Let's put it a different way. I strongly suspect that G was sincere in his
> > beliefs. I also strongly suspect that Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co were
> > simply comformists who wanted to have a comfortable life and to die in their
> > beds.
> > This does not necessarily reflects on the quality of their movies but
> > definitely reflects on my attitude.
> >
> OK. It reflects YOUR attitude.
[desperately trying to get back to some common sense]
Yes, it reflects on my attitude, however I started with saying that, while
I consider "AN" a great propaganda piece, I think that a movie is weak due
to the numerous technical drawbacks, including it's being, technically,
well behind the contemporary Hollywood level. The positive things, like a
great music, don't (IMO) compensate for these drawbacks. My personal
perception is based on combination of the technical drawbacks and rejection
of one of the few "positive" things in this movie: expertly made propaganda.
OTOH, "BoN" technically was at its time on the front end of the world
movie "standards". BTW, I'm not sure that "propaganda" is a proper term
for "BoN" bacause it assumes a "mathodical" spreading of the ideas. I can
easily show that Eisenstein methodically put the stalinist ideas in most
of his movies. AFAIK, G did not consistently cover the racial subject in
his.
> >
> > "Reactionary Extraordinary"? Thanks, do I have your permission to add it
> > to my other title? "Chief Imperial Henchman and Reactionary Extraordinary"
> > definitely sounds imprerssive. :-)
> >
> Be my guest. Seems to suit you! Although I like the sound of it
> more as originally stated! Has a bit more pizzazz. But "Reactionary
> extrodinaire" has a nice ring, don't you think?;-)
Otherwise, why would I put it this way? :-)
> >
> >
> > > <snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
>
> > > >
> > > > You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> > > > attraction? :-)
> > > >
> > > Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
> > > have worked in the fifties
> >
> > 60's and 70's.
> >
> Nah. That was the era of Twiggy. The hips kept shrinking and
> shrinking.
To start with, they did not "shrink" everywhere. Then, there is a huge gap
between fashion and what people really like.
Anyway, "Italian standard" survived 50's-70's and none of the (more or
less) "great ones" resembled Twiggy: CC, Sophia Loren, GL, Monica Vitty,
Ornella Mutty, Laura Antonely, Stefania Sandrely.
The same would go for the Eastern Block (I suspect that you will not recognize
the names).
Alex
> > A simple question: did you notice existence of Protazanov in the
> > Soviet
> > cinema of 20's-30's? While all these "greats" had been busy writing
> > the
> > theories and making the movies that nobody wanted to watch, he was
> > making
> > the most popular comedies of the time.
> >
> I can only notice those things that are brought to my attention.
Indeed. And what would be the reasons for this selection? Mostly the
good critical reviews. And the critics, when given the choise, tend to
favor the movies with a "program" (probably easier to write the
"intellectual" review and to look smart) instead of the popular ones
(yeah, the comedy was great, end of the article).
> AFAIK these movies were not even available in the States at the time I
> was involved with film.
I don't think so. There are special institutions all over the world and
they usually have pretty much everything or can borrow from the filmoteques
of the other countries.
Sometimes they have the movies that could not be found in the "native"
archives. I was on a premiere of the Soviet movie made in early 30's
that 1st time had been shown in SU in the late 80's. The only surviving
copy had been found in Belgium and we had been watching its copy (50 years
after movie had been made) courtesy of Belgium archieve.
> And even if they were, they weren't shown.
> The "classic" films were shown because they actually did influence or
> in some way illustrate something critical in the history of motion
> pictures (such as the significance of editing). If I WAS programming
> for a film society these comedies sounds like the perfect sort of
> thing to show.
This is a nice and logical explanation but the problem is that IN REALITY
a lot of the "tricks" had been taken by Eisentstein, Pudovkin, etc. from
the Protazanov's movies. He started almost at the same time as G (a little
bit later, but he was an acknowledged director by the time of Russian
Revolution) and was a master director with the very impressive cuttings,
camera works, etc. The problem was that he was too decent to jump into
the revolutionary bandwagon and probably too "down to earth" to write the
theories.
> > > I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
> > > think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
> > > time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, he is not bad.
> >
> Not bad? He's beautiful! ;-) (It's a girl thing.)
>
He was supposed to be a "heir" of GP but this never worked out. He did
some good action movies but, IMO, not quite as good as Belmondo. Something
was missing.
> > I did see a wonderful film series a while back
> > > on popular French films of the 30s through 50s. It gave me a thing
> > > for Gerard Phillipe!
> >
> > A main role in "Fanfan....", with a young Lolobridgida!
> >
> Then I must see it! In addition to the GP factor I always liked GL!
>
"War was the only entertainment of the kings in which their subjects also
participated."
-Sir, Marechal de Sax would ask for 30,000 killed to win this battle!
-Marechal, when it comes to glory, I'm not bargaining!
[and many other things of the kind]
> > > >
> > > "Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
> >
> > A very interesting one and rather unusual for its time.
> >
> Probably unusual for any time.
Unusual? Hah? You simply did not see Yancho movies (even the critics could
not exactly figure out what is going on in those).
>
> > > There's so much in it, hard to follow unless you really concentrate.
> > > It took me three times to sit completely through it, but once I did I
> > > thought it was brilliant. OTH, do you mean "Orpheus"?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > > That's a
> > > different film. Now that's one EVERYONE should see. Incredible.
> >
> > Actually, I was not EXTREMELY excited about this one but it was
> > interesting.
> >
> Again, you must have a different criteria than I do. I can't imagine
> a more stunning piece of visual poetry.
I'm not too much into a poetry. Besides, as almost everybody in SU I started
with watching Jean Mareau as an ultimate action hero (he "found" himself
when he was in his 40's). To watch him as a poetic hero was very unusual
(there was a subconscious expectation that every minute he should start
kicking around).
>
> >
> > > I also liked
> > > "Blood of a Poet", but I understand how that one wouldn't be for all
> > > tastes.
> >
> > Did not see it.
> >
> I suspect you wouldn't like it, judging by your reaction to "Orpheus".
> In fact, it's more abstract than "Orpheus" so you'd probably like it
> even less.
>
> > > > > JMHO. I
> > > > > liked a few Fassbinders, but not all.
> > > >
> > > > Never impressed me. And his favorite actress (Shikula?), well, woman with
> > > > such a figure should not be seen on screen naked. :-)
>
> Hanna Schygulla?
>
Yes. The sight was terrible.
[]
> > I don't like the "masses": they are too easy to guide in any
> > direction.
> >
> I don't like masses not just for this reason, but because if find them
> dehumanizing.
... All these peasants in teh immaculate shirts flocking after AN on his
route to Novgorod. The obvious questions: (a) why hadn't they been wearing
any overcoats? (b) they got from the holes under the burned houses (well,
Mongols were out of the area for a while, why didn't they rebuilt their
houses?); how did they manage to preserve their shirts in such a good
condition? (c) who and why would keep and feed them in the city for few
months? Their march starts in summer (or early fall) and the battle is
fought in winter.
E. C. Lee
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > A simple question: did you notice existence of Protazanov in the
> > > Soviet
> > > cinema of 20's-30's? While all these "greats" had been busy writing
> > > the
> > > theories and making the movies that nobody wanted to watch, he was
> > > making
> > > the most popular comedies of the time.
> > >
> > I can only notice those things that are brought to my attention.
>
> Indeed. And what would be the reasons for this selection? Mostly the
> good critical reviews. And the critics, when given the choise, tend to
> favor the movies with a "program" (probably easier to write the
> "intellectual" review and to look smart) instead of the popular ones
> (yeah, the comedy was great, end of the article).
>
> > AFAIK these movies were not even available in the States at the time I
> > was involved with film.
>
> I don't think so. There are special institutions all over the world and
> they usually have pretty much everything or can borrow from the filmoteques
> of the other countries.
For a while, I worked in several significant film societies. In fact,
I even did some film programing. We were restricted by the catalogs
of the various companies, such as Film Incorporated, who distributed
the films. There were many small distributors who would sometimes
have "unusual" titles. And I'd imagine in some cases a country that
wished to cooperate might supply some of their lesser distributed
titles. When I was working, some filmmakers (generally independent
filmmakers) would sometimes supply copies of their films. Now this
was a LONG time ago. What's available now is certainly greater than
what was available then. However, for one reason or another some
films are just unable to be shown. Sometimes even historically well
known films are not available for various legal reasons. So if I ran
a film society, I could just say "get me such and such a film." I
would have to check for availability.
Even given this, some distributors are not terribly reliable. If I
don't want to deal with a particular distributer due to the hassles
that go with it, those films may not be shown. Also, cost may be an
issue. Some films are rented for less money than others and therefore
shown more frequently. And if there is no perceived interest, those
films won't be shown at all. Most film societies aren't know for
their vast wealth and they need to get as much bang for their buck as
they can.
> Sometimes they have the movies that could not be found in the "native"
> archives. I was on a premiere of the Soviet movie made in early 30's
> that 1st time had been shown in SU in the late 80's. The only surviving
> copy had been found in Belgium and we had been watching its copy (50 years
> after movie had been made) courtesy of Belgium archieve.
>
That's great! Which brings up another point (even though it doesn't
really link) many films have been lost and destroyed. If they have
not been considered important enough or interesting enough, they also
disintegrate while left on the shelves. There's a major project on
going project to preserve the great films, but again, this is
subjective. What films are going to be saved? It's a tough decision.
>
>
> > And even if they were, they weren't shown.
> > The "classic" films were shown because they actually did influence or
> > in some way illustrate something critical in the history of motion
> > pictures (such as the significance of editing). If I WAS programming
> > for a film society these comedies sounds like the perfect sort of
> > thing to show.
>
> This is a nice and logical explanation but the problem is that IN REALITY
> a lot of the "tricks" had been taken by Eisentstein, Pudovkin, etc. from
> the Protazanov's movies. He started almost at the same time as G (a little
> bit later, but he was an acknowledged director by the time of Russian
> Revolution) and was a master director with the very impressive cuttings,
> camera works, etc. The problem was that he was too decent to jump into
> the revolutionary bandwagon and probably too "down to earth" to write the
> theories.
