Monday, 31 January 2011
January 31st, twentyeleven.
Good weekend. My family came to visit me which was exciting and refreshing. We walked a lot, saw everything, talked our jaws sore and had a great weekend. It was really good to see them after that grey, dull Christmas in Glasgow. Subsequently saw Black Swan too, which was very good although I do feel as Aronofsky is faltering between compromising to Hollywood and being his weird, intense self. The movie felt like it was missing a few integral scenes, a few moments of anticipation, some shifts in mood. the more you think about it the more it crumbles. But overall, it was a good movie, intense and simple.
Monday, 17 January 2011
Funny haha Hitler.
Adolph Hitler is omnipresent in modern culture, the name is universal. He is on the history channel every day, his name is commonly used as an insult, films, books, plays are constantly revisiting this era. The purpose of all of this is to constantly remind people of the brutality and malevolence of his ideology and his totalitarian campaign. Despite the chilling facts of his campaign, Hitler has been a fecund source of comedy since his rise to power in the 30s. The initial parodies are obviously propaganda, to stir and to inspire the soldiers and the work force. The best example of this is probably Looney tunes:
Hitler is drawn realistically but his voice is effeminate and I think he is talking about pumpkins. There are reels and reels of looney tunes bashing on Hitler. Another famous rendition is of course Charlie Chaplin as "The Great Dictator" but where Looney tunes is just bashing and bashing Chaplin, on the other hand, made a film where the dictator realizes he has become a monster and redeems himself with a heart-warming speech about change and universal love.
Chaplin's Hitler delivers a beautiful, optimistic speech fit for a great orator. It renders Hitler innocuous but whereas daffy duck bashes him on the head, chaplain attacks war itself. Chaplin's film infers that the world will prosper in peace once it is founded upon reason and tolerance. However, it kind of implies that all Hitler needed was a good talking to and he would have been sorted.
Then as the war ended and Hitler was defeated, the soldiers came home and time passed. In the sixties, Hitler re-emerged in the comedy world in a way no one really expected. Probably my favorite caricature of Hitler is in Mel Brook's "The Producers". This Hitler is played by a strung out hippy, he sings rock n roll and he is from Louisiana in other words it has nothing really to do with Hitler.
Your average Hitler caricature will be flamboyantly effeminate, he will have anger management problems and an inferiority complex. All of this is to render him and his persona innocuous and ridiculous. These caricature are a fundamental part of all political commentary but satirizing Bush for being a dumb ass and Obama for being christ is not the same as ridiculing Hitler. The fuhrer wasn't as much a politician as he was an emblem for the disgusting evil that humanity is capable of. Of course it is hypocritical for me to be so discerning when I enjoy caricature Hitler on a weekly basis(Hipster Hitler). The question I'm trying to ask(finally) is does this constant caricaturization of Hitler desensitize us to the violence of the past and thus making it harder for us to be shocked?
Hitler is drawn realistically but his voice is effeminate and I think he is talking about pumpkins. There are reels and reels of looney tunes bashing on Hitler. Another famous rendition is of course Charlie Chaplin as "The Great Dictator" but where Looney tunes is just bashing and bashing Chaplin, on the other hand, made a film where the dictator realizes he has become a monster and redeems himself with a heart-warming speech about change and universal love.
Chaplin's Hitler delivers a beautiful, optimistic speech fit for a great orator. It renders Hitler innocuous but whereas daffy duck bashes him on the head, chaplain attacks war itself. Chaplin's film infers that the world will prosper in peace once it is founded upon reason and tolerance. However, it kind of implies that all Hitler needed was a good talking to and he would have been sorted.
Then as the war ended and Hitler was defeated, the soldiers came home and time passed. In the sixties, Hitler re-emerged in the comedy world in a way no one really expected. Probably my favorite caricature of Hitler is in Mel Brook's "The Producers". This Hitler is played by a strung out hippy, he sings rock n roll and he is from Louisiana in other words it has nothing really to do with Hitler.
Your average Hitler caricature will be flamboyantly effeminate, he will have anger management problems and an inferiority complex. All of this is to render him and his persona innocuous and ridiculous. These caricature are a fundamental part of all political commentary but satirizing Bush for being a dumb ass and Obama for being christ is not the same as ridiculing Hitler. The fuhrer wasn't as much a politician as he was an emblem for the disgusting evil that humanity is capable of. Of course it is hypocritical for me to be so discerning when I enjoy caricature Hitler on a weekly basis(Hipster Hitler). The question I'm trying to ask(finally) is does this constant caricaturization of Hitler desensitize us to the violence of the past and thus making it harder for us to be shocked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)