Badmovies.org Forum

From the IMDB:

(quote)

Black Leaders Blast 'Barbershop' Dialogue

"Some black leaders have stepped up their criticism of the hit film "Barbershop" for a scene in which one of the characters makes disparaging remarks about such African-American heroes as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Jesse Jackson, with the Rev. Al Sharpton now threatening to mount a boycott against the film if MGM does not respond to the complaints by Friday. In an interview with today's (Wednesday) Los Angeles Times, MGM COO Chris McGurk vowed that no apology would be issued.

"This movie is about freedom of speech in the barbershop whether it's right or wrong or indifferent," McGurk said. "It's one fictional character in the movie who is saying that and the 20 other people in the barbershop disagree and shout him down."

Jackson, who reportedly has not seen the film but has seen a version of the script, appeared unappeased. "You would not make Golda Meir the butt of a joke -- it's sacred territory. ... While we support these actors, we still must have some line of dignity. That is nonnegotiable."

(end quote)

I'm spotting two complete idiots in this article, and (for some reason) they're both called "Reverend"--in spite of the fact that they want to idolize mortals. "Sacred territory?!?" Grow up, fool--you wouldn't know "dignity" if it b***h-slapped you.

Did I wake up in the wrong country this morning?

Side note: "MGM COO McGurk???" Okay, someone made that up, right? Thank God it wasn't MGM COO Cool McCool.

There's is not much I can say about the idiocy of the so-called 'racist' commentary.  Doing so would only provoke a flame war.  Suffice with the image of me lowering my head and sighing tiredly as I pinch the bridge of my nose.  Slow shake of the head optional.

"While we support these actors, we still must have some line of dignity."

Well, you can kiss that good-bye when you start boycotting a FICTIONAL character who is freaking SHOUTED DOWN in the course of the movie.

What I don't understand is this.  When I, as a member of a separate group, tell a certain group (and it doesn't matter the group) they can't do something because it offends me, I'm wrong for doing so.  But if a member of the same group does the same thing, this is a fine thing?  How is this right?  How is this good?

This is me, but I do not think what Sharpton and Jackson are doing in the name of Martin Luther King is right, nor is what he gave his life for.  The man died for equality for all, and not to put another group up hire than the rest, in any way, shape, or form.  What the Reverends are doing is an insult to King and a disservice to his memory FAR GREATER that one fictional character.

Of course, the cynic in me says this has nothing to do with King or Parks, and everything to do with getting ones name in the paper and regaining (or increasing) whatever clout there is to gain from the situation.  Both men show them to be shallow minded schemers of the first order, and blotch the very people and names they seek to protect and better.

The whole thing disgusts me to near incoherence.

But, so long as Barbershop is number one (and stays there for weeks on end), I'll be fine.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, out of his freaking mind once again

Squishy:  Woke up in the wrong country??  This nonsense has been going on here for over ten years.

What I don't get is their current effort to get them to take the "offensive material" out of the movie and eventual video releases.  It's been the number one movie for two weeks and they've created a huge buzz about it in which they have repeated said material.  Have they never heard the old saying: "You can't put the s**t back in the dog?"

Chadzilla wrote:
>
> There's is not much I can say about the idiocy of the
> so-called 'racist' commentary.  Doing so would only provoke a
> flame war.  Suffice with the image of me lowering my head and
> sighing tiredly as I pinch the bridge of my nose.  Slow shake
> of the head optional.

Of course.  Making highly indignant posts might cause such problems.  What the hell was I thinking?

Tell you want, I'm going to go off and write, a hundred times "I will not start Flame Wars."  And maybe, just maybe, I'll think before I post.

Before I start, I'm just going to say that any force threating an artist's Freedom of Speech tends to set me off a touch.  More so as I grow old.  Any offense give was unintended.  The whole situation irritates me to no end and I needed to vent.  Normally I do not post my venting; this time I did.

I am not going to edit what I said, however.

Now where was I?  Oh yes.

I will not start Flame Wars.  I will not start Flame Wars.  I will not start Flame Wars.  I will not start Flame Wars...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who will not use cut -and-paste to ease his punishment, who will not use cut -and-paste to ease his punishment, who will not use cut -and-paste to ease his punishment...

What would the good Reverends say if they saw Higher Learning or American History X?? There's extremely racist people in those films, why not ban them? Duh.

Pete

 I agree, while I feel that Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks are worthy of some respect, at they same time they were/are (is Ms. Parks deceased?) just people. Remarkable people, but people none the less. We as Americans have the right to say whatever we want about whoever we want, for good or ill. It's a right many others don't have, and a huge responsibility. No one has a right to take that away, and everyone has a duty to use that freedom carefully and wisely.

 Of course, like the man says, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

...this is about a movie (and, if Martin Lawrence's track record tells us anything, probably a Bad Movie).  I say this topic is fair game.

On a MUCH happier note:

(quote)

SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - The arrests of Las Vegas residents Zachary Bubeck, 24, and Ryan Edward McPherson, 19, followed a three-month probe by the La Mesa Police Department into the "Bumfights" tapes, Lt. Raul Garcia said. La Mesa is a suburb of San Diego. Bubeck surrendered on Monday and detectives arrested
McPherson in La Mesa two weeks ago, Garcia said Tuesday. Police said they were still looking for two other Las Vegas residents, as well as others who may have been involved in the production of "Bumfights."

Producers claim to have sold more than 300,000 copies of "Bumfights" over the Internet. Touted by its producers as "the fastest-selling independent video featuring drunks and crackheads" -- the videos show bedraggled men engaging in fistfights and acts of self-abuse, such as running headlong into steel doors and leaping off bridges.

Police say the "Bumfights" producers persuaded street people to fight for the camera in exchange for cash payments, food, liquor and hotel rooms but warned the participants not to tell authorities about the remuneration. One person broke his leg during a taping session in La Mesa, and producers threatened another witness in the case, police said.

Bubeck and McPherson were charged with conspiracy, solicitation of a felony crime and illegally paying people to fight. They are due in court on Oct. 10 for a preliminary hearing.

(end quote)

In the meantime, perhaps they can have their own prison rapes videotaped and marketed. They could call it "Bumfu..." ...Eh, never mind. Hey, where was the outrage here?

I'd rather have them fighting each other than pestering me for spare change...


I imagine if the originally planned version of American History X had been released, there may well have been an outcry to ban it....