>
In this case, a rediscovery is in order. This would be a wonderful
chance for someone to make a name for themselves by bringing these
films here and/or publishing a book on the topic. You say that
critics would pick a clearer example, such as someone who writes down
what they did and shows it with great obviousness. Certainly! But
one can certainly make an enormous splash if they come up with
something undiscovered of great significance. Again, this MIGHT have
been done in the years since I was involved with film. If it hasn't
and these films are as great as you say AND accessible, there's an
incredible opportunity waiting for someone.
As for why the Eisenstein and co. became famous in the world and the
other filmmakers didn't there are many reasons including the one who
suggest. Obviously, the Soviets made certain films more available to
the outside than others. Ones that toed the party line, of course.
It could also be the more basic question of what they considered their
more important films. In Hollywood, the studios often did what they
considered "the prestige" picture. An extravaganza from some famous
literary work or something equally "heady". On occasion these were
quite good, but more often they were ponderous and little remembered
today. Very much like the comparison between history painting and
genre. It's possible that part of the reason that the Russian
comedies were neglected was because they weren't considered status
pictures. Or maybe the Russians didn't think we should see them
laughing? OTH, humor from other countries doesn't always translate
well. It's possible that the rest of the world wouldn't "get it".
No matter, I'd be interested in seeing these films today, as I am sure
would a number of people. But this still wouldn't not put the films
of Eisenstein and his friends out to pasture. Therir films and
writings DID influence a lot of other great filmmakers. Even if they
didn't do these things first, they were the ones that other directors
were exposed to and for that reason alone if nothing else, they are
worth studying. In addition, many people, self included, enjoyed some
of these pictures. They find them interesting and exciting. Even if
you don't.
I'm trying to think of a parallel where I might take the other side.
The closest thing I can come up with is "Forrest Gump" I HATED that
movie. I hated what it had to say, I thought it totally moronic, I
thought the so called ingenious parts were actually rather sloppy and
gimmicky. I thought the performances were overrated. I will have to
say the fact that this movie WAS so incredibly popular says something
significant about America at the time the film was made. Fortunately,
I don't think they are studying it at any film schools at this time,
but I might be wrong.
> > > > I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
> > > > think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
> > > > time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, he is not bad.
> > >
> > Not bad? He's beautiful! ;-) (It's a girl thing.)
> >
>
> He was supposed to be a "heir" of GP but this never worked out. He did
> some good action movies but, IMO, not quite as good as Belmondo. Something
> was missing.
>
He had both a quirky presence and a quirky personality in real life.
That might have made him less likely to fit into the mold. In a way,
he was also "too" goodlooking. As a result there were some things he
couldn't play that Belmondo could.
It's funny, because I also think the sexiness of an unattractive man
like Belmondo is ultimately sexier than the sexier than the good looks
of an obviously handsome man like Delon, though I'm not sure if
everyone would agree with this. Even so, is it that Belmondo's great
acting generates the heat or is that he just has a greater charisma?
Of course, this isn't to say that Delon was just eye candy (or even
that he lacked charsima, he had a great deal of it). Delon has made
some wonderful films.
But I do agree that all things considering Belmondo was a better
actor. I recall one film they did togethe--"Borsalino". Though not
the top film for either one of them, it was quite enjoyable and it was
great to see them together.
> > > > "Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
> > >
> > > A very interesting one and rather unusual for its time.
> > >
> > Probably unusual for any time.
>
> Unusual? Hah? You simply did not see Yancho movies (even the critics could
> not exactly figure out what is going on in those).
>
Well, I would like to see the Yancho movies so that I can see if your
right. However, being difficult to comprehend isn't the only
characterisitc that makes the film unusual. So what were the Yancho
movies about?
> > > > There's so much in it, hard to follow unless you really concentrate.
> > > > It took me three times to sit completely through it, but once I did I
> > > > thought it was brilliant. OTH, do you mean "Orpheus"?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > > That's a
> > > > different film. Now that's one EVERYONE should see. Incredible.
> > >
> > > Actually, I was not EXTREMELY excited about this one but it was
> > > interesting.
> > >
> > Again, you must have a different criteria than I do. I can't imagine
> > a more stunning piece of visual poetry.
>
> I'm not too much into a poetry.
So it seems. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that we disgree on
some aspects of film?
Besides, as almost everybody in SU I started
> with watching Jean Mareau as an ultimate action hero (he "found" himself
> when he was in his 40's). To watch him as a poetic hero was very unusual
> (there was a subconscious expectation that every minute he should start
> kicking around).
>
Yes. That would be a culture shock.
<AN>
> ... All these peasants in teh immaculate shirts flocking after AN on his
> route to Novgorod. The obvious questions: (a) why hadn't they been wearing
> any overcoats? (b) they got from the holes under the burned houses (well,
> Mongols were out of the area for a while, why didn't they rebuilt their
> houses?); how did they manage to preserve their shirts in such a good
> condition? (c) who and why would keep and feed them in the city for few
> months? Their march starts in summer (or early fall) and the battle is
> fought in winter.
In which case, points off for logic, historical accuracy and
continuity.
In the soap opera community they have term, IOAS (it's only a soap) to
justify how all sorts of improbable things come about (such as an
actor who was 5 years old two years earlier, is now being a teenage.
Or a character that was half across town in the previous scene now
having coffee in the protagonist's kitchen Or how come someone can be
locked up in a secret room for three months and never have to go to
the bathroom. Sometimes you might have to also say IOAM.
But it can take away from a film's credibility and is on the sloppy
side. All films usually have mistakes and inaccuracies. The less you
detect, the better. As I said, it breaks away from the veracity of
the film's world when this sort of thing is noticed. From the sounds
of it the film would definitely get low scores on this count (although
I was so caught up in the action I really didn't notice). Even still,
this may not make it a less significant movie in other areas.
JMHO,
Eve
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > > A simple question: did you notice existence of Protazanov in the
> > > > Soviet
> > > > cinema of 20's-30's? While all these "greats" had been busy writing
> > > > the
> > > > theories and making the movies that nobody wanted to watch, he was
> > > > making
> > > > the most popular comedies of the time.
> > > >
> > > I can only notice those things that are brought to my attention.
> >
> > Indeed. And what would be the reasons for this selection? Mostly the
> > good critical reviews. And the critics, when given the choise, tend to
> > favor the movies with a "program" (probably easier to write the
> > "intellectual" review and to look smart) instead of the popular ones
> > (yeah, the comedy was great, end of the article).
> >
> I answer this later on.
>
> > > AFAIK these movies were not even available in the States at the time I
> > > was involved with film.
> >
> > I don't think so. There are special institutions all over the world and
> > they usually have pretty much everything or can borrow from the filmoteques
> > of the other countries.
>
> For a while, I worked in several significant film societies. In fact,
> I even did some film programing.
[snip]
Actually, I was talking about the national institutions: usually they are
in communication/exchange with each other and do not have "commercial"
considerations. My "favorite" movie theater in SU was affiliated with the
Soviet Movie Archive and they had the echange agreements with most of the
european archives. Even with the well-known Soviet restrictions, I was
able to see a lot.
> > Sometimes they have the movies that could not be found in the "native"
> > archives. I was on a premiere of the Soviet movie made in early 30's
> > that 1st time had been shown in SU in the late 80's. The only surviving
> > copy had been found in Belgium and we had been watching its copy (50 years
> > after movie had been made) courtesy of Belgium archieve.
> >
> That's great! Which brings up another point (even though it doesn't
> really link) many films have been lost and destroyed. If they have
> not been considered important enough or interesting enough, they also
> disintegrate while left on the shelves.
Well, the case I was talking about was different. The movie was previewed
by the "authorities" and found completely inappropriate for the Soviet
viewer. The director switched to making documentaries and the copies went
in their convoluted ways until one of them landed in Belgium.
> >
> > This is a nice and logical explanation but the problem is that IN REALITY
> > a lot of the "tricks" had been taken by Eisentstein, Pudovkin, etc. from
> > the Protazanov's movies. He started almost at the same time as G (a little
> > bit later, but he was an acknowledged director by the time of Russian
> > Revolution) and was a master director with the very impressive cuttings,
> > camera works, etc. The problem was that he was too decent to jump into
> > the revolutionary bandwagon and probably too "down to earth" to write the
> > theories.
> >
> In this case, a rediscovery is in order.
Actually, there is no need to "rediscover" Protazanov because he was never
"lost". He was well-known in SU and I found a reference to him (with a
short comment that he was making the most popular comedies of the time)
in a single american book on the movies I was browsing through.
> This would be a wonderful
> chance for someone to make a name for themselves by bringing these
> films here and/or publishing a book on the topic. You say that
> critics would pick a clearer example, such as someone who writes down
> what they did and shows it with great obviousness.
No, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the "theories" help the
critical articles/books look more intellectual. Which, in turn, helps the
author to improve his/her/its own status.
> As for why the Eisenstein and co. became famous in the world and the
> other filmmakers didn't there are many reasons including the one who
> suggest. Obviously, the Soviets made certain films more available to
> the outside than others.
More than this. SOme of the prominent european "intellectual" figures
had been either socialists of communists. Small wonder that somebody
like George Sadoul (sp) would spend half of his book on the "revolutionaries"
and just gloss over Griffith's "drawbacks" (I'm trying to err on a nice side
and do not insist that this particular author had been paid by the Soviets.
OTOH, his books had been published in SU and in the "special cases" royalties
could be generous).
> It's possible that part of the reason that the Russian
> comedies were neglected was because they weren't considered status
> pictures.
You mean "neglected" by the foreigners or by the local critics?
They definitely had not been neglected by the local public.
> Or maybe the Russians didn't think we should see them
> laughing? OTH, humor from other countries doesn't always translate
> well.
