I have been made aware of the feud between Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and other bloggers at Lawrence Auster's VFR, and find the interpretation offered there credible. Frankly, LGF never hold any attraction to me and I never returned after some brief looks in the very first years of this millennium. Too big, too chaotic, too little substance.
Now some clever pranksters produced a rip-off of "Downfall" (German: Der Untergang), an Oscar nominated 2004 German/Austrian film depicting the final twelve days of Adolf Hitler in his Berlin bunker. The rip-offers subtitled the original German soundtrack anachronistically, to show Hitler (Charles Johnson) erupting in frenzied, paranoid rage over his loss of ratings, spies he's going to ban: "conservatives, fascists, creationists, Christians", who are all laughing at him, so he is sure (and very probably right).
I, personally, find that a breath of fresh air. The film is so abysmally bad, I mean TECHNICALLY bad (I am coming to the frightful ideological underpinning later) whilst having received the highest acclaim, that ANY ridicule is welcome to take it down a peg. Bruno Ganz' Hitler is chewing the scenery (pun not intended) as if he had confused films and thought he'd be in Amityville Horror, while reviewers are enthusiastically drooling over this ridiculous, self-indulgent crap, Corinna Harfouch is pulling out all her artistic stops from A to B depicting Martha Goebbels, and Ulrich Matthes as her husband Josef comes across as a dour interpretation of Mephisto in a Faust-production somewhere in the deepest provincial backwaters, white facepaint and all. The rest is worse.
Director Oliver Hirschbiegel's (Yes, we laughed too when we first read that name and he looks the part as well!) assessment of the beloved Führer, whom the film's makers sought to give a "three-dimensional personality" (I first thought that had something to do with Bruno Ganz' chewing the scenery) says all one needs to know: "We know from all accounts that he [Hitler] was a very charming man — a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism."
But of course. Roughly 40 million of one of the culturally and technologically most achieving people in the history of mankind were magically charmed into crimes of so far unknown proportions, so to say against their will, by an ugly, funny looking epileptic Austrian housepainter of doubtful parentage. And 70 years later they are still so besotted with him that even the grottiest of films depicting his last pathetic days gets the highest acclaim, assisted in blissful ignorance by the [edited] Americans who graced this botch with an Oscar-nomination, presumably because they thought there'd be Panzerlied in it.
We are currently experiencing history revision of so far unknown proportions. Whether it is "Downfall" that explains that the Germans were victims of and string-puppets for Hitler, whether "Valkyrie" (interesting discussion here) tries to bring across the message that an utterly peripheral and not entirely blameless group of dissident insurgents stood for "a better Germany" that never existed, whether "The Reader" humanizes (and sexualizes) a perpetrator, the conscious or subconscious goal is to relativize German history, aided by idiot Americans wo hate to hate the Germans who have given, after all, Panzerlied to the world. Talk about the "leftist liberal commie" Hollywood coterie!
So thanks to Charles Johnson, whose antics have at least pushed the most obnoxious of those sorry efforts off its piedestal.
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
16 comments:
I liked "The Experiment" though.
Seriously, this Downfall scene has been parodied ad-nauseum it is hard to laugh: PS3 vs Xbox, HD vs Bluray, Honda vs BMW vs Audi... youtube is full.
Hillary had the first one. And while it is hard to laugh, having been banned by 'nancy boy' as we call him over at DL, the comeuppance is late and cathartic. Charles paints everyone who even slightly disagrees with him as a fascist or a Nazi. Once, Robert Fisk became a verb....to fisk, which means to thrash the living daylights out of a poorly researched news article or opinion, and now, Charles has become a verb in Urban Dictionary: To Chuck a Johnson. Look it up, it's hilarious!
The_Editrix,
You probably don't know this, but the feud also involves Rob Taylor of Red Alerts. According to Rob, Charles had the nerve to Smear_him as well.
Guys, I thought the original German version of the "Downfall" scene was a parody! Apparently it is just really, really bad acting.
Ro
Ro,
For some bizarre reason a lot of people have used that scene from "Downfall" and replaced the English text's with something else, in order to make fun of some one. Its been done to death!
Don't be so quick to dismiss the movie. Gantz's performance is inspired by Hitler's speeches and the script was written with Hitler's personal secretary, who was there in the bunker when all happened.
Andre,
I'll buy the Editrix's word on this. She is German and lives in Germany.
I agree that between this idiot movie and Valkyrie, there does seem to be an effort to relativize all history.
And I, for one, am sick of it.