Further developments: while Jesse and Sharpton continue to bark and fart (Remember the Michael Jackson/Sony hoo-hah a few weeks back? Some people never learn), others show a bit of genuine dignity and common sense...

"However, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume told today's (Thursday) Washington Post that the issue was being distorted. "I thought it was a funny film," he said. "Given the context in which the remarks were made--here is one person being shouted down by everyone else--it's clear this person...has no credibility." The Post said that some African-American filmmakers have privately expressed concern that the controversy will make it harder for them in the future to get studio backing for their projects. MGM declined to comment on Jackson's demand that the scene be removed from the home-video release."

Of course if a character uttered a "wrong idea" and DIDN'T get shouted down in the movie, Kweisi would be all over the censorship bandwagon.

America:  You can say whatever you like... as long as the "context" is okay.

Dano wrote:
>
> Of course if a character uttered a "wrong idea" and DIDN'T
> get shouted down in the movie, Kweisi would be all over the
> censorship bandwagon.
>
> America:  You can say whatever you like... as long as the
> "context" is okay.
>
>

No crap!

I think the regular references to the character being "shouted down" are made in order to empathsize that the one character's words are not necessarily the movie's message. It's clumsy, but otherwise Jesse could totally misrepresent the movie, just as some can now misrepresent Mifune as some kind of fascist.

"American History X" was mentioned earlier in this thread; had that movie just been the little SOB's hatred being spewed with no opposing viewpoint or development of his character, it would have been a very different movie. Likewise, there aren't many mainstream movies pushing the Klan as a positive force or selling NAMBLA's message, nor do videotaped wife-beatings show up on "America's Funniest Home Videos."

Sharpton and Jackson  :   Follow the money trail.

Apparently, the original ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X has Edward Norton shaving his head again, inferring that he will rejoin the skinheads and seek revenge.  What I liked about the film is that it seemed more complex in its ideology than most.  I think it's one of the only movies to deal with race in a manner other than "the evil white racists picking on the innocent minorities."  Instead it shows how someone can be driven into racism, and  how those people are taken advantage of by the racist movement.    

I actually heard the comments on NPR today, and it was interesting to hear the argument of Sharpton...basically, "I don't advocate censorship, unless it's disrespectful."  Glad MGM is not backing down on this.

It sounds like the part that is the most "offensive" is about how "Rosa Parks didn't do anything but sit her black ass down..."   Though I wonder if the characters comments about OJ SImpson and Rodney King might have caused a similar uproar.

Boy oh boy, talk about a tempest in a teapot/much ado about nothing.
I heard a line on West Wing last night which I found fairly outrageous:  "Ah, the women!  Leave it to the women to find the most trivial issue of the campaign and get worked up into a frenzy about it & run with it!", this was Ron Silver making fun of Republican protestors mocking of a remark by the First Lady.
Well, it sure does apply here.  With all the real work yet to be done to advance the lot of Black America, what is being focused on here?
And why why why on Earth does anyone anywhere at any time pay any attention at all to what that slick weasel con-man Al Sharpton has to say?  I'm a bit in awe of this guy -- really not very bright, a man who has been (Tarwana Brawley) caught in lies on a national scale, never done any measurable good for anyone ever that I know of, an abject coward (Heraldo Rivera) in the face of possible physical confrontation, yet people still turn the camera on him and put a mike in front of his face.  Good lord . . .
And then there is that nice little song from Frank Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard Way" albumn to remind us that Jesse Jackson may just be -- ahem -- a tad self-serving and opportunistic.
peter johnson

Not saying Kweisi is a fascist, just pointing out that his anti-censorship stance had a pretty big caveat.  The implied message is that if he didn't like the context, then he'd be right up there with "Reverands" Jesse and Al.  

Kweisi can keep his brand of "genuine dignity and common sense."  Censorship is bad no matter who champions it.  Yes, even Tipper.

peter johnson wrote:  And why why why on Earth does anyone anywhere at any time pay any attention at all to what that slick weasel con-man Al Sharpton has to say?

*****  I have a theory on this and it relates to Bad Movies.  Obviously the reason he gets air time is because the media has figured out that he sells.  The media doesn't run ANYTHING unless it sells (that's why media coverage seems to go through fads, because it mainly responds to public taste).  So why does Al get viewers.  I believe that it has nothing to do with him having credibility.  Quite the opposite, it's because he is so silly and ridiculous right down to the hair - just like the movies reviewed on this site.  We all like cinematic abberation because it's funny and neat in a child(-like, -ish: take your pick) way.  Well others like political abberation.  That's why Reverend Al, Jesse, Pat Robertson, and other wack-jobs seem to get an inordinate amount of air time while at the same time, very few people in America could name more than a few dozen (at most) actual congressmen and senators off the top of their head.  I'll bet most people coast to coast recognize Al Sharpton more readily than their own congressman or mayor.

Who IS the mayor of Concord, CA anyway.

I know my Senator is Tom Torkelson....I think.

Is it hot in here?

DID Tipper actually champion censorship? (Careful--it's a trap.)

Could Andrew also be accused of "censorship" for booting John P--rick off the board for his racist garbage?

Well, we do agree on the "news" media: it's about as much legitimate "news" as WWE Wrestling is a "sport." Print or televised, it's largely LCD info-tainment.

My Dearest Squishy --
You did say:  "Did Tipper Gore ever advocate censorship?  Careful!  It's a trap!!".
Okay, fine.  Tipper did in fact advocate a lable that would appear on every single record of popular music in America that would break down what was or was not on that given record.  She was violently opposed to simply recording music to be played at will by those who purchased said recordings.  I dunno.  Is this "Censorship" per se?  As Frank Zappa said, when he was questioned when he was called before Congress & asked to speak:  "Is this a private concern?  If the Government is calling private producers of said music to define before said Government as to what is or is not an "objectionable" phrase, then it is no longer a "private" concern".
What is the Trap?
peter johnson

The "trap" is believing it's true just because enough people claim it is, often enough (AKA 'Conventional' Wisdom AKA The Big Lie) and then repeating it without verification, making oneself look foolish.

What Tipper wanted became the advisory label that appears on records today, as a tool for parents, who, believe it or not, cannot preview and monitor and discuss every single thing their kids consume, on the spot. Is the content changed? Not a bit. It's just a warning that Eninem says things a parent might not want a ten-year-old to listen to. This is no more "censorship" than the movie ratings--in fact, even less so, now that movie ratings are (supposedly) enforced.

And as Hollywood eventually did with movie ratings, the music industry instantly used the advisory label, which it had fought, as a selling tool. The "horrors of censorship" = $$$$$.