Somehow, Chaplin and Buster Keaton translated very well and the Italian,
French and English comedies had been very popular in SU. Don't see why
this would not go another way.
> It's possible that the rest of the world wouldn't "get it".
>
It's always a guess. OTOH, the "masterpieces" like "Moscow does not
believe in tears" or "Little Vera" somehow found their way on US market,
while being somewhere on the bottom of the hill.
> I'm trying to think of a parallel where I might take the other side.
> The closest thing I can come up with is "Forrest Gump" I HATED that
> movie. I hated what it had to say, I thought it totally moronic, I
> thought the so called ingenious parts were actually rather sloppy and
> gimmicky. I thought the performances were overrated. I will have to
> say the fact that this movie WAS so incredibly popular says something
> significant about America at the time the film was made.
If you look around, you can easily find that a successful idiot is a
favorite personage of almost any folklore (I intensively disliked FG
but this is neither here nor there). Bourville was French darling and
he acted almost FG in the dozens of movies.
> > > > > I would be interested as I like Belmondo, although I can
> > > > > think of a few titles of things he was in that were hardly worth the
> > > > > time. I'm also rather fond of Alain Delon.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, he is not bad.
> > > >
> > > Not bad? He's beautiful! ;-) (It's a girl thing.)
> > >
> >
> > He was supposed to be a "heir" of GP but this never worked out. He did
> > some good action movies but, IMO, not quite as good as Belmondo. Something
> > was missing.
> >
> He had both a quirky presence and a quirky personality in real life.
> That might have made him less likely to fit into the mold. In a way,
> he was also "too" goodlooking.
Yes, and unlike GP, he did not really figure out what to do with these
looks.
> As a result there were some things he
> couldn't play that Belmondo could.
>
> It's funny, because I also think the sexiness of an unattractive man
> like Belmondo is ultimately sexier than the sexier than the good looks
> of an obviously handsome man like Delon, though I'm not sure if
> everyone would agree with this.
You should see "The Magnificient" :-)
> Even so, is it that Belmondo's great
> acting generates the heat or is that he just has a greater charisma?
Why not assume that he had both?
> > > > > "Testament of Orpheus"? That's a tough one. Not for everyone.
> > > >
> > > > A very interesting one and rather unusual for its time.
> > > >
> > > Probably unusual for any time.
> >
> > Unusual? Hah? You simply did not see Yancho movies (even the critics could
> > not exactly figure out what is going on in those).
> >
> Well, I would like to see the Yancho movies so that I can see if your
> right. However, being difficult to comprehend isn't the only
> characterisitc that makes the film unusual. So what were the Yancho
> movies about?
AFAIK, nobody knows for sure. He also unusual in the way he was shooting
his movies, the attitude toward landscape, costumes (or their absense)
and probably every other thing I can think of.
> <AN>
>
> > ... All these peasants in teh immaculate shirts flocking after AN on his
> > route to Novgorod. The obvious questions: (a) why hadn't they been wearing
> > any overcoats? (b) they got from the holes under the burned houses (well,
> > Mongols were out of the area for a while, why didn't they rebuilt their
> > houses?); how did they manage to preserve their shirts in such a good
> > condition? (c) who and why would keep and feed them in the city for few
> > months? Their march starts in summer (or early fall) and the battle is
> > fought in winter.
>
> In which case, points off for logic, historical accuracy and
> continuity.
>
.... Not compensated by the impressive acting or inventive technique
(well, the idea to use salt as snow was inventive but the actors suffered
a lot, "ice" was inventive as well to too obviously plywoodish).
> But it can take away from a film's credibility and is on the sloppy
> side. All films usually have mistakes and inaccuracies.
You'll be hard-pressed to find them in "Potop".
>The less you
> detect, the better. As I said, it breaks away from the veracity of
> the film's world when this sort of thing is noticed. From the sounds
> of it the film would definitely get low scores on this count (although
> I was so caught up in the action I really didn't notice).
Well, I did not either, initially.
> Even still,
> this may not make it a less significant movie in other areas.
Maybe.
E. C. Lee
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
<snip because all this is WAAAAAAYYYYYY too long!
>
> Actually, I was talking about the national institutions: usually they are
> in communication/exchange with each other and do not have "commercial"
> considerations.
Are you referring to the American film Institute in California or
somewhere else? I worked with several major film university
programs, the cinema center of a major museum and a sizable media
center and none of them had access of this sort. It's a wonderful
idea, but if it's restricted to only a few institutions not a lot of
people can take advantage of it.
My "favorite" movie theater in SU was affiliated with the
> Soviet Movie Archive and they had the echange agreements with most of the
> european archives. Even with the well-known Soviet restrictions, I was
> able to see a lot.
>
That's wonderful. Are you familiar with anything like this in the
States?
<snip>
<Russian Comedy>
> > In this case, a rediscovery is in order.
>
> Actually, there is no need to "rediscover" Protazanov because he was never
> "lost". He was well-known in SU and I found a reference to him (with a
> short comment that he was making the most popular comedies of the time)
> in a single american book on the movies I was browsing through.
>
Well, then I'd say a *discovery* was in order, because I suspect his
films are not familiar here (unless someone has done such a program on
him in the last 20 years!) It's possible that the single American
book that you found might have been written by someone who had known
him through hearsay or had spent some time in the SU.
>
> > This would be a wonderful
> > chance for someone to make a name for themselves by bringing these
> > films here and/or publishing a book on the topic. You say that
> > critics would pick a clearer example, such as someone who writes down
> > what they did and shows it with great obviousness.
>
> No, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the "theories" help the
> critical articles/books look more intellectual. Which, in turn, helps the
> author to improve his/her/its own status.
>
Theories can be worthless intellectualization, but some are genuinely
interesting and can actually be used to make better pictures. The
different "types" of edits that Eisenstein discusses, for example, can
be useful tools for the filmmaker and I'm sure his writings HAVE been
useful to student who went on to work in the film industry.
I personally don't come from a theory background. IMHO, people who
write about the theories of others are are removing themselves further
and further from the original source and I'd personally rather deal
with the film itself and those who have worked on the film. But
that's just my choice.There's also a lot of theory that just gets
caught up in itself and ceases to have any connection with the
material that it's claiming to study. I've no interest in that at
all. But I don't think anyone can dismiss ALL theory nor all those
who write about theory as intellectual "status climbers". To have
written material as a source to work with is wonderful, and it does
enable someone to do a better job in writing about anything. Would
having great sources be a good draw for a researcher? Sure! And I'm
sure that a lot of film writers might depend on filmmakers who've done
much of the job for them by leaving their ideas in print. But that,
IMHO, is hardly a fault unless the researcher neglects to do a good
job in their interpretations of the writing or application of it to
the visual material.
Of course, the writer might just be lazy and take something "easy"
simply because it is easy. Too many people do write about these
filmmakers for this reason. Or, as you say, if you write about
someone who is perceived as writing impressive things, you end up
sounding more impressive (eg. people would take me more seriously if I
said I studied the politics of Hungarian filmmaking rather than the
use of interior decoration in a soap opera). Perhaps as s a result so
called "heady" stuff is studied to a disproportionate level compared
with other topics?
> > As for why the Eisenstein and co. became famous in the world and the
> > other filmmakers didn't there are many reasons including the one who
> > suggest. Obviously, the Soviets made certain films more available to
> > the outside than others.
>
> More than this. SOme of the prominent european "intellectual" figures
> had been either socialists of communists. Small wonder that somebody
> like George Sadoul (sp) would spend half of his book on the "revolutionaries"
> and just gloss over Griffith's "drawbacks" (I'm trying to err on a nice side
> and do not insist that this particular author had been paid by the Soviets.
> OTOH, his books had been published in SU and in the "special cases" royalties
> could be generous).
>
Which Sadoul book are you referring to? I own his "Dictionary of
Films" and he includes quite a variety of films. I wouldn't call it
dominated by "revolutionaries". I would expect his companion volume
to this would be the same. These are two of his top books. At least
in this country. But in any case, whatever. This is just his opinion
and there are MANY critics. Perhaps he dominates criticism in the SU
or perhaps he did in France at one time, but he's just one of an
infinite many on the US film scene.
Some critics HAVE been socialists or communists. But others have
not. I don't believe that every person who has praised the works of
the Soviet filmmakers has been a communist or socialist or in their
pay. Hey, I used to go out with University professor who wrote a book
about the the history of film criticism. He taught a class on film
theory which spent a good amount of time on Eisenstein and friends.
My friend was neither a communist nor a socialist. I may be wrong,
but I don't think most of the current popular critics are either. And
though there is a slant in the viewpoint of some critics, that doesn't
mean that everything they've said is either worthless. Even those
critics who are socialists or communists don't always restrict
themselves to the praising of communist or socialist films, but also
seem to take an interest in classic Hollywood films, which I can't
imagine being a part of the "party" line.
BTW, this is an interesting link
http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/faves.shtml
It's a list of different filmmakers' ten favorite films. Eisenstein
films were mentioned by Nestor Almendros , Bunuel, Robert Bresson, Sam
Fuller, Hal Hartley, Orson Welles and Billy Wilder. And though you
can say that some of these men definitely had leftist leanings
(Almendros actually worked in Cuba making propaganda films though
eventually rebelled and went to work in Hollywood), if you look at
their other selections its obvious that this was not the major factor
in their choices.
Anyway, I do want to again point out, that I find most film theory
boring. I suspect this is because it becomes more and more removed
from production itself. I also find critics who lean heavily on
ideology, like the socialist critics that you complain about,
extremely tedious most of the time. But I'm not going to completely
dismiss everything they say or the films they praise because sometimes
they actually know a thing or two.
Leonard Maltin, BTW, give four stars, his highest rating, to AN. If
Maltin has any socialist leanings it's news to me. He has never
given any indications of it in any of his film reviews. Roger Ebert
includes "Battleship Potemkin" as one of his top 100 films, and as far
as I know he's neither a communist nor a socialist.