Now, as for Charles. I'd really rather this not become a site for Charles Johnson bashing. I have little disagreement with him on any ideological issues. He was brave in his stand against those who supported allying with the Ethnic Nationalists of Europe He said what needed to be said, and was castigated by almost the entire anti-Jihad blogosphere as a result of it.
He certainly has, in my opinion, had a very itchy trigger-finger on banning people. He banned Always on Watch for instance. Always on Watch is one of the most moderate of anti-Jihad bloggers out there. She is strongly anti-Jihad, but she is always, without fail, temperate in her language, well-researched, and does ever support violence. Additionally, Always on Watch has always been against the Ethnic Nationalists and has said so on numerous occasions.
I second Pastorius on this. I saw it yesterday & decided not to put it up because it bashes Charles not on ideological grounds but on how he chooses to run his site. LGF and IBA still share a very common outlook on many (not all) issues and I'd rather not alienate people we actually agree with.
As far as relativizing history while there does seem to be alot of it keep in mind we also have films like Defiance and (hopefully it's a good one) the August release of Inglorius Bastards.
Pastorius, I saw the movie and didn't think it was bad. As for the main topic, I'll stay away.
Damien - yes, I have seen it as a parody of other things, but, I swear, I thought the original WAS a parody (I do not speak German well at all, so I could not understand it). The acting is just sooo bad. . .
Ro
"Seriously, this Downfall scene has been parodied ad-nauseum it is hard to laugh: PS3 vs Xbox, HD vs Bluray, Honda vs BMW vs Audi... youtube is full."
So?
"You probably don't know this, but the feud also involves Rob Taylor of Red Alerts. According to Rob, Charles had the nerve to Smear_him as well."
I had no idea. I never looked deeper into this insane feud. Johnson has a chip as big as a plank on his shoulder.
"Don't be so quick to dismiss the movie. Gantz's performance is inspired by Hitler's speeches and the script was written with Hitler's personal secretary, who was there in the bunker when all happened."
A secretary who stated up to her death that she hadn't known about the German crimes. You must be joking or you missed the entire point of my post. I was right about Americans. Do you like Panzerlied?
"For some bizarre reason..."
The reason is not bizarre. The reason is the bad acting and the all over idiocy of the film which begs to be ridiculed.
"Now, as for Charles. I'd really rather this not become a site for Charles Johnson bashing."
I agree, Pasto. It never helps an issue (or a blog) to indulge too much in ad hominems. I was inspired to write a "review" of that film many months ago already and Johnson (or rather the pranksters) just delivered the opportunity. If you know the original text and see the subtitles and the facial expressions of the actors, it's side-splitting.
Btw, did anybody bother to make use of the Pajamas Media link I provided?
I never did figure out exactly why Charles Johnson banned me; I found out about the ban shortly after the last time I interviewed Robert Spencer on The Gathering Storm Radio Show. In no way did we discuss LGF.
At first I cared about the ban. I don't any longer. I rarely commented at LGF, anyway. What most irked me was that being banned meant that I couldn't use the search tool at LGF.
I've banned a few trolls at my site, but they can still use the search tool. I fail to understand why anyone would want someone unable to access the search tool.
Editrix, I saw the interviews with Hitler's secretary in which he is presenting him as a nice person (it is a part of the dvd) and I was at first outraged by this and by the fact she had a nice cozy life after the war. But the movie is about her, and her perceptions and doesn't claim to be more and I don't think it is a history whitewash in fact Hitler doesn't come as a nice person at all. It is just a movie from a different perspective an as someone who was born and spent most of his life in Israel (now Canada) I found it interesting.
Regarding LGF I'm not around for too long to make a judgment and my comments are only limited to "Downfall". Sorry to hijack the topic.
Andre,
Feel free to say whatever you want, my friend. Sorry if I made you feel your opinion is unwelcome.
My point about not turning the blog into a Charles Johnson bashing blog has more to do with our writers than our commenters. Our commenters can say whatever they want.
My opinion of the Hitler movie is my opinion. Your opinion is yours.
I haven't seen the movie, but I trust Editrix, being that she is German and lives in Germany.
Your interpretation, frankly, sounds like that of a postmodernist. So fine, the film is from HER perspective. So then, the question becomes, is the audience sophisticated enough to understand the irony of perspective. Is it not incumbent upon the artist to communicate with his audience. And, if that is true, then should he not speak PLAINLY enough for his audience to understand.
Art that can only be understood by sophisticates who have read the tracts is not good art, in my opinion.
Am I being clear?
I find it interesting that we are having an discussion of aesthetic theory here at IBA. But, it is necessary when addressing this topic.
discussion of aesthetic theory here at IBA
Right. Better get more pizza and beer. . .
Post a Comment