|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 45 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 25 of 45:
| 
Sep 17 22:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
fitz
|
|
response 26 of 45:
|
Sep 17 22:55 UTC 2003 |
(studied)
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 45:
|
Sep 17 23:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 45:
|
Sep 18 10:07 UTC 2003 |
One can acknowledge something as a work of art even if it has
been used to promote evil ends. Examples: Triumph of the Will,
Birth of a Nation, and the Old and New Testaments.
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 45:
|
Sep 18 17:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 45:
|
Sep 18 17:37 UTC 2003 |
Yes. Literary art. But you knew that.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 31 of 45:
|
Sep 18 17:37 UTC 2003 |
only the perdy ones is.
|
clees
|
|
response 32 of 45:
|
Sep 19 07:40 UTC 2003 |
Rane,
she knew what she was doing when shoting the documentary. Goebbels took
over after her job was done.
She never took distance from her movie (the skill not counted).
There is craftmentship and there is content.
Scientists, artists or whether which profession that willfully co-
operates with a particular fascist regime is just as guilty as those
committing the crimes against humanity, if committed.
|
oval
|
|
response 33 of 45:
|
Sep 19 14:46 UTC 2003 |
you're eiher with us or against us.
|
fitz
|
|
response 34 of 45:
|
Sep 19 16:13 UTC 2003 |
View hidden response.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 45:
|
Sep 19 19:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 45:
|
Sep 19 19:36 UTC 2003 |
Heh. It took me a minute to get the reference. :>
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 45:
|
Sep 19 20:00 UTC 2003 |
What, you're getting stale on Blues Brothers trivia already? :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 45:
|
Sep 19 22:07 UTC 2003 |
I've had Buick, Hillman, Plymouth and Subaru stationwagons, but never a Ford.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 45:
|
Sep 19 22:11 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 40 of 45:
|
Sep 21 02:19 UTC 2003 |
Rane wrote:
> I don't think she had anything to apologize for. Her art did not further
> the Nazi enterprise even if they used it as propaganda.
That's contrary to nearly everything I've ever seen written about "Triumph
of the Will", so I wonder how Rane reaches this conclusion..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 45:
|
Sep 21 06:27 UTC 2003 |
In what specific ways did it further the Nazi enterprise that would not have
occurred without it? In some ways it was more of an alert to the world
of the nature of Nazism. How else could she have reported this to the
world?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 42 of 45:
|
Sep 21 08:10 UTC 2003 |
> In what specific ways did it further the Nazi enterprise that would not
> have occurred without it?
Of course nobody will ever be ale to answer that question to your
satisfaction..
> In some ways it was more of an alert to the world of the nature of Nazism.
> How else could she have reported this to the world?
So in your view she wasn't just innocent of being a willing and complicit
tool of the Nazis, she was high-mindedly performing a valuable public service?
Sheesh.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 45:
|
Sep 21 19:27 UTC 2003 |
She was just making movies of current events. Why do you insist on forcing
more into it?
|
i
|
|
response 44 of 45:
|
Sep 21 23:22 UTC 2003 |
Her real problem is that being a film director is a name-up-front-and-on-
everyone's-mind social awareness job. If instead she'd been designing
better U-boats, streamlining train schedules, or attacking the stupidities
of the Republic in newspaper columns, she would have gotten off clean.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 45:
|
Sep 22 00:35 UTC 2003 |
Not by attacking the Republic....but then, she really was but the Nazis
didn't figure that out.
|