"Had he come this far just to die,
then? He would not. And if he were to
die in spite of his determination, he
would die on his way to the Tower."
Archive
/
RSS
one of the more, if not the most common urban myth is that one’s hands are dirtier than a toilet seat. everyone heard it at one point in his lifetime and everyone tells it at several occasions, sooner or later. at a rather boring party or a wrong gone first date maybe. i think that is already annoying enough. sometimes i want to yell at someone who tells me about it. yell in his or her face: “oh lord, i know and i don’t care, for gawd’s sake! “
what astonishes me is that once or twice a year i even have to read about it in the newspaper. and be assured i am no newspaper man. and when i read such a story titled something like this: “are our hands too dirty?” mostly with a more catchy headline of course. i wonder what is the purpose of the editors to publish one “story” over and over again. i really do. and i came up with three possible answers: (a) they - people who keep spreading the news - want us to wash more, stop shaking hands, stop liking our hands and basically wear medical gloves. or (b) another direction is the following, namely quite the opposite: we - as in the common people - are now asked to embrace our toilet seats. not only embrace it, but even use it as a dish, worhsip it, after all it is far cleaner than our hands. and the simplest solution would be (c) it’s for teh creeps. so that people have to talk about something at a boring party or a wrong gone first date in order to save the conversation and have a rather disgusting topic to talk about.
or, or, or (d) someone just wants to have a reason to talk about toilets!
it has been kinda diffilcut to constantly follow the various blogs and webcomics i have been reading for the last couple of years. not to speak of watching colbert or the daily show. always up to something on the weekend and on weekdays no internet access. well well well
is that he was arrested thirty years later.
i really, i really cannot understand the uproar caused by his arrest. seriously, why is no one asking: “how could a confessing rapist - and yes i would very much like to use that term - escape for thirty years?” and it’s not like he was trying to hide.
no, instead people are holding up signs saying “free polanski”. i wasn’t aware that pedophilia is accepted in our world. that rape is accepted in our world. and then comes the victim saying it’s alright she has come over being raped and leave the man alone already. nice. in the future we could send all rape victims in therapy and wait until they forgive their rapists. and people are actually pushing it forward as a valid argument.
fucking hypocrisy. we should all ask ourselves how a known rapist, and why a known rapist was able to live in freedom for over 30 (sic!) years. it is disgutsing. disgusting disgusting disgusting disgusting disgusting
“inglourious basterds” was exceptionally violent even to quentin tarrantino standards, at least in my humble opinion. but in my opinion also the movie would have been just as good, if not better, without some, if not most of the violent scenes. this is caused by my constant reading of comic books. i believe, that giving the audience the chance to imagine such cruelty like the clubbing with a baseball bat by itself as even more power than showing it. talking of baseball bats, i admired the time it took for “the bear jew” to appear. how for about a minute all you could hear was his constant beating with the bat against a stone wall and the only thing you could see was the zooming in to the tunnel/cave entry were he would appear from and that for a few seconds, which appeared to be minutes, the camera shows only darkness.
in general tarrantino mastered leading to a climax. for example in chapter one, in the beginning it is not clear what ss-lieutnant landa wants from the french family, but the purpose of his visit becomes more and more obvious during the scene, until the viewer realizes that landa does not only know where the jewish family is hiding but seems to play with the french hider. the scene ending with a massacre (like many others) is probably a necessity of filming itself. and although most scene endings were extraordinary violent, i was never unsatisfied or oversatisfied. (it was close to the last one though.) as i said at the start, less violence might have done the movie some good, although it is also possible that in that case “inglourious basterds” might have only been another good thriller and not a great tarrantino.
in conclusion: lots of credit to tarrantino.