Zappa?!? Puh-leeze. Yes, and Jerry Garcia's qualified to lecture on physical fitness.

It's Newstime!! (http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2002/09/28/)

People were afraid that record stores would decide not to sell the labeled records, and that as a result, labels would decide to not release "offensive" records.  But that didn't happen, and it turned out that explicit lyrics were the key to big record sales.   As much as I hate rap "music," I think that it was a major factor in defusing the labelling controversy.

True. There are people who consider a Parentel Advisory label a plus when purchasing CDs. I just find it abhorent that a self-appointed organization tells me what I find offensive. I remember being under eighteen and not being able to buy stickered albums, then getting them and finding that there really wasn't much offensive content on there.

Ah, but the labels were not there to tell you what is or is not offensive; they were there to indicate that the album contained material that, based on general social norms--what else could they use?--you or your parents MIGHT find offensive. It was worth a try, I guess; the parents who wanted to use it got the opportunity. (I saw at least three instances where parents took their young children into the R-rated nastyfest "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut," only to bail out in shock during the second musical number. Whattaya gonna do?)

It's a far cry from, say, J. Edgar Hoover using the FBI to investigate "Mad" Magazine (http://www.counterpunch.org/randall0916.html) and intimidate the publisher. (Oi. Just when you think you've seen it all...)

The outcome of the "label" controversy was determined back in 1974 when Universal and Steven Spielberg tacked that "May Be Too Intense..." warning onto "Jaws," and rated a surefire "R"-grade movie a "PG." Regardless of the movie's quality, the kids swarmed in for the shocking gore--I know I did--and a lesson was learned over in marketing. (Notice how Spielberg always gets a free pass on all but his most violent movies?)

Side note: Believe it or not, the local whose "head" rolled out of the bottom of the boat in "Jaws" passed away recently, and a large chunk of his obit was devoted to the one-eyed prop he modelled.

DID Tipper actually champion censorship? (Careful--it's a trap.)
*****  Okay, technically no.  But she did advocate de facto censorship through labelling anything she found offensive, a very slippery slope.  And in point of fact, the music industry was probably hoping she'd succeed since there would probably be no better way to sell things to teens than to say "you shouldn't hear this."

Could Andrew also be accused of "censorship" for booting John P--rick off the board for his racist garbage?
*****  No.  This is Andrew's page.  j.p. has every right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants, but NOT wherever he wants.  He can't come into my home and spew his nonsense, and Andrew is under no obligation to let him come here to do so.  This is why firing Bill Mahr was not censorship either.  He has the right to free speech, but he doesn't have the right to his own TV show.  His station had the right to cut him off as soon as they believed that his continued presence would hurt their business (actually, they have the right to cut him off WHENEVER).  This is why the fact that big Hollywood studios won't fund movies made by the KKK isn't censorship (as the KKK has charged) either.  The KKK has the right to all the free speech in the world, but the don't have the right to other peoples' money to broadcast it.  Andrew's time, Andrew's effort, Andrew's page, Andrew's rules.

The "trap" is believing it's true just because enough people claim it is, often enough (AKA 'Conventional' Wisdom AKA The Big Lie)
*****  You mean like "The Evil Dead is a great movie"?
LOL

Ah, but the labels were not there to tell you what is or is not offensive; they were there to indicate that the album contained material that, based on general social norms--what else could they use?--you or your parents MIGHT find offensive.
*****  That's a great idea -- maybe they should do it with books too.  That way, the PTA won't even have to read Huck Finn before they ban it in favor of Judy Bloom(sigh).

My Dearset Squishy --
Huh?
You say "Frank Zappa?!?!?  Puleezze -- Why not Jerry Garcia on pysical fitness?"
or something like that.
I don't get it.
Frank Zappa is and was a genuine thinker and intellectual who had deep analytical thoughts about most aspects of world popular culture.  It is for this reason that he had his own show on the Economic Channel on cable in the '80's. It is for this reason that statues are erected to him in Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, and the former East Germany.  It is for this reason that he was lauded to the point of canonization when he first visited the newly freed Czechoslovakia.  It is for this reason that the newly democratic Czech government wanted him to be their Minister of Culture, or barring that, the US Ambassador -- something which Tipper very much so did have a hand in "censoring".
Listen to the albumn "Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention", wherein we get to hear the actual voice of Tipper & her buddies advocating censorship.  It is nominally true that Tipper Gore's campaign only resulted in the warning labels we have today -- big whoop -- but it is also equally clear that she had allied herself at the time with factions in the Senate who wanted outright censorship and control of the "outrageous filth" that was being sold and recorded at the time.  The fact that we only ended up with "warning labels" is in no small part attributable to Zappa's fight against outright censorship.  It's all there in the Congressional Record.
peter johnson

Yes, easily enough looked up. This is cut-and-paste from another site, complete with an overblown, irrelevant statement by Zappa:

-----------------------------------
"Censorship here would be like using decapitation to deal with dandruff."
- Frank Zappa, at Senate hearings

Co-founded by Tipper Gore (wife of Democrat Senator Albert Gore) and Susan Baker (wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker), the PMRC appeared before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on September 19, 1985 stressing that the group would not be satisfied until:

(1) "questionable" lyrics were printed and provided with their respective recordings,
(2) "objectionable" album covers were sold in plain brown wrappers (or sold in areas segregated from other albums),
(3) rock concerts were rated, and
(4) MTV segregated "questionable" video recordings into specific late night viewing slots.
--------------------------------------

Oh my God--printed lyrics, wrappers over pictures of genitals, ratings for rock concerts, and showing "Beavis & Butt-head" after 10pm. How DID freedom in America survive such a terrible onslaught??? I'm trying to see the "censorship" here, but it's just not working.

I'm glad Frank Zappa was a "genuine thinker," had a little TV show, and is hailed in the Eastern Bloc. I'm going to have a really hard time accepting the idea that a man who named his children "Moon Unit" and "Dweezil" was a genius of some kind.

I remember when the movie was released, Spielberg and company trimmed one shot of the pond victim's leg laying on the sea bed to avoid an R-rating.  Just a news blurb that stuck in my head from the era.  And yes, Jaws was every bit as controversial in its day as Gremlins was in 1984.

Good lord. See, Spielberg was very lucky (in addition to getting a "free pass" on the ratings). The malfunctioning Bruce forced him to show less of the shark, and while the one shot of the severed leg falling into view--remaining in the PG version--freaked me out, an additional shot of it laying there would've been overkill.

