|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Jun 2, 2017 19:55:33 GMT
I have seen a majority of the films that the 90s had offered. There was a vast selection of genres. One being the noir genre. After the 50s and 60s, the 90s had reigned the cinema with this genre. How come now it has become so rare? Does it have to do with inside politics or because feminism has become widespread? Or is it wrong to depict women on screen in a negative manner?
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Jun 2, 2017 21:45:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 3, 2017 0:51:54 GMT
I think it's more because it's become box office poison as of late and a lot of recent movies which aimed for that old school style like LA Confidential or Heat just fell flat with critics. Shanghai (2010) plays out like a Bogart movie from the '40s but it's awfully directed and performed. A more action oriented example is The Spirit (2008) which was fucking terrible. That's why you generally see more neo-noir films instead such as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Sin City, The Nice Guys, and Drive which is inspired by film noir but serve as their own thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 3, 2017 21:42:42 GMT
 Hollywood is a monopoly. 6 companies control all the media and business (we might as well throw in Google, Facebook etc). They swallowed up competition over time, and removed variety. Not by accident. Once they reached total control they kicked out anyone who didn't follow the same agenda or didn't have Jewish tribal affiliations (this is why Wonder Woman is Israeli and Harry Potter is a Polish Jew). The big misconception I had was that studios were motivated by making money. No. They are motivated by control. They have money. The Federal Reserve is their friend. They make decisions based on agenda and ideology, not what people want. They tell people what to believe. Years ago, they did finance and distribute some films made by outsiders, but more often than not, the message was along the lines that white men were bad, especially if they have blonde hair. Black people are good or funny or wise, never a danger, unless white people start the trouble. How many black rapists can you think of in a movie? Only one immediately jumps to mind--the "mulatto" in Night Creatures, a 1962 Hammer film. Feminism is only part of it. The real aim is to attack white people, especially the white alpha male. The worst studios for the political messaging were Universal, Paramount, Fox, and Warner Bros. Started by Eastern European Jews. Columbia and MGM and RKO and Disney were either started by New York Jews or non Jews or Jews from the Mid West (David O Selznick), with little Eastern Europe involvement. So they were more laid back on message it seems. Once Disney got bought out by Eisner and Iger in the 80s, it went full anti-white propaganda. Expect bestiality and pedophilia to get mainstreamed in a few years. This is why Pauly Shore and Shia LaBouef were in the limelight, this is why Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie and the Kardashians are on tv, this is why Adrian Brody can beat up a predator while Arnie can't--in fact this is why Arnie talks funny--cannot have a German-Austrian guy who sounds smart and intelligent. This is why Morgan Freeman is the wise man and Samuel Jackson is always the in control alpha dude. This is also why Ted Nugent who was obscure in the 80s and 90s, now has such a big podium. He is an ugly draft dodger and sadistic hunter who makes white guys with guns look bad. Of all the singers from the Mid West, this is the one that gets all the attention? This is why Animal Planet and the Learning Channel started doing shows about hunting and duck decoy white trash, and why a co-founder of BET lamented that the station was promoting gang culture. They want people to be stupid and violent and vulgar. or it merely reflects their own tastes and they assume people outside their thinking will love it. Isn't it odd that we have another film about WW 2, Dunkirk, and a film about black rioting, Detroit--at a time when people are most concerned about crime, immigration, jobs etc? These big 6 companies are seriously anti-society assholes. They don't care about white people, or black, or women (if they did they report 24-7 about rape cases in Europe or America). My country of Canada has had this ideology for decades. This is why Margaret Atwood is constantly talked about with her book on White Christian men wanting to enslave women for children (no such film or book forthcoming on Muslims). We are in culture death phase. There is some hope that consumer technology and internet can offer a remedy but you can bet the big companies are working to stifle it just as they worked to kill the public domain. You expected a shorter answer right? haha |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Jun 4, 2017 10:16:40 GMT