> > It's possible that part of the reason that the Russian
> > comedies were neglected was because they weren't considered status
> > pictures.
>
> You mean "neglected" by the foreigners or by the local critics?
> They definitely had not been neglected by the local public.
>
Well, I would imagine that a "status" picture would be the ones most
touted to the foreigners and praised by the local critics. A popular
picture is a different animal. The lines have been blurred in recent
times, but earlier motion pictures, at least in the US, still felt a
need to justify themselves. They were considered low class
entertainment. Certain movies had to be shown as "really important"
to distinguish themselves artistically from the stuff enjoyed by the
rabble. Eventually the merit of the "low brow" film was uncovered,
but that came with time.
> > Or maybe the Russians didn't think we should see them
> > laughing? OTH, humor from other countries doesn't always translate
> > well.
>
> Somehow, Chaplin and Buster Keaton translated very well and the Italian,
> French and English comedies had been very popular in SU. Don't see why
> this would not go another way.
>
I don't know if they would translate because I don't know the films in
question. Anything where word play is important would be a problem.
Same for any "in jokes". The silents usually travel well because they
tend to be visual comedy and slapstick.
>
> > I'm trying to think of a parallel where I might take the other side.
> > The closest thing I can come up with is "Forrest Gump" I HATED that
> > movie. I hated what it had to say, I thought it totally moronic, I
> > thought the so called ingenious parts were actually rather sloppy and
> > gimmicky. I thought the performances were overrated. I will have to
> > say the fact that this movie WAS so incredibly popular says something
> > significant about America at the time the film was made.
>
> If you look around, you can easily find that a successful idiot is a
> favorite personage of almost any folklore (I intensively disliked FG
> but this is neither here nor there). Bourville was French darling and
> he acted almost FG in the dozens of movies.
>
It isn't the successful idiot (or should we say "the wise fool") part
of it that made me hate the film. That's a genre and though it's
hardly my favorite (a tad too sentimental and smarmy for me) that
alone isn't enough to disturb me. I mean, you could say that Guiletta
Masina played a "wise fool" in "La Strata" and that was a wonderful
movie. "Being There" is the same genre, although I admit to never
seeing it.
<Alain Delon>
>
> Yes, and unlike GP, he did not really figure out what to do with these
> looks.
>
Oh, I don't know about that...I suspect he did pretty well! ;-)
<snip>
>
> > Even so, is it that Belmondo's great
> > acting generates the heat or is that he just has a greater charisma?
>
> Why not assume that he had both?
>
Fair enough!
> Maybe.
> > Let's put it a different way. I strongly suspect that G was
sincere in his
> > > beliefs. I also strongly suspect that Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co were
> > > simply comformists who wanted to have a comfortable life and to die in their
> > > beds.
> > > This does not necessarily reflects on the quality of their movies but
> > > definitely reflects on my attitude.
> > >
> > OK. It reflects YOUR attitude.
>
> [desperately trying to get back to some common sense]
>
[Not exactly sure where you think we lost it, or who you might think
lost it, but I do detect some desperation here]
> Yes, it reflects on my attitude, however I started with saying that, while
> I consider "AN" a great propaganda piece, I think that a movie is weak due
> to the numerous technical drawbacks, including it's being, technically,
> well behind the contemporary Hollywood level. The positive things, Iike a
> great music, don't (IMO) compensate for these drawbacks. My personal
> perception is based on combination of the technical drawbacks and rejection
> of one of the few "positive" things in this movie: expertly made propaganda.
>
Well, there is something to be said for the ability to create
extraordinary propaganda.
As I said, I'm at a loss because it's been a while since I've seen the
film. I recall that the score and the editing had a very specific
relationship in terms of mutual rhythms and that in itself would have
been of great significance. I also recall being impressed with some
of the visuals. This might be an individual thing, however. I'm not
willing to go to the mats for this because although I did like the
film, it's hardly one of my absolute all time favorites.
OTH, "Orpheus" is. Now you say that you liked it, but weren't
incredibly impressed with it. It's very possible, as I stated before,
that we were looking at different things, judging by different
criteria. You seem to be saying that AN is a mediocre film that's
been overrated by those who support its ideology. Perhaps. But
perhaps one of the reasons that numerous critics, both those who
follow socialist and communist ideology and others, are looking for
things, such as poetic imagery, that don't interest you? Or perhaps
they might be more savvy to elements such as the relationship between
the film editing and the score.
So I think we've sort of hit the end of the road here. What I am
hoping is that others (if indeed there are any others reading this
damned thread!) see the film for themselves and decide. It's ALWAYS
good to make one's own judgments as opposed to relying on critics. I
'm also curious to watch it again if I get a chance and see if in the
end I might agree with you. Or have more information to defend the
flick.
> OTOH, "BoN" technically was at its time on the front end of the world
> movie "standards". BTW, I'm not sure that "propaganda" is a proper term
> for "BoN" bacause it assumes a "mathodical" spreading of the ideas. I can
> easily show that Eisenstein methodically put the stalinist ideas in most
> of his movies. AFAIK, G did not consistently cover the racial subject in
> his.
>
Well, Griffith couldn't because the furor over "BoN" was so great.
But he had made another film about the Klu Klux Klan, earlier. Fact
is, he made dozens and dozens and dozens of films on many subjects.
Still, what difference it makes what the topic of these film happened
to be? Why would that make them better or worse pictures in terms of
filmmaking or make BoN any less propaganda for Griffith's ideas?
>
> > >
> > > "Reactionary Extraordinary"? Thanks, do I have your permission to add it
> > > to my other title? "Chief Imperial Henchman and Reactionary Extraordinary"
> > > definitely sounds imprerssive. :-)
> > >
> > Be my guest. Seems to suit you! Although I like the sound of it
> > more as originally stated! Has a bit more pizzazz. But "Reactionary
> > extrodinaire" has a nice ring, don't you think?;-)
>
> Otherwise, why would I put it this way? :-)
>
Well, do make it "extraordinaire" rather than "extraordinary". Brings
to mind great conjurers and patent medicine salesmen.
> > >
> > > > <snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> > > > > attraction? :-)
> > > > >
> > > > Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
> > > > have worked in the fifties
> > >
> > > 60's and 70's.
> > >
> > Nah. That was the era of Twiggy. The hips kept shrinking and
> > shrinking.
>
> To start with, they did not "shrink" everywhere.
True. They didn't shrink in places like Latin America. I was told by
a man from
Brazil that he and his countrymen liked their women to be shaped liked
guitars.
Then, there is a huge gap
> between fashion and what people really like.
>
Well, some people snap to fashion quickly. Others either reject it
completely or make the change gradually. I was reading an article on
the evolving dimensions of the Playboy pin-up. On average, she has
been losing inches on her hips steadily over the years. I'd say that
was indicative of a changing ideal.
.> Anyway, "Italian standard" survived 50's-70's and none of the (more
or
> less) "great ones" resembled Twiggy: CC, Sophia Loren, GL, Monica Vitty,
> Ornella Mutty, Laura Antonely, Stefania Sandrely.
> The same would go for the Eastern Block (I suspect that you will not recognize
> the names).
I suspect those great Italian beauties were holdovers from the 50s
ideal. And that their audience was older. Show their pictures to
the young men of today and even those sex goddesses might be
considered overweight!
I have noticed that the older Eastern block immigrant women seem more
comfortable with their hips, but the younger ones, as least in
America, generally try to conform to current fashions.
Eve
Alex
>
> <snip because all this is WAAAAAAYYYYYY too long!
> >
> > Actually, I was talking about the national institutions: usually they are
> > in communication/exchange with each other and do not have "commercial"
> > considerations.
>
> Are you referring to the American film Institute in California or
> somewhere else?
I have no clue what would be American equivalent. You are the native.
>
> My "favorite" movie theater in SU was affiliated with the
> > Soviet Movie Archive and they had the echange agreements with most of the
> > european archives. Even with the well-known Soviet restrictions, I was
> > able to see a lot.
> >
> That's wonderful. Are you familiar with anything like this in the
> States?
I thought that you are.
>
> <snip>
>
> <Russian Comedy>
>
> > > In this case, a rediscovery is in order.
> >
> > Actually, there is no need to "rediscover" Protazanov because he was never
> > "lost". He was well-known in SU and I found a reference to him (with a
> > short comment that he was making the most popular comedies of the time)
> > in a single american book on the movies I was browsing through.
> >
> Well, then I'd say a *discovery* was in order, because I suspect his
> films are not familiar here (unless someone has done such a program on
> him in the last 20 years!) It's possible that the single American
> book that you found might have been written by someone who had known
> him through hearsay or had spent some time in the SU.
Don't think so. The book was something my daughter studied in the college
and, judging by the hunge number of the movies mentioned, author had to
spend a lot of time in many different places besides SU. I think that he
watched some and heard/read about the rest. D.Cook "A History of Narrative
Film".
> >
> > > This would be a wonderful
> > > chance for someone to make a name for themselves by bringing these
> > > films here and/or publishing a book on the topic. You say that
> > > critics would pick a clearer example, such as someone who writes down
> > > what they did and shows it with great obviousness.
> >
> > No, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the "theories" help the
> > critical articles/books look more intellectual. Which, in turn, helps the
> > author to improve his/her/its own status.
> >
> Theories can be worthless intellectualization, but some are genuinely
> interesting and can actually be used to make better pictures. The
> different "types" of edits that Eisenstein discusses, for example, can
> be useful tools for the filmmaker and I'm sure his writings HAVE been
> useful to student who went on to work in the film industry.
IMO, this is not a theory, it's a practical manual. The theory is when
director starts writing the "manifestos": what movies should be about,
what are the ideological sources/goals, etc.
> > More than this. SOme of the prominent european "intellectual" figures
> > had been either socialists of communists. Small wonder that somebody
> > like George Sadoul (sp) would spend half of his book on the "revolutionaries"
> > and just gloss over Griffith's "drawbacks" (I'm trying to err on a nice side
> > and do not insist that this particular author had been paid by the Soviets.