Gah. Hate "Gremlins." I mean, the movie's marginally watchable, but my theatre experience was not pleasant. This poor little girl--drawn in by the cute-n-fuzzy campaign--went into absolute hysterics during the horrifically violent kitchen attack (during which one Evil Gremlin is decapitated and another is blown up in the microwave) and had to be taken home by her mother.

Spielberg said in an interview he wouldn't take his own child to see "Gremlins"--but made sure sweet li'l sad-eyed Gizmo brought in everyone else's.

Yeah, Spielberg is a self-righteous prick of a gotta have his cake and eat it to kinda guy.  Still, Jaws is my favorite movie of all time.

Gremlin is an entertaining kid of sick joke movie (and was originally intended to be R-rated - but AMBLIN Entertainment bought it up and made it more 'mass market' friendly, bah) but even director Joe Dante dislikes it (for different reasons).  He made Gremlins 2 to make the Gremlins movie he would have preferred to make (and came the closest to making a live action Looney Tunes movie anyone ever has).  It's interesting to note that it was Spielberg's gotta have a PG rating no matter what mentality and his movies Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist, and Gremlins that really forced the creation of the PG-13 rating.  Parents were sick and tired of taking their kids to movies with gruesome, R-rated effects scenes sprinkled throughout.

There has been talk of making a Gremlins 3, something Dante has no interest in, as he considers Small Soldiers his Gremlins 3.  Interestingly I HATED Small Soldiers.  I thought the black humor was sick and twisted (in a bad way) and the movie had no sense of childish delight, it was just violent and cruel.  That it was from Spielberg's Dreamworks factory came as no surprise.

And, of course, they sold tons of toys with no irony whatsoever.

Nice Jerry Goldsmith scores though.

Chadzilla wrote:
>
> Gremlin is an entertaining kid of sick joke movie (and was
> originally intended to be R-rated - but AMBLIN Entertainment
> bought it up and made it more 'mass market' friendly, bah)
> but even director Joe Dante dislikes it (for different
> reasons).  He made Gremlins 2 to make the Gremlins movie he
> would have preferred to make (and came the closest to making
> a live action Looney Tunes movie anyone ever has).  It's
> interesting to note that it was Spielberg's gotta have a PG
> rating no matter what mentality and his movies Jaws, Raiders
> of the Lost Ark, Poltergeist, and Gremlins that really forced
> the creation of the PG-13 rating.  

Well, one wonders how Spielberg was able to dodge some the MPAA at times. POLTERGIEST, though directed by Tobe Hooper and Spielberg was executive producer, contains a fair amount of gruesome scenes that makes one wonder just how did it not get the R! Even SAVING PRIVATE RYAN raises the question of "Should have been NC-17?", but the MPAA just kissed ass rather than stand by their policy. Of course, the MPAA was founded by the majors to keep the independents "in line" while the majors got away with pretty much everything and the majors are responsible for the paychecks of all who are involved with the MPAA (wink, wink).

I do agree with you Chadzilla, Spielberg is a self-righteous prick of a guy whose gotta have his cake and eat it. I liked JAWS, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and E.T. so these are his good points. But he is also responsible for such crap like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE (one segment), SCHINDLER'S LIST, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MINORITY REPORT. And today, he is just too moral. I mean, he changes the dialouge "You look like a terrorist" in E.T. during it's reissue even though the film was made in 1982 and has NOTHING to do with September 11th! Whatever happened to his "I just want to entertain" moto. Sorry, but he is a pompous ass of a man who has just losted his ability. Oh well.

To paraphrase Stephen King's self-description "He s**ts money."

Poltergeist was really controversial in its day.  There was the face ripping sequence, the dead bodies popping out all over the place, and, horrors of horrors, the parents got stoned on pot in one scene.  In true American fashion, it was the pot smoking scene that really caused the biggest uproar.  I think it was Spielberg's double whammy of Poltergeist and Gremlins that really made the PG-13 rating come about.  Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (along with Red Dawn and Dreamscape) was one of the first movies to actually receive the rating.

I remember hearing about some venues (in Arizona?) actually self-rating the movie R.  They just covered over the PG with an R in newspaper ads and on theater posters.

Temple of Doom was PG -- that and Gremlins formed the double-whammy that brought about the PG-13 rating.

Little Stevie lost me the day he announced that "I often feel like a Black man."  (referring to his personal oppression related to making Shindler's List.) This, coming from one of the richest, most powerful WHITE men in the country. I just thought that was, like Clinton's remarks, to be a hugely ignorant thing to say. Yeah, and what would he think if I announced I feel like a Jewish concentration camper after a bad day at the office. Sheesh.

It's been re-rated PG-13, hasn't it?  I think Jaws has, but  I'm gonna have to check my DVD of it.  I tell you, the protests over Temple and Gremlins were fast and furious back in the day.

I saw both in a theatre with my parents. My mother thought Gremlins was wildly inappropriate -- mainly because SHE would never have gone to see it. She hated horror movies. She didn't mind Temple of Doom as much. I liked Gremlins, but it was nothing like what I expected from the commercials. I remember being a bit shocked. But we had cable, and I was allowed to watch R-Rated films at that age if my parents were around. I was probably around 12 when both came out (my first PG-13 movie was The Last Dragon -- I was 12 when I got in and boy did I feel like a badass).

Gremlins was the first movie my younger brother and I saw by ourselves.  To this day, I have fond memories of that film.

Can't sit through it now.  Don't know why, exactly.  Proably because when it was released on tape, I watched it OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

I haven't reallly liked any of Dante's movies since Gremlins .  Maybe The Burbs , and kind of Explorers .  Beyond that, I really can't think of anything.  

Mantinee , too.  Forgot about that for a second.  A blip in the brain pan, perchance?

Anyway, not one of Dante's biggest fans.  The guy can do good stuff, but too much of it isn't my cup of tea.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Temple of Doom should have been protested because it was such crap.  Me and my friends left the theater, and to this day I haven't seen the ending.

Gremlins wasn't so bad although as somone pointed out, the Gizmo ad campaign brought in a lot of very little kids who probably couldn't handle it.

The "greatest" Spielberg moment was when he won the Oscar for Schindler's List and, before the Motion Picture Academy, had the courage (COURAGE, I tell you!) to rail against the Nazis for five minutes.  What a brave man to take such a bold stance!  Give me a break.

