Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Addicting Info)   So apparently the CEO of Hobby Lobby is a big fan of "classic film" "Birth of a Nation" because OF COURSE he is   (addictinginfo.org) divider line 74
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6411 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 5:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-06 02:57:10 PM  
On a related note, many film buffs will not miss the irony of the curriculum's blithe suggestion that the Book of Exodus, which tells the story of the ancient Hebrews' deliverance from slavery, "could be titled The Birth of a Nation (like the American film classic)." D. W. Griffith's 1915 movie about the Civil War and its aftermath famously portrayed freed slaves as brutal, uncivilized, sexual aggressors. Originally known as The Clansman, it lionized the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan and helped spur the creation of the modern Klan. The movie concludes its approving portrayal of violent Klan suppression of African Americans with a hopeful vision of a peaceful, heavenly future for whites under the watchful care of Jesus. Needless to say, the curriculum's passing comparison of Exodus to this movie is an unfortunate and inadequate introduction for high schoolers to this particular episode of film history.

No question that the comparison doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may go and rape the white wimmins.'"

Does that make the Egyptians the Klan?

But doubly stupid in that I would imagine there aren't many kids these days who are even aware of this movie or its history.
 
2014-06-06 03:06:38 PM  

Diogenes: there aren't many kids these days who are even aware


this part was all you really needed.
 
2014-06-06 03:10:24 PM  
Which is a weird coincidence, since his favorite tranny hooker is named Bertha Venation.
 
2014-06-06 03:11:29 PM  
It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.
 
2014-06-06 03:12:27 PM  

Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.


I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.
 
2014-06-06 03:16:37 PM  

Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.


No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.
 
2014-06-06 03:20:56 PM  

Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.


Much like Triumph of the Will, no?
 
2014-06-06 03:26:05 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?


Studied both.  Agreed.

CSB:  I had open slots my senior spring spring in college so I figured I'd take a class just for fun.  "German Cinema."  It focused on cinema before, during, and after the Weimar Period.

Turned out to be one of the toughest but most interesting classes I ever took.
 
2014-06-06 03:28:03 PM  

Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema


Diogenes: No question. Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.


I have yet to see it and this is all I really know about it.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Much like Triumph of the Will, no?


I have seen that and I couldn't get past the knowledge of what that propaganda begat enough to take a critical look at the cinematic aspect.
 
2014-06-06 03:33:13 PM  
Rumor has it that Justin Bieber is currently recording a new soundtrack for "Birth of a Nation", based on some stuff he came up with a few years ago.
 
2014-06-06 03:39:08 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema

Diogenes: No question. Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

I have yet to see it and this is all I really know about it.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

I have seen that and I couldn't get past the knowledge of what that propaganda begat enough to take a critical look at the cinematic aspect.


I feel the same way about Birth of a Nation.
 
2014-06-06 03:47:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?


I liked Triumph of the Will better. Maybe it was the advances in technology or the difference in format.
 
2014-06-06 04:30:18 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

I liked Triumph of the Will better. Maybe it was the advances in technology or the difference in format.


I assumed it was because of the elaborate musical numbers.
 
2014-06-06 04:34:00 PM  
Remember seeing a bio on Griffith, and BOAN is basically the Civil War and reconstruction biased on his dads version of events.

Then Karma caught up with him with Intolerance.
 
2014-06-06 04:46:50 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

I liked Triumph of the Will better. Maybe it was the advances in technology or the difference in format.

I assumed it was because of the elaborate musical numbers.


Well, that and Goebbels' brave decision to work topless.
 
2014-06-06 05:52:31 PM  
Is this Wharble or Garble? I can never tell.
 
2014-06-06 05:55:05 PM  

Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.



But we will still see Bertha Venation, right?
 
2014-06-06 05:55:51 PM  
All those murders lynchings and cross burnings were just liberals trying to make the patriotic KKK look bad.
 
2014-06-06 05:56:54 PM  
I'm a big fan of "Rosemary's Baby," not because I like the '70s occult horror genre, but because I am a strong proponent of the Devil raping people.

(And also the director raping people.)
 
2014-06-06 05:56:59 PM  

Diogenes: No question. Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.


I think the best way of describing it is a "technological marvel".  Using terms too general could lead to someone thinking you like the content.

/seen it
//needed MST3Kesque commentary with classmates to get through it
///it's really really really really farking long
 
2014-06-06 05:57:58 PM  

edmo: Is this Wharble or Garble? I can never tell.


Whynotboth.jpg
This is a fundie we're talking about...
 