> > OTOH, his books had been published in SU and in the "special cases" royalties
> > could be generous).
> >
> Which Sadoul book are you referring to? I own his "Dictionary of
> Films" and he includes quite a variety of films. I wouldn't call it
> dominated by "revolutionaries".
The book I was referencing to was dedicated to the history of a cinema
and a disproportional part of it was dedicated to the Soviet "ideological"
directors from E to Dovzenko.
>
> Leonard Maltin, BTW, give four stars, his highest rating, to AN. If
> Maltin has any socialist leanings it's news to me. He has never
> given any indications of it in any of his film reviews. Roger Ebert
> includes "Battleship Potemkin" as one of his top 100 films,
Another opinion poll (by the professional critics, in 60's or 70's)
put "BP" as sharing the 1st place with "Intolerance".
BTW, "BP" is even funnier than AN. It's brilliantly made (no flaws of AN)
but it 100% malicious propaganda and appr. 90% lie (10% ammount to the fact
that there was a revolt and that the sailors killed all the officers).
The most famous scene, soldiers shooting people on the "Potemkin's Stairs"
is a 100% nonsense (I repeat, brilliantly made). This was a most fashionable
place in Odessa so why would soldiers start shooting the "decent public"?
What REALLY happened, was much less suitable for the "revolutonary movie":
the ....er... "masses" used confusion of the administration and started
looting the warehouses in the seaport area (esp., as usually in Russia,
the stores of liquor). The soldiers had been used to disperse _them_.
I remember Solzenitsin making rather interesting comments about this
particualr movie and its director in one of his novels (an ineresting
phylosophical question: "can a complete asshole be a genius?" :-) )
> > > It's possible that part of the reason that the Russian
> > > comedies were neglected was because they weren't considered status
> > > pictures.
> >
> > You mean "neglected" by the foreigners or by the local critics?
> > They definitely had not been neglected by the local public.
> >
> Well, I would imagine that a "status" picture would be the ones most
> touted to the foreigners and praised by the local critics. A popular
> picture is a different animal. The lines have been blurred in recent
> times, but earlier motion pictures, at least in the US, still felt a
> need to justify themselves. They were considered low class
> entertainment.
Well, in case you did not notice, E&Co had been making "movies for the
masses" in a framework of the Lenin's idea of a mass propaganda. So part
of their tricks had a simple purpose to make things so obviously black and
white that even the absolutely uneducated category would understand them.
The "low class" was a "victorious hegemon" and "intellectual" was a dirty
word.
>
> > > Or maybe the Russians didn't think we should see them
> > > laughing? OTH, humor from other countries doesn't always translate
> > > well.
> >
> > Somehow, Chaplin and Buster Keaton translated very well and the Italian,
> > French and English comedies had been very popular in SU. Don't see why
> > this would not go another way.
> >
> I don't know if they would translate because I don't know the films in
> question. Anything where word play is important would be a problem.
> Same for any "in jokes". The silents usually travel well because they
> tend to be visual comedy and slapstick.
To start with, most of Protazanov's comedies were silent and the most
famous one was mostly silent (1st made silent, then some sound scenes added).
Don't think that the "in jokes" would be a problem in two best ones:
"Trial regarding 3,000,000" and "Day of St. Jorgen". In both cases, things
happen outside Russia and "St. Jorgen" is a free interpretation of the
Danish (or Swedish?) novel with the same name.
And as a silent-movie comadian Ilinsky was very close to the Chaplin's
class (he was one of the leading actors in Meyerhold's theater and had
unbelievable plastics)
[fg]
> It isn't the successful idiot (or should we say "the wise fool") part
> of it that made me hate the film. That's a genre and though it's
> hardly my favorite (a tad too sentimental and smarmy for me) that
> alone isn't enough to disturb me. I mean, you could say that Guiletta
> Masina played a "wise fool" in "La Strata" and that was a wonderful
> movie.
AFAIK, she played mentally unstable/retarded woman. Don't remember any
"wisdom".
> > > Let's put it a different way. I strongly suspect that G was
> sincere in his
> > > > beliefs. I also strongly suspect that Eisenstein, Pudovkin & Co were
> > > > simply comformists who wanted to have a comfortable life and to die in their
> > > > beds.
> > > > This does not necessarily reflects on the quality of their movies but
> > > > definitely reflects on my attitude.
> > > >
> > > OK. It reflects YOUR attitude.
> >
> > [desperately trying to get back to some common sense]
> >
> [Not exactly sure where you think we lost it, or who you might think
> lost it, but I do detect some desperation here]
>
Yes, because we are going in the circles that do not cross each other.
> > > >
> > > > "Reactionary Extraordinary"? Thanks, do I have your permission to add it
> > > > to my other title? "Chief Imperial Henchman and Reactionary Extraordinary"
> > > > definitely sounds imprerssive. :-)
> > > >
> > > Be my guest. Seems to suit you! Although I like the sound of it
> > > more as originally stated! Has a bit more pizzazz. But "Reactionary
> > > extrodinaire" has a nice ring, don't you think?;-)
> >
> > Otherwise, why would I put it this way? :-)
> >
> Well, do make it "extraordinaire" rather than "extraordinary". Brings
> to mind great conjurers and patent medicine salesmen.
You are hopelessly missing context (you had not been there and I did not
come to the relevant point in the history of BT, which I suspect, you
are not reading anyway). The Chief Imperial Henchman has nothing to do with
the medicine salesmen (unless they are on the rack). It's one of the
highest positions in the Holy Empire That Was Not Really There, just as
Herr Imperial Professor (aka the Great Wizard), the Imperial Pope, the
Imperial Inquisitor and Imperial Margravine (aka Margarine), Keeper of the
Imperial Coffer and the Holy Imperor himself.
> > > >
> > > > > <snip and on to Bridget and Claudia>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean that the wider the hips, the more "universal" is an
> > > > > > attraction? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's hardly been the case in the Twentieth century. Might
> > > > > have worked in the fifties
> > > >
> > > > 60's and 70's.
> > > >
> > > Nah. That was the era of Twiggy. The hips kept shrinking and
> > > shrinking.
> >
> > To start with, they did not "shrink" everywhere.
>
> True. They didn't shrink in places like Latin America. I was told by
> a man from
> Brazil that he and his countrymen liked their women to be shaped liked
> guitars.
Ditto for the Eastern Europe and Italy. BTW, Catherine Deneuve was not
an assless <whatever> like Twiggy. Not sure that the fashion really kicked
in US as well. Many of the famous ones had reasonably well-developed
body parts.
>
> .> Anyway, "Italian standard" survived 50's-70's and none of the (more
> or
> > less) "great ones" resembled Twiggy: CC, Sophia Loren, GL, Monica Vitty,
> > Ornella Mutty, Laura Antonely, Stefania Sandrely.
> > The same would go for the Eastern Block (I suspect that you will not recognize
> > the names).
>
> I suspect those great Italian beauties were holdovers from the 50s
> ideal.
You are wrong. Check the dates of their movies.
> And that their audience was older. Show their pictures to
> the young men of today and even those sex goddesses might be
> considered overweight!
Not everywhere.
>
> I have noticed that the older Eastern block immigrant women seem more
> comfortable with their hips, but the younger ones, as least in
> America, generally try to conform to current fashions.
It's because their boyfriends are young and unexperienced enough to mistook
a Playboy pinup for a "practical" ideal. They learn as they are growing. :-)
E. C. Lee
> > > in communication/exchange with each other and do not have "commercial"
> > > considerations.
> >
> > Are you referring to the American film Institute in California or
> > somewhere else?
>
> I have no clue what would be American equivalent. You are the native.
>
might have first crack or something in Washington or New York, but to
my knowledge (which I will admit is dated) there is nothing like that.
> > <Russian Comedy>
> >
> > Well, then I'd say a *discovery* was in order, because I suspect his
> > films are not familiar here (unless someone has done such a program on
> > him in the last 20 years!) It's possible that the single American
> > book that you found might have been written by someone who had known
> > him through hearsay or had spent some time in the SU.
>
> Don't think so. The book was something my daughter studied in the college
> and, judging by the hunge number of the movies mentioned, author had to
> spend a lot of time in many different places besides SU. I think that he
> watched some and heard/read about the rest. D.Cook "A History of Narrative
> Film".
>
It's hard to say where he'd seen or heard of the films. Not
necessarily in America.
> > >
> > Theories can be worthless intellectualization, but some are genuinely
> > interesting and can actually be used to make better pictures. The
> > different "types" of edits that Eisenstein discusses, for example, can
> > be useful tools for the filmmaker and I'm sure his writings HAVE been
> > useful to student who went on to work in the film industry.
>
> IMO, this is not a theory, it's a practical manual. The theory is when
> director starts writing the "manifestos": what movies should be about,
> what are the ideological sources/goals, etc.
>
Not necessarily. Practical manuals would tell you switch figure A to
notch B or that this is the formula to make candy glass. Theories
might be ideas that other filmmakers want to try on for size to see if
they can make them work for what THEY want to do. Arnheim's
comparison of film cutting to the way the thought process works would
be an example of this. Manifestos are something completely different.
>
> Another opinion poll (by the professional critics, in 60's or 70's)
> put "BP" as sharing the 1st place with "Intolerance".
Tastes change. What people are looking for in movies change. AND the
pool of potential available films changes. I might add that the type
of person who goes into film studies has also changed. When I went
into film there were very, very, very few people who were in it
through art history. But there were of literature people. Popular
critics often come through journalism. Others come from sociology,
etc. Your starting point makes a difference. Likewise, what films
considered worth studying has also changed. And the elements. When I
first started in film almost everything was about the director.
>
> BTW, "BP" is even funnier than AN. It's brilliantly made (no flaws of AN)
> but it 100% malicious propaganda and appr. 90% lie (10% ammount to the fact
> that there was a revolt and that the sailors killed all the officers).