The big misconception I had was that studios were motivated by making money. No. They are motivated by control. ... in fact this is why Arnie talks funny--cannot have a German-Austrian guy who sounds smart and intelligent. ... They want people to be stupid and violent and vulgar. ... My country of Canada has had this ideology for decades. ... We are in culture death phase. ... Your obxervations are partly right, but also somehow embittered by confirmation bias. Christoph Waltz had at least two roles playing a smart speaking German character. (but You also can take this as Tarantino's mockery about the rareness of such a thing) Canada is for me the land of very interesting diverse movies from people like Denys Arcand, Xavier Dolan, David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Philippe Falardeau, ... There is indeed a philosophy of keeping control in the USA. And this is why they make remakes of foreign movies instead of trying selling them dubbed. They claim that dubbed movies wouldn't work in the American market per se, but they don't want Americans to see the cultural diversity the world of "foreign" film offers. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 4, 2017 12:47:12 GMT
Years ago, they did finance and distribute some films made by outsiders, but more often than not, the message was along the lines that white men were bad, especially if they have blonde hair. Black people are good or funny or wise, never a danger, unless white people start the trouble. Your absurd, insecure paranoia has been duly noted. Now please take your medication. Or wear a tin foil hat. This way the voices from the UFO's will stop. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemaniac22 on Jun 4, 2017 14:18:10 GMT
I understand PRIMEOVER'S views and perception. A small majority of that info I was already aware of. This could be why a african american is rarely depicted as a negative character these days. Take some of the early 90s movies. When was the last time a 'boyz in the hood' or 'menace to society' made? Now it's all about 'american history x', '12 years a slave' and 'django' And these movies win awards. I'm indian and I have no prejudice against other ethnic minorities. But I still feel that all cultures deserve equal recognition in cinema.
What is the reason behind all this "sympathy for the black man" in cinema lately?
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 4, 2017 15:53:10 GMT
Your obxervations are partly right, but also somehow embittered by confirmation bias. Christoph Waltz had at least two roles playing a smart speaking German character. (but You also can take this as Tarantino's mockery about the rareness of such a thing) Canada is for me the land of very interesting diverse movies from people like Denys Arcand, , David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Philippe Falardeau, ... There is indeed a philosophy of keeping control in the USA. And this is why they make remakes of foreign movies instead of trying selling them dubbed. They claim that dubbed movies wouldn't work in the American market per se, but they don't want Americans to see the cultural diversity the world of "foreign" film offers. Sadly you backed up my argument even more. Waltz has Jewish ancestry. Of course a Jew in Hollywood can play a smart character. But can an Teutonic German? No. As a fellow countryman said about Canada "Canada is to film and television what the Taliban are to modern technological society." But one reason is the better filmmakers have to go to the US or England since we never had much of an effort to make audience-pleasing films. It is debatable how much of this is due to deliberate government control and how much is due to apathy in Canada. As it stands now, the government gives taxpayer money to US studios to make films in Canada--hundreds of millions--and yet it cuts domestic production initiatives. In 1985 the government overhauled film funding rules in place since 1968 to disallow any full funded films from depicting incidents of criminality (theft, murder-animal abuse was ok since Canada had no laws against it). This pretty much assured no audience-pleasing film could be made. On top of that, the government makes it impossible for private film companies to exist, so we are beholden to the US studios. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 4, 2017 15:55:35 GMT
Your absurd, insecure paranoia has been duly noted. Now please take your medication. Or wear a tin foil hat. This way the voices from the UFO's will stop. It is the voices from Zion that should stop. Alien invasions would probably be more merciful. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Jun 4, 2017 20:22:23 GMT
Your obxervations are partly right, but also somehow embittered by confirmation bias. Christoph Waltz had at least two roles playing a smart speaking German character. (but You also can take this as Tarantino's mockery about the rareness of such a thing) Canada is for me the land of very interesting diverse movies from people like Denys Arcand, , David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Philippe Falardeau, ... There is indeed a philosophy of keeping control in the USA. And this is why they make remakes of foreign movies instead of trying selling them dubbed. They claim that dubbed movies wouldn't work in the American market per se, but they don't want Americans to see the cultural diversity the world of "foreign" film offers.