2014-06-06 06:01:59 PM  

albert71292: Rumor has it that Justin Bieber is currently recording a new soundtrack for "Birth of a Nation", based on some stuff he came up with a few years ago.


Justin Bieber should reprise Vic Morrow's role in the Twilight Zone movie.
 
2014-06-06 06:02:07 PM  
I liked Intolerance:Love's Struggle Through The Ages quite a bit.  But mostly because its over the top melodrama and extravagant sets provided Buster Keaton with great spoof material for The Three Ages.

Also it had great Babylonian orgy scenes.  You have to love a good Babylonian orgy scene.
 
2014-06-06 06:02:31 PM  
portrayed freed slaves as brutal, uncivilized, sexual aggressors.

They were just freed from slavery. Many of them were just worked for free, but some of them were tortured for fun. For years on end.

I'm sure either the KKK must be right: Them blacks just went crazy and we don't know why!
Or Justin Rosario must be right: This is a "horrid caricature"! I'm sure black people were totally OK after going through all that.

I'm sure one or the other must be true. Can't be both.
 
2014-06-06 06:07:41 PM  
The farking "curriculum" sounds horrendous. Someone please cockpunch the CEO of Hobby Lobby.

TFA gets a bit confused. If I understand the comparison of Exodus to Birth of a Nation correctly, the Jews are the white people.
 
2014-06-06 06:10:07 PM  

patrick767: The farking "curriculum" sounds horrendous. Someone please cockpunch the CEO of Hobby Lobby.



Good God, he's doing a book on sex education, too?
 
2014-06-06 06:12:05 PM  
OK, so in attempting to find the source for this nonsense I kept getting stuck in a citation loop on this Texas Freedom Network site. Finally I get to a Washington Post article, but there's no mention of "Birth of a Nation". Not that I doubt these idiots are capable of making such a tone deaf comparison, but I'd like a firmer source.

Oh, and I found a site where you can see some of the pages from their proposed "textbook".

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-06 06:14:08 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: albert71292: Rumor has it that Justin Bieber is currently recording a new soundtrack for "Birth of a Nation", based on some stuff he came up with a few years ago.

Justin Bieber should reprise Vic Morrow's role in the Twilight Zone movie.


He'd be head and shoulders better than Morrow.
 
2014-06-06 06:18:47 PM  
 Fark like a Barsoomian: portrayed freed slaves as brutal, uncivilized, sexual aggressors.

They were just freed from slavery. Many of them were just worked for free, but some of them were tortured for fun. For years on end.

I'm sure either the KKK must be right: Them blacks just went crazy and we don't know why!
Or Justin Rosario must be right: This is a "horrid caricature"! I'm sure black people were totally OK after going through all that.

I'm sure one or the other must be true. Can't be both.


Really? That's what you're going with? First, a correction:
Or  Justin Rosario pretty much every non-racist who's examined the film must be right: This is a "horrid caricature"!
 Start here.

But you're going to stick with, "they're both correct"? Remember that one of them is the KKK.
 
2014-06-06 06:21:45 PM  
Intolerance was better.

Studying Birth of A Nation and Triumph of the Will through film classes makes you as bigoted and racist as films like Priscilla Queen Of The Desert and Some Like It Hot makes you homosexual.

Hobby Lobby needs more airplane glue.
 
2014-06-06 06:25:12 PM  

Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema.


That's what I've been told by some film industry friends.  The movie was ground breaking in some way, which could be admired.  The contents, not so much.  I'm not a film buff nor have I seen it, so I haven't a clue.
 
2014-06-06 06:27:37 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

I liked Triumph of the Will better. Maybe it was the advances in technology or the difference in format.


It's a fantastic piece of propaganda; Like "Olympia", Riefenstahl made it much better than it needed to be.  Rather than newsreel-type documentaries, she paid attention to the technical and aesthetic aspects - camera angles, lighting and so forth.  The Nazi bigwigs thought they were hiring a hack newsreel director to get the product out quickly,  and ended up with an auteur who insisted on quality filmmaking.
 
2014-06-06 06:31:03 PM  
I had to re-read the relevant paragraph in the article a few times to make sense of it.  While I have to imagine the comparison was just to borrow the title and nothing else.  Still, that one would willingly reference it like that does seem rather unwise or uninformed.
 
2014-06-06 06:31:33 PM  
Every nation has it's version of a cinematically beautiful film that was also horribly propagandtastic. In China, for example, there's Riki-oh: the story of Ricky.
 
2014-06-06 06:31:51 PM  

Diogenes: Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

Studied both.  Agreed.