I thought Schindler's List was actually pretty good if you leave right before the scene at the end where Schindler breaks down.  Spielberg also ripped off "Rumblefish" in that movie but was hailed as an innovative genius for what he stole.

I actually think Schindler's List is his most important movie -- and one of the best mainstream films of the 90's. I think it's a very artful, powerful film. I also think it's manipulative and gimmicky. Art can be those things, too. And Oskar, while not a saint, wasn't the jerk "who saw the light" little Stevie made him out to be. Oskar wanted to be a super hero almost as soon as he started his operation. Stevie cut out a lot of pertinent historical details to tell STEVIE'S story. But I'm not really griping -- it's the closest he'll ever get to creating a true piece of art, and I think it will shine as the height of his career as time passes.

I like Joe Dante. Small Soldiers was garbage -- horrible. I don't know what he was thinking. I didn't like Innerspace either, and for some reason I think he had something to do with that. But he also did the TV show Eerie Indiana, which I had a strange fascination with while it aired. I thought that show was delivering some rather interesting social messages disguised as horror/twilight zone stories for children.

I forgot about Eerie, Indiana .  Not a bad show, as I recall (but, then again, I only saw the Tupperware People episode.)

On a different note, Shakespeare stole much of his stuff from other writers, and he's been celebrated for centuries.  Apples and oranges, maybe, (and, perhaps a bit blasphemous to compare the Bard to a mere filmmaker) but it’s something to consider.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Dano wrote:
>
> The "greatest" Spielberg moment was when he won the Oscar for
> Schindler's List and, before the Motion Picture Academy, had
> the courage (COURAGE, I tell you!) to rail against the Nazis
> for five minutes.  What a brave man to take such a bold
> stance!  Give me a break.

I remember hearing about this before. As much as Spielberg made an ass out of himself of this incident you mentioned, I wouldn't be suprised if the entire audience got up and clapped for joy for his "speech". Proves that the only controversial subject he can tackle is the Holocaust. I think Steven needs to take on another issue as he REALLY drives it in the ground. But that's why I don't pay attention to the ignorant ass most of the time because he uses it as too much of an excuse to get his statements through.


Dano wrote:
>
> I thought Schindler's List was actually pretty good if you
> leave right before the scene at the end where Schindler
> breaks down.  Spielberg also ripped off "Rumblefish" in that
> movie but was hailed as an innovative genius for what he stole.

My God Dano, thanks for pointing that last scene out. Liam Neson's performance at the end was HORRID! Liam displays no emotion and no sympathy in his performace. I could actually imagine him saying in his head, "As long as I cry and make it look like I am sad, I will be well respected and get better roles." I don't think starring in the remake of THE HAUNTING will gain you respect my dear Liam.


Abby wrote:
>
> I actually think Schindler's List is his most important movie
> -- and one of the best mainstream films of the 90's. I think
> it's a very artful, powerful film. I also think it's
> manipulative and gimmicky. Art can be those things, too. And
> Oskar, while not a saint, wasn't the jerk "who saw the light"
> little Stevie made him out to be. Oskar wanted to be a super
> hero almost as soon as he started his operation. Stevie cut
> out a lot of pertinent historical details to tell STEVIE'S
> story. But I'm not really griping -- it's the closest he'll
> ever get to creating a true piece of art, and I think it will
> shine as the height of his career as time passes.

I disagree. True, it's artful and at times powerful, but then it is manipulative and gimmicky. And the deletion of Schindlers historical details shows Spielberg's version is like BRAVEHEART, THE PATRIOT and PEARL HARBOR in which true history is removed (more likely thrown out to save the sake of "boring" the audience-GIVE ME A BREAK) to make room for a low brow storyline that only stereotypes characters (i.e. All Germans are shown as psychopaths and all the Jews are portrayed as hunched-backed cowards) so we can "easily" understand them more than complain that a character is too complex. This just proves that Spielberg is not a filmmaker and not an artist, but a journeyman hack that originally just wanted to entertain but instead becomes too moral that he even has to edit down his film E.T. to the lowest comon denominator so he is not to "offend" anybody (as if he has not offended people with the PG ratings for POLTERGIEST and GREMLINS, but he didn't care then). And as much as SCHINDLER'S LIST can be viewed as a historical piece, I for one cannot relate to it due to Spielberg's re-working of history. As I said in an earlier thread, I would rather read all the interviews of Holocaust survivors (and I have) and all the hsitory books that cover the subject than re-work it for a more "sanitized" audience. I don't need Spielberg to tell me how it was. I'll leave that to the true people who actually experienced it and lived to tell about it.

Also, one word about the art in the film. The black and white photography is quite original (so I'll give Spielberg a plus on that idea), but his theme of showing a little girl in red and "the world is not in black and white" kind of goes off. Back to Spielberg's stereotypes that he expresses, isn't his attitude of the Germans and Jews he expresses in his film also "in black and white" as well. Meaning that Speilberg seems to screw up his internal message that he is trying to deliver. All and all, this is just my opinion so I guess that's all I have to say about the guy.

Uh, the evil Germans were historically accurate -- they even looked like their historical counterparts. I didn't see any hunchbacks.

By historical omissions, I meant stuff like the fact Oskar saved Gypsies as well as Jews. That's actually one of the best Schindler stories -- how he saved the frozen Gypsies. Or the fact he was one of first people to report the construction of the concentration camps -- reports which were dismissed even by Jews in Israel. He really put himself on the line to get the word out on war crimes more than the film indicates. The gravest historical omission -- one that undercuts the film -- was the fact that the Jews in the factory did actually murder German soldiers after Oskar left. That was an intentional omission.

The thing with the girl in the red coat was a story told by Schindler himself. That amidst nothing but smoke, suffering, bodies, and ash, all Oskar could see from the hilltop was one little brave girl in a red dress running away. In the book, it's a turning point for him. I know it's a "read the book" thing, but if you DO read the book, it's a beautiful visual translation.

Whether Schindler's List is true to history or not does not detract from its artfulness. Or its impact. Or its message. In my eyes, anyway. I know many folks who don't like the movie. It's just a super-hero story -- a super hero story that, in reality, is actually much more inspiring than the movie.

Abby wrote:
>
> Uh, the evil Germans were historically accurate -- they even
> looked like their historical counterparts. I didn't see any
> hunchbacks.

