The Life & Times of an Auteur.

Commentary on Pop Culture, and maybe creating some of my own.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Just Saying...


We interrupt your regularly scheduled blog to once again bring out the clue-by-four. Last night, some anonymous idiot started something that can basically be boiled down to "stop using your blog to express your opinion!" His problem seemed to stem from my hatred for Superman and "Star Wars." Never mind that I like "Star Wars" and the "Empire Strikes Back," I just don't think the franchise is anything special... and he played a card that annoyed me. "Without Superman you woudn't have..." and "without Star Wars you wouldn't have..." So, let's take this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, shall we.

Without D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" we wouldn't have any of the movies or TV shows we've gotten today. In many ways, it was the first cinematic epic. It was groundbreaking. In 1992, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. So, by "Anonymous's" logic, we should all love it... or at least not say anything bad about it. Ever. So why do we say bad things about this movie?


Oh yeah, that's why. Remember, in this movie the white actors in black face are the bad guys, and the guys wearing the white sheets are the good guys.



Look up this movie some time, for even more delightful moments. What was the message of the film?  Reconstruction was a disaster, blacks could never be integrated into white society as equals, and the violent actions of the Ku Klux Klan were justified to reestablish honest government. The film suggested that the Ku Klux Klan restored order to the post-war South, which was depicted as endangered by abolitionists, freedmen, and carpetbagging Republican politicians from the North.

But, at the same time, without "Birth of a Nation" there would be no "Star Wars," there would be no "Lord of the Rings," there would be no "Godfather," no "Casablanca," no "Jaws," no "Indiana Jones," no "Avengers," no.... shall I keep going? Yes, I know what it all led to, I know how innovative and influential on the medium the film was... but it is still atrocious and I will still hate it.

The point is, and I am not comparing Superman or "Star Wars" (which I don't hate, two of the films are great!) to the fucking Klan. I am just pointing out that the argument that "Anonymous" was making is bullshit. But then again, he likes to hide his name and identity and be a complete asshole... so maybe this movie will be right up "Anonymous's" alley.

4 comments:

  1. Honestly, if he's the same anonymous who responded to your critique of The New Batman Adventure, then I'm still going with idea that he /she doesn't like his/her favorite character or show getting even the slightest amount of negativity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was Spideyforever aka Merc With a Mouth. The guy is really just a troll. The Anon last night could have been him, not entirely sure... don't really care. But I figured I would make this post anyway.

      But then again, considering his very violent reaction in Station Eight to people not liking Carnage, that could be a factor in his dementia.

      Delete
  2. Off topic to this blogpost, but Greg......you need to see this.


    http://www.marveltvnews.com/2012/05/15/rumor-marvel-studios-insider-spills-the-bean-regarding-ultimate-spider-man-and-agents-of-s-m-a-s-h-2/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm a fan of the original Star Wars Trilogy and I like Superman okay, but I don't think I've ever heard, let alone played, that "if it weren't for..." card. You're right, it IS a pretty dumb argument.

    ReplyDelete