CSB:  I had open slots my senior spring spring in college so I figured I'd take a class just for fun.  "German Cinema."  It focused on cinema before, during, and after the Weimar Period.

Turned out to be one of the toughest but most interesting classes I ever took.


So was there more or less scat in the older films???
 
2014-06-06 06:42:55 PM  
Maybe he meant the porn version?
 
2014-06-06 06:44:09 PM  

HairyNevus: Every nation has it's version of a cinematically beautiful film that was also horribly propagandtastic. In China, for example, there's Riki-oh: the story of Ricky.


But Riki-oh was so fine it blew my mind.
 
2014-06-06 06:46:48 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: But Riki-oh was so fine it blew my mind.


Does Riki-oh take you by the heart when it takes you by the hand?
 
2014-06-06 06:56:25 PM  

Diogenes: Benevolent Misanthrope: Diogenes: Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.

No question.  Content aside, it's a remarkable piece of cinema for its time.

Much like Triumph of the Will, no?

Studied both.  Agreed.

CSB:  I had open slots my senior spring spring in college so I figured I'd take a class just for fun.  "German Cinema."  It focused on cinema before, during, and after the Weimar Period.

Turned out to be one of the toughest but most interesting classes I ever took.


I got to take two film classes in college.  One was general film appreciation covering maybe 40's-80's and different styles/genres that was pretty cool.  I also took a class that was only about Hitchcock films.  I took them because I thought they'd be easy but they wound up being my favorite classes my entire time there.

If any of you college folks read this take some of those classes!  It is the only time you are going to get to see those films and discuss them critically with knowledgeable people.
 
2014-06-06 07:08:45 PM  

treesloth: Danger Avoid Death: But Riki-oh was so fine it blew my mind.

Does Riki-oh take you by the heart when it takes you by the hand?


What Riki-oh taking you by the hand might look like:

i1126.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-06 07:17:09 PM  
As people in the thread have pointed out abundantly, it's not racist or shameful to just appreciate Birth of a Nation for the filmmaking accomplishment it was. Hell, there are black filmmakers who admire its technique even as they cringe at the nasty story.

It is racist and shameful to like Birth for the plot, or to just enjoy it without qualification. Mr. Hobber-lobber seems to be appreciating the movie for sketchy reasons.
 
2014-06-06 07:17:40 PM  

edmo: Is this Wharble or Garble? I can never tell.


That's Wharble and Goebels
 
2014-06-06 07:19:12 PM  

HairyNevus: Every nation has it's version of a cinematically beautiful film that was also horribly propagandtastic. In China, for example, there's Riki-oh: the story of Ricky.



If you only ever watch two movies, Riki-oh and Triumph of the Will should be those two.
 
2014-06-06 07:23:13 PM  

Nabb1: Nabb1: It's an abhorrent movie, and yet still a remarkable piece of cinema. If you are into the history of narrative film, particularly the early years, it's worth seeing once. His follow-up/mea culpa "Intolerance" has some jaw-droppingly massive sets and thousands of extras. With CGI and the costs involved, you aren't likely to see something like that done ever again.

I mean today, with the use of CGI, and the probable costs involved in building massive elaborate sets and hiring and costuming thousands of extras, you'll never see that sort of thing again.


I love watching 'Bridge on the River Kwai' because David Lean had to actually physically build the bridge, and then actually blow it up with a genuine train on the track. No models or miniatures.
 
2014-06-06 07:31:51 PM  
Those Klansmen look a bit to the dark side.
 
2014-06-06 07:42:05 PM  
Hobby Lobby? When will you jerks stop persecuting us multirotor owners? Sure, there is not the collective response of a helicopter or the flight response of an aeroplane, but come on, we do stuff too.
 
2014-06-06 07:56:23 PM  
And right before the paragraph about his buffoonery, there was this ad:

pagead2.googlesyndication.com
 
2014-06-06 08:04:43 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: HairyNevus: Every nation has it's version of a cinematically beautiful film that was also horribly propagandtastic.

Have fun with these then:


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=north+korean+propaganda +m ovie
 
2014-06-06 08:20:51 PM  
Hey, it's an impressive piece of cinema with a horrible message. Which is what people will say about Avatar in another fifty years...
 
2014-06-06 08:26:39 PM  

vodka: Hobby Lobby? When will you jerks stop persecuting us multirotor owners? Sure, there is not the collective response of a helicopter or the flight response of an aeroplane, but come on, we do stuff too.


nonono... yer thinking about Hobby Town!

Hobby Lobby is for middle aged suburban house wives who like to decorate thier mcmansions in a mid 90's applebees motife.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report