No Abby, what I meant by these comments on the stereotypes on my earlier thread is that EVERYBODY was stereotyped. The Nazi's were indeed evil (of course), but Speilberg shows THE REGULAR SIMPLE TOWNSFOLK as evil as well. As for hunchbacked jews, I didn't mean that in a literal way. The Jews are shown as meek individuals who walk slowly and cower in terror way too much with no human character whatsoever. And this I blame on Spielberg.


>Abby wrote:
>
> The thing with the girl in the red coat was a story told by
> Schindler himself. That amidst nothing but smoke, suffering,
> bodies, and ash, all Oskar could see from the hilltop was one
> little brave girl in a red dress running away. In the book,
> it's a turning point for him. I know it's a "read the book"
> thing, but if you DO read the book, it's a beautiful visual
> translation.

I guess I have to read the book. But, if this is what Schindler really saw then Spielberg really screwed up the message. As for the historical omissions that you pointed out, THOSE are the important parts of the story as well. By ommiting those out, their is no attempt at keeping the facts true and it does ruin the message and it's impact when I watch it. And I also don't think it's a super-hero story either. To me, the message that the film tries to impact is too preachy and a bit watered-down. As for art, their are nice attempts but really it just falls flat.

After this, I really need to read the book after all. If it's way better than the movie, then the book will have my attention.

So lets end this with an agree-to-disagree note.

Oh I hope you don't think we're warring here. I've no emotional bond to this movie -- IT'S NO GIRDLER FILM -- but yes -- the book is very inspirational and I do suggest you read it.

I think maybe the book sheds some light on why the Jews in the film seem as weak as they do. We're looking at a time period in which these people had already been disarmed and were essentially terrorized/enslaved/being put out of their homes. It begins with that. The characters themselves have more dimension in the book -- for good and for bad.

Interesting you mention the townsfolk -- at the end of the book, some of the Schindler Jews recount stories how when they were "freed," the Russian soldiers forced locals to give them their belongings -- shoes, clothing, etc.

But what you mention about how ALL of the townspeople were screaming out against the Jews -- symbolically speaking -- I've no problem with that. Because during all of WW2, not even a handful of people did what Schindler did. And that is why he is extraordinary. Yes, there were good folks quietly hiding people in their basements. But  the brazen heroics of Oskar are unique. In that sense, it really was just his theatrics vs. mobs of people yelling "Get Out Jews."

"Whether Schindler's List is true to history or not does not detract from its artfulness."
*****  This is true.  An historical movie does not have to be accurate to be great art or even to deliver the essence of an historical moment.  A great example is Patton.  The real Patton had a very soft, elderly face... but George C. Scott is what Patton SHOULD have looked like.  Glory is another example.  Very few men in the 54th were actually escaped slaves, but focusing on a couple who were greatly accentuated the spirit of what blacks experienced in the Civil War I thought.

Nevertheless, when an historical film departs from the facts (or omits them), someone who knows the facts must seriously question the agenda.  Unfortunately, lots of people LEARN their history from movies, and a slanted film creates slanted knowledge on which people base their judgements.  That the gypsies (and homosexuals, and Catholic priests, and communists, and mentally ill, and Slavic, and Russian POWs, and political dissidents, and many military commanders, and other victims of concentration camps) were not even mentioned in Schindler's List is frankly a little disturbing.  I'd encourage anyone who visit's DC to go to the "Holocaust" Museum and see how 99% of the exhibits (literally) are about Jewish people and those other victime of the Holocaust are barely mentioned at all (or given a nod in temporary exhibits).  It seems some Jewish groups (not Jews in general before anyone gets mad at me) are set on hijacking the Holocaust for themselves.  Ten million people died in the camps, not six million.  And there were a hell of a lot of East Europeans, especially in Russia and the Ukraine, who never lived long enough to see those camps.  No story about the holocaust can be complete without acknowledging this.

The Nazi's were indeed evil (of course), but Speilberg shows THE REGULAR SIMPLE TOWNSFOLK as evil as well.
*****  Not too far off the mark, Chris.  There was MAJOR denial in Germany, and your average German was not fond of Jewish people (I got bad news - lots of em still aren't).  To argue that the bulk of the German citizenry was somewhat complicit (no, not as complicit as Himmler or Adolf) in the holocaust isn't the stretch you might think at first.

As for hunchbacked jews, I didn't mean that in a literal way. The Jews are shown as meek individuals who walk slowly and cower in terror way too much with no human character whatsoever. And this I blame on Spielberg.
*****  Again, I found this frighteningly realistic.  ANY person whose whole ethnic group is being marched at machinegun point to camps by a facist dictatorship is going to cower, beg, bargain, engage in denial, and try to rationalize.  Abject fear and humiliation have a way of depleting what you call human character.  To his credit, I thought Spielberg showed this masterfully.

My problem with it kind of relates to Chris's problem.  I'd rather that he'd portrayed the Nazi characters as regular people doing horrible things instead of making them over-the-top psychopaths who would seem equally at home in ILSA: SHE-WOLF OF THE SS.  Not that those people didn't exist, but if you just focus on them you miss one of the key reasons why the Holocaust should be remembered.  I think SCHINDLER'S LIST is pretty good, and probably the best Spielberg is capable of, but he could have accomplished a lot more.

My problem with it kind of relates to Chris's problem. I'd rather that he'd portrayed the Nazi characters as regular people doing horrible things
*****  That's an excellent point, and the problem is that there weren't enough Nazi characters with enough screen time to explore this possibility.  He tried to go down that road a little bit with Ralph Feinnes' character (the affection for the girl, the mercy he tried to show the boy), but it smacked more of a psychopath dallying with humanity rather than a human plunging himself into psychotic behavior.

You're right.

We when from Barbershop to Schindler's List in a completely logical yet utterly convoluted manner.  I so look forward to seeing you all here tomorrow!

Abby wrote:
>
> But what you mention about how ALL of the townspeople were
> screaming out against the Jews -- symbolically speaking --
> I've no problem with that. Because during all of WW2, not
> even a handful of people did what Schindler did. And that is
> why he is extraordinary. Yes, there were good folks quietly
> hiding people in their basements.

Then why didn't Spielberg explore that angle of some German folk hiding some of the Jews in their basements from the Nazi's? Again, this shows Spielberg throws out some important coverage and if he incorporated that theme in the film it would have broken down the stereotype which would have made the film better.

 
Abby wrote:
>
> Interesting you mention the townsfolk -- at the end of the
> book, some of the Schindler Jews recount stories how when
> they were "freed," the Russian soldiers forced locals to give
> them their belongings -- shoes, clothing, etc.

