POLL- The WEAKEST LINK: BEST PICTURE OSCAR WINNERS OF THE 1990s - ROUND 4

mcgruff10 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I taught The Holocaust for many years; which films do you feel are better and more factual?

dankind said:

mcgruff10 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I taught The Holocaust for many years; which films do you feel are better and more factual?

Shoah is the first thing that comes to mind. Also, Genocide. And the relevant films of Marcel Ophüls. 

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

Yes, the GOP sees the value in continuing to teach glossed-over history to our children as well so long as the message and direction are right.

Who the hell is talking about children? Or the Gop for that matter,

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

Yes, the GOP sees the value in continuing to teach glossed-over history to our children as well so long as the message and direction are right.

Who the hell is talking about children? Or the Gop for that matter,

Unforgiven, motherfuckers!!!

This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps.

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

So many better -- and factual -- films on the horrors of the Holocaust that don't pander to ignoramuses.

I think that's harsh.  There are some liberties, but it's generally true.  It's very important and valuable to bring critical historical events to the mainstream so they are remembered and hopefully not repeated.  If that means glossing some parts up to make them more interesting to an audience that would generally hate Ken Burns work,  so be it. 

Also, as noted before, the most developed character in the film is Amon Goeth; that's a fucking problem.

I'm not sure he was more developed than Schindler himself,  but I also don't understand why that's a problem.  The antagonist is often well developed. 

Regarding your other point, reading Goldhagen may be the most accurate portrayal of Nazi Germany but it's also going to put 98% of people to sleep. That wasn't Spielbergs purpose. 

Also Genocide was a documentary.  They serve different purposes.

Yes, we’ve established that Spielberg’s purpose is to pander to ignoramuses; others serve the truth. 

That's ridiculously judgmental.  Let me give you another example.  I tried to get my wife to read the wonderful Margaret George book about Henry VIII because I find him fascinating and critical to western history.  She read like a chapter and said.. this sucks.  So instead we watched the Tudors (Showtime series) which is inaccurate in all sorts of minor and immaterial ways, but generally a solid depiction of the adult life of Henry.  She loved it. Now she has a better understanding of Henry, the split with Rome, the Reformation, etc.  You may think she's an ignoramus, but she also graduated Summa cum laude from the University of Richmond school of business and a CPA.  She's not stupid, she just isn't into history like I am.  So movies and shows that bring history to life for people and allows them to have some basic understanding of important events are very important.  No one's doing a dissertation of German work camps on the Eastern Front and citing Spielberg.  I used to get agitated about pop history, but now I see the value in it, so long as the message and direction are right. 

Yes, the GOP sees the value in continuing to teach glossed-over history to our children as well so long as the message and direction are right.

Who the hell is talking about children? Or the Gop for that matter,

Unforgiven, motherfuckers!!!

This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps.

I love the unforgiven

Said no one ever.  

HesCalledDyer said:

Going with the two that have held up best over the years.  SOTL is a great movie, but it *is* more dated than the other two as far as cinematography, acting, etc.