> The most famous scene, soldiers shooting people on the "Potemkin's Stairs"
> is a 100% nonsense (I repeat, brilliantly made). This was a most fashionable
> place in Odessa so why would soldiers start shooting the "decent public"?
> What REALLY happened, was much less suitable for the "revolutonary movie":
> the ....er... "masses" used confusion of the administration and started
> looting the warehouses in the seaport area (esp., as usually in Russia,
> the stores of liquor). The soldiers had been used to disperse _them_.
> I remember Solzenitsin making rather interesting comments about this
> particualr movie and its director in one of his novels (an ineresting
> phylosophical question: "can a complete asshole be a genius?" :-) )
>
OK. So you now say that Eisenstein CAN make brilliant films, but AN
is overrated. That's a bit more reasonable. Again, I'll need to see
AN once more before I can argue (or not argue) about that.
As far as accuracy in BP, it's NOT a documentary. It's a narrative
film. And a piece of propaganda. Do you think that Napolean was a
godlike figure laying hands on the injured at Jaffa? Doesn't make the
painting any less great as a work of art. What you tell me about what
really happened IS interesting from an historical POV, but it's
neither here nor there as far as the film goes.
And yes, geniuses can be major assholes. No question!
>
> Well, in case you did not notice, E&Co had been making "movies for the
> masses" in a framework of the Lenin's idea of a mass propaganda. So part
> of their tricks had a simple purpose to make things so obviously black and
> white that even the absolutely uneducated category would understand them.
> The "low class" was a "victorious hegemon" and "intellectual" was a dirty
> word.
>
Still, for one reason or another these were considered "really
important films" and were thus considered status films. In Hollywood
"prestige pictures" were usually considered adaptations of great works
of literature made to bring education and enlightenment to the masses.
And these were the films the moguls were most proud of and liked to
show off. They weren't intellectual. But they were expected to be
uplifting in some way. That might be a parallel with the SO's status
film. OTH, popular comedies were just for fun. Ever seen,
"Sullivan's Travels"? It pokes fun of the idea of the great serious
film being more important than the comedy.
<snip>
>
> To start with, most of Protazanov's comedies were silent and the most
> famous one was mostly silent (1st made silent, then some sound scenes added).
In which case, their not translating well may not apply. As I said,
bring them on. I'd love to see them and I suspect many others would
as well.
> [fg]
> > It isn't the successful idiot (or should we say "the wise fool") part
> > of it that made me hate the film. That's a genre and though it's
> > hardly my favorite (a tad too sentimental and smarmy for me) that
> > alone isn't enough to disturb me. I mean, you could say that Guiletta
> > Masina played a "wise fool" in "La Strata" and that was a wonderful
> > movie.
>
> AFAIK, she played mentally unstable/retarded woman. Don't remember any
> "wisdom".
>
She was presented as "simple". Her inner goodness was an instinctive
wisdom. JMHO.
> > >
> > Well, do make it "extraordinaire" rather than "extraordinary". Brings
> > to mind great conjurers and patent medicine salesmen.
>
> You are hopelessly missing context (you had not been there and I did not
> come to the relevant point in the history of BT, which I suspect, you
> are not reading anyway).
Hardly hopeless. Just not as interested. I read it briefly when you
started posting it but this particular chapter of SHM history isn't a
major concern for me so I'm not taking notes. The reason I prefer my
version of the title is because it has a nice flair. I'm considering
more in the context of the original coining.
BTW, I think we were going in circles that didn't always cross because
we both had "really important points" which didn't seem quite as
important to the other. I think we kept repeating them in hopes that
the importance of them would become apparent. Unfortunately, I'm not
so sure this will ever happen.
> > > > > > <snip to shrinking hips>
> > True. They didn't shrink in places like Latin America. I was told by
> > a man from
> > Brazil that he and his countrymen liked their women to be shaped liked
> > guitars.
>
> Ditto for the Eastern Europe and Italy. BTW, Catherine Deneuve was not
> an assless <whatever> like Twiggy. Not sure that the fashion really kicked
> in US as well. Many of the famous ones had reasonably well-developed
> body parts.
>
There was a period for a while when it did, and in a lot of
advertising, and such, it seems to still hold sway, but there's has
been a shift again. Judging by the current crop of popular film
actresses there might now be a variety of acceptable ideals, which
IMHO is a good thing. Just look at the differing body types at the
current Oscar awards.
> >
> > .> Anyway, "Italian standard" survived 50's-70's and none of the (more
> > or
> > > less) "great ones" resembled Twiggy: CC, Sophia Loren, GL, Monica Vitty,
> > > Ornella Mutty, Laura Antonely, Stefania Sandrely.
> > > The same would go for the Eastern Block (I suspect that you will not recognize
> > > the names).
> >
> > I suspect those great Italian beauties were holdovers from the 50s
> > ideal.
>
> You are wrong. Check the dates of their movies.
>
That's not what I mean. I'm saying the standard ideal held and it
took a while to drift (and perhaps didn't drift away completely).
Whereas it did change in many of the other countries.
> > And that their audience was older. Show their pictures to
> > the young men of today and even those sex goddesses might be
> > considered overweight!
>
> Not everywhere.
>
Agreed. Not everywhere.
> > I have noticed that the older Eastern block immigrant women seem more
> > comfortable with their hips, but the younger ones, as least in
> > America, generally try to conform to current fashions.
>
> It's because their boyfriends are young and unexperienced enough to mistook
> a Playboy pinup for a "practical" ideal. They learn as they are growing. :-)
I'd like to think that! Many of those ideals are accomplished through
surgery, unhealthy diets and judicious airbrushing! (my apologies to
any Playmates from the last 20 years who are currently reading SHM!)
;-)
I previously mentioned the Anne Hollander book (and I posted something
about it on another recent thread) which discusses the changing body
type in art (which IMHO also includes film, print advertising, TV,
etc.) and how it relates to clothing and fashion. I highly recommend
her book.
JMHO,
Eve
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Well, then I'd say a *discovery* was in order, because I suspect his
> > > films are not familiar here (unless someone has done such a program on
> > > him in the last 20 years!) It's possible that the single American
> > > book that you found might have been written by someone who had known
> > > him through hearsay or had spent some time in the SU.
> >
> > Don't think so. The book was something my daughter studied in the college
> > and, judging by the hunge number of the movies mentioned, author had to
> > spend a lot of time in many different places besides SU. I think that he
> > watched some and heard/read about the rest. D.Cook "A History of Narrative
> > Film".
> >
> It's hard to say where he'd seen or heard of the films. Not
> necessarily in America.
Indeed, but this is not the point. And the point is: the name is well-known.
Another point is that many specialists may write their books based on the
hearsay or another books, not on the 1st-hand experience. And this brings
certain questions about a heavy reliance on other people's opinions.
> > > >
> > > Theories can be worthless intellectualization, but some are genuinely
> > > interesting and can actually be used to make better pictures. The
> > > different "types" of edits that Eisenstein discusses, for example, can
> > > be useful tools for the filmmaker and I'm sure his writings HAVE been
> > > useful to student who went on to work in the film industry.
> >
> > IMO, this is not a theory, it's a practical manual. The theory is when
> > director starts writing the "manifestos": what movies should be about,
> > what are the ideological sources/goals, etc.
> >
> Not necessarily. Practical manuals would tell you switch figure A to
> notch B or that this is the formula to make candy glass.
You definitely do not understand the difference between the "developer's
manual" and the "installation instructions". Both are practical manuals
but the 1st contains the general principles and recommendations, while the
2nd contains the detailed instructions on how to perform a particular task.
The theory is what C.Date writes on the databases.
> > BTW, "BP" is even funnier than AN. It's brilliantly made (no flaws of AN)
> > but it 100% malicious propaganda and appr. 90% lie (10% ammount to the fact
> > that there was a revolt and that the sailors killed all the officers).
> > The most famous scene, soldiers shooting people on the "Potemkin's Stairs"
> > is a 100% nonsense (I repeat, brilliantly made). This was a most fashionable
> > place in Odessa so why would soldiers start shooting the "decent public"?
> > What REALLY happened, was much less suitable for the "revolutonary movie":
> > the ....er... "masses" used confusion of the administration and started
> > looting the warehouses in the seaport area (esp., as usually in Russia,
> > the stores of liquor). The soldiers had been used to disperse _them_.
> > I remember Solzenitsin making rather interesting comments about this
> > particualr movie and its director in one of his novels (an ineresting
> > phylosophical question: "can a complete asshole be a genius?" :-) )
> >
> OK. So you now say that Eisenstein CAN make brilliant films,
I did not say that he did not have a talent. Just that the products of this
talent were repulsive. BTW, AFAIK, Lennie von R. (never could learn the
proper spelling) became parriah just for this. Nobody denied her talent as
a movie-maker.
>but AN
> is overrated. That's a bit more reasonable. Again, I'll need to see
> AN once more before I can argue (or not argue) about that.
>
> As far as accuracy in BP, it's NOT a documentary. It's a narrative
> film. And a piece of propaganda. Do you think that Napolean was a
> godlike figure laying hands on the injured at Jaffa? Doesn't make the
> painting any less great as a work of art.
Actually, I don't share your high opinion regarding this painting (and most
of the French pre-impressionist paintings).
> What you tell me about what
> really happened IS interesting from an historical POV, but it's
> neither here nor there as far as the film goes.
Only if you can live in a complete aestetic limbo. If the author explicitly
said that his main goal was to make a propaganda piece, you can't simply
ignore this component. Or you can, if you wish.
>
> And yes, geniuses can be major assholes. No question!
Actually, "asshole" is unprecise translation of the original word "podlii".
This implies that something or somebody is morally repulsive and doing
something that no decent person should do. "BP" was characterized as "podlii"
movie.
> <snip>
> >
> > To start with, most of Protazanov's comedies were silent and the most
> > famous one was mostly silent (1st made silent, then some sound scenes added).