Now this is interesting. Another historical fact told from those who were involved that had to eliminated by Spielberg just to move the film along. With the important parts cut out, you are indeed missing out on alot.


Dano wrote:
>
> Not too far off the mark, Chris.  There was MAJOR
> denial in Germany, and your average German was not fond of
> Jewish people (I got bad news - lots of em still aren't).  

True, half of the German population has been in denial of the Holocaust (I guess they are having a tough time living it down) and that very little Jews reside in Germany now. But, do you have any evidence that the ENTIRE German population of today are still not fans of the Jews. I am not being hard-headed here, but I am just curious if you do have some facts or evidence on your last statement. I am all ears.

As for the film in general, I don't think it's Spielbergs worst (that title goes to ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE). But I also don't think it is Spielbergs best either. Scriptwise, it was too slow an a bit shallow. But the performances were good (except for Liam Neeson, he just didn't make a good Oskar Schindler for me). True, Schindler became the good guy and it showed that at least one German wasn't evil so I guess I really have nothing to complain about. But as a history lesson, with the more important bits not in the film I think it would be best to read the book as well as read the interviews of those who were there.

But now lets turn to Spielberg. I don't dislike him because of SCHINDLER'S LIST. I dislike him because he has turned into a moral, hypocritical ass who feels that he can still make art but he can also mangle it (i.e. the E.T. re-issue). I used to like him in the past and I still like his earlier films JAWS and Raiders of the Lost Ark trilogy in which he worried about entertaining the audience and cared less if he offended them. He's no Peter Jackson (and no, I am not comparing Peter Jackson to Steven Spielberg), but at least Peter Jackson doesn't worry about offending the idiots and just wants to entertain. Spielberg has lost his entertainment status.

What really gets me is his edit of E.T. Sorry, but just because a film made in 1982 has a line that says "terrorist" (and, I might add, if you pay less attention it slips by so fast) has to be edited out as well as some soldiers carying guns. Jesus, it may be Spielbergs own film but he basically BLEW HIS OWN FOOT OFF and mangled his own art. All this, and he now cares about not offending people. What a jackass.

Oh well, what are you gona' do?

First it was about BARBERSHOW and the censoring of certain scenes in the film. Then we moved to the political themes on censorship. And then, we moved to the MPAA and how Spielberg is able to dodge the rules.

The SCHINDLER'S LIST thing began on my first response when I labeled it as "Spielberg's not-so-good films". So chalk it up me if I started it (unconciously too, I wasn't aware what would happen) and I take full responsibility. But then kudos to me for taking it to the next level.

>> Then why didn't Spielberg explore that angle of some German folk hiding some of the Jews in their basements from the Nazi's?

Because it's not in the book and it doesn't relate to Oskar's own story. That's Helen Keller's story.

ChrisK wrote:  But, do you have any evidence that the ENTIRE German population of today are still not fans of the Jews. I am not being hard-headed here, but I am just curious if you do have some facts or evidence on your last statement. I am all ears.
*****  I don't have any facts to back that statement up, but I never said that nor do I believe it.  I'm basing my belief that there is still alot of antisemitism in Germany based on spending a lot of time there, knowing a lot of Germans, and hearing some of them say the kinds of things about Jewish people that you often hear a bigoted southerner say about black people.  I also base it on modest but significant voter turnouts for antisemitic candidates not only in Germany but in many European countries.  I'm not saying ALL Germans are this way... I don't even think most are.  But I can tell you part of the rational as I heard first hand from a bartender in Munich: some Germans (at least one) think Jews conspired to get America, and Britain against Germany in World War II.  He felt that without the Jews, Americans would have fought alongside the Germans against Russia and France.  I was in Berlin last summer and saw a Fuchs wheeled APC parked in front of a Synagogue, protecting it.  I did not see APCs outside churches or any other buildings.  The German Army wasn't guarding that synagogue for kicks.

As for the film in general, I don't think it's Spielbergs worst (that title goes to ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE).
*****  Yes!  Artificial intellectualism.

Oh well, what are you gona' do?
*****  Don't buy the video.  I didn't like ET when I was 11, I don't imagine it will appeal to me now anyway.

Abby wrote:  >> Then why didn't Spielberg explore that angle of some German folk hiding some of the Jews in their basements from the Nazi's?

Because it's not in the book and it doesn't relate to Oskar's own story. That's Helen Keller's story.
*****  I think you mean Ann Frank.  I think Spielberg didn't go down that road because it would have made a long movie longer and in truth, it wouldn't have really been very representative of the Jewish experience.  Besides, it is essentially what Schindler did, isn't it?

Ha ha ha ha -- right. Sorry -- I was on my way out the door.  I'm thinking Melissa Gilbert or whatever her name was. Gilbert played both Frank and Keller -- and she'll be both of them forever in my mind.

Dano wrote:
>
> ChrisK wrote:  But, do you have any evidence that the ENTIRE
> German population of today are still not fans of the Jews. I
> am not being hard-headed here, but I am just curious if you
> do have some facts or evidence on your last statement. I am
> all ears.
> *****  I don't have any facts to back that statement up, but
> I never said that nor do I believe it.  I'm basing my belief
> that there is still alot of antisemitism in Germany based on
> spending a lot of time there, knowing a lot of Germans, and
> hearing some of them say the kinds of things about Jewish
> people that you often hear a bigoted southerner say about
> black people.  I also base it on modest but significant voter
> turnouts for antisemitic candidates not only in Germany but
> in many European countries.  I'm not saying ALL Germans are
> this way... I don't even think most are.  But I can tell you
> part of the rational as I heard first hand from a bartender
> in Munich: some Germans (at least one) think Jews conspired
> to get America, and Britain against Germany in World War II.
> He felt that without the Jews, Americans would have fought
> alongside the Germans against Russia and France.  I was in
> Berlin last summer and saw a Fuchs wheeled APC parked in
> front of a Synagogue, protecting it.  I did not see APCs
> outside churches or any other buildings.  The German Army
> wasn't guarding that synagogue for kicks.

Sorry about saying you said all Germans are anti-Semitic, I kind of took it out of context to what point you were trying to make earlier (so right now, I should be kicking my own ass). But your examples do show that indeed their are some who are anti-Semitic, but not all.


Abby wrote:
>
> Chris K wrote: Then why didn't Spielberg explore that angle of some
> German folk hiding some of the Jews in their basements from
> the Nazi's?
>
> Because it's not in the book and it doesn't relate to Oskar's
> own story. That's Helen Keller's story.