Waltz has Jewish ancestry.
Of course a Jew in Hollywood can play a smart character.
But can an Teutonic German?
No.As a fellow countryman said about Canada "Canada is to film and television what the Taliban are to modern technological society." But one reason is the better filmmakers have to go to the US or England since we never had much of an effort to make audience-pleasing films. It is debatable how much of this is due to deliberate government control and how much is due to apathy in Canada. As it stands now, the government gives taxpayer money to US studios to make films in Canada--hundreds of millions--and yet it cuts domestic production initiatives. In 1985 the government overhauled film funding rules in place since 1968 to disallow any full funded films from depicting incidents of criminality (theft, murder-animal abuse was ok since Canada had no laws against it). This pretty much assured no audience-pleasing film could be made. On top of that, the government makes it impossible for private film companies to exist, so we are beholden to the US studios. Oh, Boy, You really should check Your mental sanity. You are the first person I met who thought it might be of importance looking up whether Christoph Waltz has some jewish ancestry. So in case You think jews ruling everything why should Tarantino display Nazis as "smarter" as the Jews who are hunting them? I know why: because they are no real Nazis, but 70ies action movie card board Nazis You are completely lost in Your narratives, sorry. Perhaps You didn't get that Tarantino actually is playing with clichees in this movie intentionally. The German actors noticed what Tarantino wanted to do here, so they delivered this. And did You know that "Inglorious Bastards" had some German tax-payers support indirectly per FFA (Filmförderanstalt) ? And the final result is a movie with a certain German (and French) fingerprint Tarantino never could have made in America ... And films like "Monsieur Lazhar" or "Laurence Anyways" or "Jésus de Montréal" could never been made in the US, too - so be thankful and pride for Your Canadian cultural heritage instead of playing it down. Why taking the challenge in audience-pleasing films? Countries with a lesser market should act otherwise. And sometimes there comes a surprise, f.e. this very little German movie had been a success at the Sundance festival - though having subtitles and nearly no budget. It could please Your Canadian soul as well, but pay attention! it's really wild and dares more than any Hollywood production company could even dream of: |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 4, 2017 21:24:53 GMT
Oh, Boy, You really should check Your mental sanity. You are the first person I met who thought it might be of importance looking up whether Christoph Waltz has some jewish ancestry. So in case You think jews ruling everything why should Tarantino display Nazis as "smarter" as the Jews who are hunting them? I know why: because they are no real Nazis, but 70ies action movie card board Nazis You are completely lost in Your narratives, sorry. Perhaps You didn't get that Tarantino actually is playing with clichees in this movie intentionally. The German actors noticed what Tarantino wanted to do here, so they delivered this. And did You know that "Inglorious Bastards" had some German tax-payers support indirectly per FFA (Filmförderanstalt) ? And the final result is a movie with a certain German (and French) fingerprint Tarantino never could have made in America ... And films like "Monsieur Lazhar" or "Laurence Anyways" or "Jésus de Montréal" could never been made in the US, too - so be thankful and pride for Your Canadian cultural heritage instead of playing it down. Addressing the second first. I want Canada to make films like Hammer did in the 60s or 70s. But it doesn't, it makes government-sanctioned crap. If you are satisfied with french-canadian cinema good for you but I am not french-canadian and I do not like the government telling me what is good. I watched Mon Oncle Antoine, Night Zoo etc. So called classics. Hated them. Leolo? Not on my watch list. A kid having enemas and sex with a cat? Come on now... I looked up Waltz's ancestry precisely to be proven wrong on the Jew-centric nature of Hollywood and German males. Bad idea. It holds up. The ones who need to check their mental sanity are the Jews who have a problem with Anglo-Saxon alpha males. As for Tarantino. He has no control. He can only do what he is allowed to do. There were many films on WW 2 in the 60s that had alternative views of the war--since the Holocaust narrative was not promoted. Germans were still bad