>
> In which case, their not translating well may not apply. As I said,
> bring them on.
How am I supposed to "bring them on" and why anybody would be interesting
in doing such a thing?
> I'd love to see them and I suspect many others would
> as well.
>
[]
> > > Well, do make it "extraordinaire" rather than "extraordinary". Brings
> > > to mind great conjurers and patent medicine salesmen.
> >
> > You are hopelessly missing context (you had not been there and I did not
> > come to the relevant point in the history of BT, which I suspect, you
> > are not reading anyway).
>
> Hardly hopeless. Just not as interested. I read it briefly when you
> started posting it but this particular chapter of SHM history isn't a
> major concern for me so I'm not taking notes. The reason I prefer my
> version of the title is because it has a nice flair. I'm considering
> more in the context of the original coining.
Well, it looks like a pattern (no personal offense):
You don't really know "what and why" about BT but you volunteered the
(not exactly correct) information.
You are not interested in the SHM "Holy Empire" but you volunteered an
opinion that does not go well with the "genre" but has "a nice flair".
You are arguing about the movie you saw once 20 years ago with me who
saw it at least 5-6 times, last time year or so ago.
Of course, it's very interesting and I always had been saying that the
absense of knowledge should not prevent anybody from posing as an expert,
but.... :-)
> > > > > > > <snip to shrinking hips>
>
> > > True. They didn't shrink in places like Latin America. I was told by
> > > a man from
> > > Brazil that he and his countrymen liked their women to be shaped liked
> > > guitars.
> >
> > Ditto for the Eastern Europe and Italy. BTW, Catherine Deneuve was not
> > an assless <whatever> like Twiggy. Not sure that the fashion really kicked
> > in US as well. Many of the famous ones had reasonably well-developed
> > body parts.
> >
> There was a period for a while when it did, and in a lot of
> advertising, and such, it seems to still hold sway, but there's has
> been a shift again. Judging by the current crop of popular film
> actresses there might now be a variety of acceptable ideals, which
> IMHO is a good thing. Just look at the differing body types at the
> current Oscar awards.
Which probably means that the movie world did not became ""Twiggish" after
all... :-)
> > >
> > > .> Anyway, "Italian standard" survived 50's-70's and none of the (more
> > > or
> > > > less) "great ones" resembled Twiggy: CC, Sophia Loren, GL, Monica Vitty,
> > > > Ornella Mutty, Laura Antonely, Stefania Sandrely.
> > > > The same would go for the Eastern Block (I suspect that you will not recognize
> > > > the names).
> > >
> > > I suspect those great Italian beauties were holdovers from the 50s
> > > ideal.
> >
> > You are wrong. Check the dates of their movies.
> >
> That's not what I mean. I'm saying the standard ideal held and it
> took a while to drift (and perhaps didn't drift away completely).
> Whereas it did change in many of the other countries.
I already listed you many "other" countries where this was not the case
and we (hopefully) agreed that this was not exactly the case in US.
Which are yours "other countries"?
>
> > > And that their audience was older. Show their pictures to
> > > the young men of today and even those sex goddesses might be
> > > considered overweight!
> >
> > Not everywhere.
> >
> Agreed. Not everywhere.
>
> > > I have noticed that the older Eastern block immigrant women seem more
> > > comfortable with their hips, but the younger ones, as least in
> > > America, generally try to conform to current fashions.
> >
> > It's because their boyfriends are young and unexperienced enough to mistook
> > a Playboy pinup for a "practical" ideal. They learn as they are growing. :-)
>
> I'd like to think that! Many of those ideals are accomplished through
> surgery, unhealthy diets and judicious airbrushing! (my apologies to
> any Playmates from the last 20 years who are currently reading SHM!)
> ;-)
>
> I previously mentioned the Anne Hollander book (and I posted something
> about it on another recent thread) which discusses the changing body
> type in art (which IMHO also includes film, print advertising, TV,
> etc.) and how it relates to clothing and fashion. I highly recommend
> her book.
>
Yes, the fashions definitely changed over the years and the Renoir's
women would look hopelessly overweight now. The same goes for the changing
pattern of the "sexual" (and revealed vs covered) parts of the women
anatomy. This, however, has very little to do with the statement that
Twiggy is now a dominating style over the world.
E. C. Lee
really don't have all that much time to pursue this and it's way off
topic anyway. There were some good points made and some interesting
things to think about, but perhaps we can start working our way
towards closure.
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > > afro...@yahoo.com (E. C. Lee) wrote in message news:<f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> > > > <Russian Comedy>
>
> Indeed, but this is not the point. And the point is: the name is well-known.
Actually, I think your original point was that this Russian director
was a better director than Eisenstein and yet is not given as much
credit as Eisenstein. Am I correct? I said I wasn't familiar with
him and that I didn't know how well known he was in the film
community. When I was involved with the film community, I wasn't
familiar with him. Of course, that was a while ago and things might
have changed. I also did not specialize in Russian films and had I
concentrated on them perhaps I might have been familiar with him.
In any case, his name may be well known now, but I don't see how brief
mention in one book can indicate "well* known. Again, he may indeed
be well known today, but this one mention is not enough evidence for
us to know this.
> Another point is that many specialists may write their books based on the
> hearsay or another books, not on the 1st-hand experience. And this brings
> certain questions about a heavy reliance on other people's opinions.
>
Oh, I agree completely on that.
<snip>
> > OK. So you now say that Eisenstein CAN make brilliant films,
>
> I did not say that he did not have a talent. Just that the products of this
> talent were repulsive. BTW, AFAIK, Lennie von R. (never could learn the
> proper spelling) became parriah just for this. Nobody denied her talent as
> a movie-maker.
>
OK. This is where we may have hit our snag. Initially I got the
impression based on what you said that you has a low opinion of
Eisenstein as a director.
I immediately picked up on the fact that you disagreed with the
content of the film and on this I had no issue. However, I said that
IMHO you could not disqualify Eisenstein as a great director based on
content. This is where and why I brought up BoN. I was making a
comparison. BoN was a film with content that offended a lot of
people. However, it is still considered a great movie even by those
who disagree with the content. As you say, the same is true with
Lennie.
> >but AN
> > is overrated. That's a bit more reasonable. Again, I'll need to see
> > AN once more before I can argue (or not argue) about that.
> >
> > As far as accuracy in BP, it's NOT a documentary. It's a narrative
> > film. And a piece of propaganda. Do you think that Napolean was a
> > godlike figure laying hands on the injured at Jaffa? Doesn't make the
> > painting any less great as a work of art.
>
> Actually, I don't share your high opinion regarding this painting (and most
> of the French pre-impressionist paintings).
>
I shudder at the thought of getting off on this topic! Best we be
silent! ;-)
> > What you tell me about what
> > really happened IS interesting from an historical POV, but it's
> > neither here nor there as far as the film goes.
>
> Only if you can live in a complete aestetic limbo. If the author explicitly
> said that his main goal was to make a propaganda piece, you can't simply
> ignore this component. Or you can, if you wish.
>
I don't believe in ignoring it. If we were having a discussion on the
meaning of these films, or the history of the making of the film, then
we would discuss the meaning. But I was under the impression that we
were discussing these films in terms of filmmaking. I also mentioned
that films which effect us personally make it harder to be objective.
Films (or works of art) like AN and BP will press buttons for you, and
there are other film which press buttons for me.
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > To start with, most of Protazanov's comedies were silent and the most
> > > famous one was mostly silent (1st made silent, then some sound scenes added).
> >
> > In which case, their not translating well may not apply. As I said,
> > bring them on.
>
> How am I supposed to "bring them on" and why anybody would be interesting
> in doing such a thing?
>
Well, you said that he was a great director. I 'd be interested in
seeing them, and I'd imagine others interested in film or even just
those who enjoy good comedies would want to see them. I was not
trying to be literal when I said "bring them on" as this is an
expression indicating that I would welcome a look at them. Didn't
expect you to actually be responsible for a film fesitval.
> > > > Well, do make it "extraordinaire" rather than "extraordinary". Brings
> > > > to mind great conjurers and patent medicine salesmen.
> > >
> > > You are hopelessly missing context (you had not been there and I did not
> > > come to the relevant point in the history of BT, which I suspect, you
> > > are not reading anyway).
> >
> > Hardly hopeless. Just not as interested. I read it briefly when you
> > started posting it but this particular chapter of SHM history isn't a
> > major concern for me so I'm not taking notes. The reason I prefer my
> > version of the title is because it has a nice flair. I'm considering
> > more in the context of the original coining.
>
> Well, it looks like a pattern (no personal offense):
> You don't really know "what and why" about BT but you volunteered the
> (not exactly correct) information.
I said what I thought the BT was, and then explained that I didn't
really know and suggested that perhaps someone who did know would
answer the question. I don't find that unreasonable.
> You are not interested in the SHM "Holy Empire" but you volunteered an
> opinion that does not go well with the "genre" but has "a nice flair".
Ummm, not sure what you are talking about here. I do like the
expression of the Bermuda triangle because there's a lot of truth to
it. Many people do limit their concept of what the Middle Ages
covers. This described it well. I was suggesting the name which I
coined for you for it's flair. I didn't even realize that it had an
important outside connection. And I didn't realize that it had deep
personal meaning to you. My apologies. As far as the politics of
SHM, I'd rather not get involved with them. I just want to stay on
good terms with everyone and share ideas. No opinions on horse
harnesses, or on people who have opinions on horse harnesses,
whatsoever.
> You are arguing about the movie you saw once 20 years ago with me who
> saw it at least 5-6 times, last time year or so ago.
>
Alex, from the very beginning I said that I hadn't seen the film in a
long time. And that I wouldn't argue the specifics of the film for
that very reason. I said this upfront that because of this I was not
qualified to get into an argument over this film. HOWEVER, the points
I did argue were general ones. I said that IMHO a film can be great
even if one finds its content offensive. This was one of the primary
points of my argument. Another point was that whether or not the
history of the film was accurate did not matter in a film because it
was a creative process not a documentary one. These were two big
criticisms you have about the film. I did not dispute that the film
was not offensive to some nor that it was historically incorrect.