Ann Frank, from what Dano said earlier, to be exact. Well, I have to disagree with what you said there Abby. Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it cannot be explored at all. And if it were added in, it would just show that Schindler wasn't the only one. But, I guess we will have to wait for some other director to tackle that particular subject.

Excuse me for dropping in on this subject, but given the fact that I'm (obviously) German and living in Berlin I'd like to put one or two things in perspective from "our" point of view...

First - there is, like probably everywhere, a small antisemitic minority in our country, and every now and then these folks manage to stir some uproar - but compare vote results from Germany with those of other European countries you'll find the number relatively small (all extreme right-wing parties combined gained about 1.5 % at our recent election, and that includes parties which aren't specifically antisemitic).
I don't want to deny the fact that there are still a couple of Neonazis around here, but their numbers are few and I don't think they're really kind of a threat to societey 'round here. Nonetheless, they're a problem to be dealt with. Currently it is tried to ban one of the more prominent neofascist party, the National Democrats.

Second - it's true that many Jewish organisations/buildings etc. are protected, as you saw on the Berlin synagogue. Alas, you have to see that Berlin has a tremendous number of Arab/Palestinian folk and authorities worry more that the current (and past and probably future) Middle East situation causes an Arab group to stage a bombing etc.

So there is, at least as I see it, not more or less open antisemitism 'round here than in other places of the world - especially since the generation who actually supported Hitler or at least did not anything against him is dying out...
I'll grant you that - regarding the Middle East situation German public tends to lean more towards the Palestinian side (like in "Give them their land and then all's well) - that may be a bit naive, but we've become quite some suckers for peace everywhere, given our experiences with war in the past (that's valid for the Iraq-war-thing, too... it's not that all Germans have turned into Anti-Americans, we just believe in this United Nations thing... naivity, again, I suppose).

Of course, no offense was intended with this post, I'll gladly discuss German politics with anyone via email (as I don't really think this board is appropriate...).

cheers
Markus

I was speaking from my experience and should have mentioned that most Germans I interacted with showed me no signs of antisemitism.

I also hadn't considered Berlin's Middle Eastern population as a possible reason for the APC at the synagogue.

I did notice a lot of disturbing graffitti, but it's fair to argue that that is a small and vile minority.

ChrisK wrote:  Sorry about saying you said all Germans are anti-Semitic, I kind of took it out of context to what point you were trying to make earlier (so right now, I should be kicking my own ass). But your examples do show that indeed their are some who are anti-Semitic, but not all.
*****  No problem.  Of course, I may have just been oversensitive because I was in Germany and I knew the History.  And in fairness to the Germans, there were concentration camps in lots of other countries (Poland, Italy, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Belgium... pretty much every occupied country with the possible exception of Norway -- though I don't know for certain)... and they were mostly manned by locals, not Germans.  There were also lots of people who turned in Jews and shipped Jews to concentration camps that were also not Germans.  Germany was the catalyst and they played the biggest role, but the Holocaust really was a continental European phenomenon, not just a German one.

Abby wrote:  Ha ha ha ha -- right. Sorry -- I was on my way out the door. I'm thinking Melissa Gilbert or whatever her name was. Gilbert played both Frank and Keller -- and she'll be both of them forever in my mind.

*****  : )

They both wrote diaries.  I think that's what messed you up.

Nope, trust me: it's gotta be the Melissa Gilbert connection because I've only ever read Frank's diary. I'm still a dope though.

Bergen-Belsen was in Norway, I believe...

Bergen-Belsen was in Poland.
Neither Hellen Keller nor Anne Frank hid Jews from the SS.  I don't know who you may be thinking of.  Anne Frank & her family hid from the SS, unsuccessfully.
Corrie Ten Boom's family did hide Jews from the Nazis, as documented in "The Hiding Place".
In point of actual fact, the residents of the occupied countries of Europe during the Occupation (by Germany) handed over Jews willy-nilly to the Central (National Soc ialist) authority.  The Latvians, especially, prided themselves in their ability to smack Jews over the head with long poles & kill them.
Surprising exceptions to the handing over of Jews occurred -- oddly enough -- in places like Berlin, wherein there was a huge street protest by wives and daughters and friends of persecuted Jews that were listed to be removed from the Berlin suburbs.  Hundreds were saved.
Funnily enough, Hitler himself signed numerous orders to allow individal German Jews to serve in the Wehrmacht, long after Himmler and the SS were in full swing.
The British Army successfully deposed pro-Nazi governments in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Jerusalem.  The head mufti of the Islamic entity in Jerusalem at the time went to Berlin and lived out the war under the aegis of the SS.
peter johnson

No one was saying Melissa Gilbert, Anne Frank, OR Helen Keller was hiding jews. Rather; it was a quick brush off to denote that the issue didn't have anything to do with Schindler.

Neither Hellen Keller nor Anne Frank hid Jews from the SS. I don't know who you may be thinking of. Anne Frank & her family hid from the SS, unsuccessfully.
*****  No, but Anne Frank was hidden (or helped) by a non-Jewish family, wasn't she?  I thought that was Abby's point.  On the History Channel they had a photograph of a wedding reception in WWII Germany and it turned out that the bride and groom were standing outside the house where Anne Frank's family was hiding and in the photo you can see a little girl peeking out from a second story window.  They said it was the last photograph taken of Anne Frank.

No problem, I certainly wasn't offended...

You're quite right about the graffiti, yet few of this brainless creeps that spray them actually are anti-semitic (if, their quite anti-all-foreigner, and, therefore, braindead) - they don't really live on Nazi ideology, but mostly are those typical uneducated lower-class kids with no real perspective in life and therefore looking for someone supposedly weaker to pick (and occasionally, I admit, kick) on...

But I think it's fair to say that compared to several other European countries, and especially such countries that used to be quite liberal (thinking of the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark - all countries in which extremist right wing parties actually are part of the government coalitions, or France - think of that Le Pen guy during their last presidential election), our right wing extremist groups are rather smallish and powerless (and would probably be even smaller if not non-existant if they wouldn't get all those freakin' media attention... every gathering of 20 or so so called National Democrats with their stupid uniforms makes worldwide TV coverage - if these few dumbasses would be ignored, we'd probably gotten rid of them quite a long time ago... but all these attention they get just works to their cause, not really successfull, but nonetheless).

In short, most of us, according to the last election 98.5 %, have learned their lesson well ;-)

cheers
Markus