but the further you got from Hollywood the less of a caricature it was. Inglorious Basterds has Jews massacring Germans and killing them viciously. Having German characters as bad guys outsmarting Jews is not novel-having them turn out to be good and portraying the Jews as bad would be. How about a movie on this: An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack (Jewish author). "The story tells of Jews who oversaw prison camps in Poland under the Communist occupations. According to Sack, they not only sought revenge against German soldiers, but also innocent German and Polish civilians. Sack states in his book that the revenge included torture and rape of women and children. Sack estimates 60-80,000 died in these camps. Sack interviewed one survivor named Lola, who was an official at the prison and lost most of her family in the Holocaust. She admitted that they treated the prisoners much worse than she was treated at Auschwitz by the Nazis. Sack said "Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night." She told Sack: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz" Why not a Hollywood movie about this? Oh maybe because: "Most major publishers refused to publish Sack's book and major media outlets ignored it once it was published. John Sack was vilified by the Jewish Establishment, such as the Executive Director of the World Jewish Congress. He was labeled a self-hating Jew and even an anti-Semite. Self Proclaimed fighter of Holocaust Denial, Deborah Lipstadt, stated, on "the Charlie Rose Show" that Sack was a Neo-Nazi and anti-Semite and told him personally he was worse than a holocaust denier, despite the fact that he shares the mainstream view of the holocaust. The media and major Jewish organizations were opposed to the book because they perceived it as portraying Jews in a negative light, possibly stirring up anti-semitism and weakening their power to exploit the tragedies committed by the Nazi's for their own political agenda. However these same organizations are promoting Tarantino's fictional film. Sack's message from his book was not to promote hatred against Jews. Instead, the books purpose was to prove that Jews are no different from any other group of people who have suffered from persecution but aren't immune from committing atrocities against others. ...One could cite the tens of millions of souls in Russia, Eastern Europe and in Germany who were tortured and killed by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks (Solzhenitsyn shows that almost all the leaders of Bolshevism and every one of the six top Gulag administrators were Jews), and one could show the mass torture against German defendants in "War Crime Trials" as documented and exposed by Senator Robert Taft in American Congressional testimony and by American Judge Edward Van Roden. For instance, in the trial of German soldiers accused of war crimes at Dachau in 1949, Judge Van Roden, a member of the Simpson U.S. Army Commission, stated that all but two of the 139 defendants had been tortured and had suffered damage to their testicles "beyond repair." Could you imagine the international media outrage if Palestinians grabbed 139 Jews and tortured them by way of their sexual organs? Justice Charles F. Wenersturm, a former member of the Iowa Supreme Court who was a Nuremberg Tribunal judge, resigned in disgust over the sadistic and unprincipled Jews who ran the torture and prosecution of Germans that was called "justice " in the media.The author points out the murders against Germans exposed by Jewish author John Sack, but he could have also talked about the fact that at least 600 Palestinians are tortured by Israelis each month (6000 per year according to Greenberg in the NY Times). He could have cited the Zionist mass murder and maiming that was inflicted on thousands of women and children in Gaza last year, the mass murder of women and children at Sabre and Chatilla, of Qana, and the mass murder; and the terror that has accompanied the ethnic cleansing of Israel's founding and the theft of Palestinian land on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem." ** There are many many movies that could be told about WW 2 besides a fictional one of Jews massacring Nazi leaders or yet another Holocaust movie--there's enough now to do a Holocaust Channel. As for the German film, thanks for the recommendation but it does not disprove my point. A low budget film made outside of the big 6 is not exactly hard to find--it is finding a big budget or crowd-pleasing film that caters to domestic audiences without the filter of control that is hard to find (because of the monopoly). |
|