What I said was that I didn't think these elements disqualified a film
from being a great film.
Now I did remember the film having striking images and significant
editing in relationship to the film's score. It has been a long time.
However, this is not just my opinion, as it can be read in many film
books so I doubt I misremembered it. If so, it seems to have been a
collective illusion. And of course, I said I enjoyed the film when I
saw it. You said you did too, but on repeated viewings found flaws.
I said perhaps I would also find flaws if I saw it again, but perhaps
I wouldn't. Sounds reasonable to me.
So this leaves us with one of my major point. Either you are wrong,
or a good many film critics are wrong, or neither of you are wrong but
instead are looking for different things when you judge a film. Now
you mentioned that critics etc. can be wrong. And I agreed with this.
We've discussed the many ways in which critics can be wrong.
However, the merits of the film were based on my limited experiences,
and the experiences of people in the field and prominant critics who
aren't all biased socialists and communists. So I'm not going to say
that they are wrong in much of what they have to say concerning the
film or filmmaker. I haven't seen the film in a while so I'm
certainly not going to say you are wrong either. You are an
experienced film watcher and you seem to be observant in the films
that you view. So I'm going to stick with the possibility that you
are looking for different things in these films than many of these
critics/reviewers. As I said before, I can't do anything more than
that without seeing the film again.
Given that I have basically said this throughout, I think suggesting
that I have been challenging you on the basis that I know more about
the film than you do is really out of line. IMHO, I've been nothing
but honest about this point throughout.
> Of course, it's very interesting and I always had been saying that the
> absense of knowledge should not prevent anybody from posing as an expert,
> but.... :-)
>
Alex, I have gone out of my way to tell you what I know and the
conditions in which I know them. I've made a point to not go beyond
this. I've also been giving you a lot of consideration for what you
DO know and what you might know that I possibly do not. I really
don't like what your comment implies (unless I'm misinterpreting what
you are saying here--perhaps you're referring to yourself ;-)?).
Since I hadn't been prepared to argue the details of the film, I
admited this at the start, and instead discussed those other elements
which I was able to talk about. I've never tried to go beyond the
knowledge that I had. I am NOT an expert on Russian film and never
said that I was. But I'm not an inexperienced idiot either.
> > > > > > > > <snip to shrinking hips>
> Which probably means that the movie world did not became ""Twiggish" after
> all... :-)
>
Well, Twiggy was an extreme, but there was a shift toward smaller and
smaller hips at this point, at least in the English speaking world.
It was part of the whole "you never can be too rich or too thin" way
of thinking. One change since then has been that being thin is no
longer enough. A personal trainer and muscular body is part of the
new ideal. On the positive side, this will make us ladies less likely
to get osteoporosis as we grow older.
> > That's not what I mean. I'm saying the standard ideal held and it
> > took a while to drift (and perhaps didn't drift away completely).
> > Whereas it did change in many of the other countries.
>
> I already listed you many "other" countries where this was not the case
> and we (hopefully) agreed that this was not exactly the case in US.
>
> Which are yours "other countries"?
>
Well, the wave of British actresses from the period. And I'm not sure
we agree about the US. Of course, we are coming from different
places. When I think back, in addition to film stars, I also think in
terms of the fashion magazines. French Vogue, Italian Vogue. The
mannequins themselves started to dwindle. And as those older film
goddess started to die out in popularity they were replaces with
svelter models.
>
> Yes, the fashions definitely changed over the years and the Renoir's
> women would look hopelessly overweight now. The same goes for the changing
> pattern of the "sexual" (and revealed vs covered) parts of the women
> anatomy. This, however, has very little to do with the statement that
> Twiggy is now a dominating style over the world.
Ummm, I don't believe I quite said that and I wasn't being literal in
referring to Twiggy. She's the extreme. But you've got to wonder how
she would have been so popular had she not represented something? A
swing away from the fifties look, towards a youthful boyish body type?
And though breasts did seem to quickly make a big comeback, hips have
been much slower in their return! ;-)
Eve
E. C. Lee
pass. BUT this one drastically changed the content, so I'll make a
correction.
I said--
<<I did not dispute that the film
was not offensive to some nor that it was historically incorrect.
What I said was that I didn't think these elements disqualified a film
from being a great film.>>
I meant-
<<I did not dispute that the film
WAS offensive to some nor, did I disagree with your point that the
film was historically incorrect. What I said was that I didn't think
these elements disqualified a film
from being a great film.>>
Hope that's clearer.
Alex
> I always make a lot of typos and such, and usually I can let them
> pass. BUT this one drastically changed the content, so I'll make a
> correction.
>
> I said--
>
> <<I did not dispute that the film
> was not offensive to some nor that it was historically incorrect.
> What I said was that I didn't think these elements disqualified a film
> from being a great film.>>
>
> I meant-
>
> <<I did not dispute that the film
> WAS offensive to some nor, did I disagree with your point that the
> film was historically incorrect. What I said was that I didn't think
> these elements disqualified a film
> from being a great film.>>
>
> Hope that's clearer.
OK
> >
> > > > OK. So you now say that Eisenstein CAN make brilliant films,
> > >
> > > I did not say that he did not have a talent. Just that the products of this
> > > talent were repulsive. BTW, AFAIK, Lennie von R. (never could learn the
> > > proper spelling) became parriah just for this. Nobody denied her talent as
> > > a movie-maker.
> > >
> > OK. This is where we may have hit our snag. Initially I got the
> > impression based on what you said that you has a low opinion of
> > Eisenstein as a director.
> >
> > I immediately picked up on the fact that you disagreed with the
> > content of the film and on this I had no issue. However, I said that
> > IMHO you could not disqualify Eisenstein as a great director based on
> > content.
To start with, I did not say that E did not have a talent ("greatness" is
rather speculative issue but the talent is more or less objective).
I objected against his & Co reputations being blown out of proportions
and I listed the technical faults of AN which, IMO, should disqualify it
as a "great" movie (but I agreed that it is a great "propaganda movie").
> This is where and why I brought up BoN. I was making a
> > comparison. BoN was a film with content that offended a lot of
> > people. However, it is still considered a great movie even by those
> > who disagree with the content. As you say, the same is true with
> > Lennie.
Well, no exactly. As it was said in one old play, "everybody passed
through the same school [of being a conformist under totalitarian regime]
but did you became the best student?"
Protazanov, whom I mentioned, also made the political movies and his best
comedy is a very nasty anti-church satire (just as the book). But this was
done as a way of survival (one of the reasons while he never was really
promoted by the goverment), while the activities of E&Co and Lenny v R
were the activities of the "1st student": they had been actively and
voluntarily "political".
[]
> > > Well, it looks like a pattern (no personal offense):
>
> > > You don't really know "what and why" about BT but you volunteered the
> > > (not exactly correct) information.
> >
> > I said what I thought the BT was, and then explained that I didn't
> > really know and suggested that perhaps someone who did know would
> > answer the question. I don't find that unreasonable.
I did not say a word about it being "unreasonable", just about it being
a part of a pattern. :-)
BTW, BT initially meant not simply the geographic area but Paul's ability
to narrow practically anything to the examples taken from this area. It
was not his refusal to discuss anything else but an amazing ability to
turn everything else into BT. :-)
> >
> > > You are not interested in the SHM "Holy Empire" but you volunteered an
> > > opinion that does not go well with the "genre" but has "a nice flair".
> >
> > Ummm, not sure what you are talking about here.
This is exactly the point! :-)
The Holy Empire existed for a while on SHM with most of the important
personages (Gerrit Bigalsky, Mary Gentle) gone. As every normal empire,
it had a (Holly) Emperor (Gerrit) and an appropriate administrative
hierarchy, including Keeper of the Imperial Coffer, Great Inquisitor,
Imperial Pope, Imperial Professor,and Ghief Henchman.
Mary's "The Grunts" were very popular at this time and it was a lot of the
orc-related jokes.
Two most important things that happened during the existence of the HE were
an accident with Paul's brain and Gerrit's discovery of the MacWasherwomen.
To make a long story short, it was considerably much more fun than it is
now. :-(
E. C. Lee
> > > > Well, it looks like a pattern (no personal offense):
>
> > > > You don't really know "what and why" about BT but you volunteered the
> > > > (not exactly correct) information.
> > >
> > > I said what I thought the BT was, and then explained that I didn't
> > > really know and suggested that perhaps someone who did know would
> > > answer the question. I don't find that unreasonable.
>
> I did not say a word about it being "unreasonable", just about it being
> a part of a pattern. :-)
>
Well, as fascinating as an analysis of my patterns or your patterns
might be, this would probably be a good place to end it. The thing
about patterns is that they can go on indefinitely and I simply don't
have the time to pursue it.. Besides, I think this conversation has
been done to death. Maybe we can discuss films again (perhaps from a
different direction?) Right now I'm hoping to get a chance to hop on
the art discussion on the other thread as soon as my time eases up.
<snip SHM's days long ago>
> To make a long story short, it was considerably much more fun than it is
> now. :-(
That's a pity. I'm certainly in favor of more fun and we could all use
a little more of it.
JMHO,
Eve
D. Spencer Hines
So MANY of SHM's threads seem to peter out in semantic hair-splitting and
anserine drivel.
AHB does not seem to have as much of a problem with this.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.03031...@posting.google.com...
| Well, as fascinating as an analysis of my patterns or your patterns
| might be, this would probably be a good place to end it. The thing
| about patterns is that they can go on indefinitely and I simply don't
| have the time to pursue it.. Besides, I think this conversation has
| been done to death. Maybe we can discuss films again (perhaps from a
| different direction?) Right now I'm hoping to get a chance to hop on
| the art discussion on the other thread as soon as my time eases up.
[...]
| JMHO,
| Eve