Let us begin with Charles Krauthammer. This man is arguably one of the few conservative intellectuals left in a party that is slowly but surely turning into right-wing bottom dwellers. He went ahead this week and made the comment that "Environmentalism is the new socialism." Of course the lovely hosts that had him on their show didn´t really question him on such a broad statement (with all due respect, his bed buddies at Fox News don´t know how to ask serious questions). What could this really mean? For one thing it could mean that there is some conspiracy (like the Reds in the days of yore) to take over the world with Environmentalism as the banner to unite us all. That would be what is known as a conspiracy theory. Is Krauthammer that dumb or is he playing to the generally white, middle aged male audience who is watching? He could be suggesting it is a threat to our freedom (which is the standard Republican playing card) like socialism was (that is of course a matter for another debate). How would he imply freedom here though?
Most likely he is suggesting that governments are using environmentalism to interfere with our everyday lives and ability to make a living. Because you own a piece of land does not mean you can do whatever you like with it. For instance if I wanted to build my own nuclear powerplant on my property, it does not mean that my rights are violated if the government says no (instead it means they are looking out for a more common good). Of course now I am a socialist by making the suggestion that government is for the benefit of their own citizens. If it wasn´t then there would be no point in having it (as we could all do so much better). The market economy of the world has failed to solve our problems and instead of curing our cancer has given us viagra.
Let us return to the environmentalism. There is no secret group of environmentalists infiltrating the government in an attempt to take over. This is Fox News fantasy at best and pure stupidity at its worst. Note also that a clean planet would be a lot better for people then some smog chocked world where industry is given all its desires on a silver plate.
To other things then. I recently watched Tarantino´s Inglorious Basterds and had some after thoughts. The only actor worth a damn was the German who played Hans Landa SS. Tarantino plays with history here and the effect is actually disturbing: in his version a crack group of violent murderers is able to end the war and by doing so will have an SS officer, whose job it was to track down Jews, as the allied hero. Seen from that angle the story falls apart. I would have preferred a western approach that stressed character development a bit more. The time issue could have been stretched a bit more and not hurt the overall final version. Tarantino can do better than this, a lot better.
Most likely he is suggesting that governments are using environmentalism to interfere with our everyday lives and ability to make a living. Because you own a piece of land does not mean you can do whatever you like with it. For instance if I wanted to build my own nuclear powerplant on my property, it does not mean that my rights are violated if the government says no (instead it means they are looking out for a more common good). Of course now I am a socialist by making the suggestion that government is for the benefit of their own citizens. If it wasn´t then there would be no point in having it (as we could all do so much better). The market economy of the world has failed to solve our problems and instead of curing our cancer has given us viagra.
Let us return to the environmentalism. There is no secret group of environmentalists infiltrating the government in an attempt to take over. This is Fox News fantasy at best and pure stupidity at its worst. Note also that a clean planet would be a lot better for people then some smog chocked world where industry is given all its desires on a silver plate.
To other things then. I recently watched Tarantino´s Inglorious Basterds and had some after thoughts. The only actor worth a damn was the German who played Hans Landa SS. Tarantino plays with history here and the effect is actually disturbing: in his version a crack group of violent murderers is able to end the war and by doing so will have an SS officer, whose job it was to track down Jews, as the allied hero. Seen from that angle the story falls apart. I would have preferred a western approach that stressed character development a bit more. The time issue could have been stretched a bit more and not hurt the overall final version. Tarantino can do better than this, a lot better.
1 comment:
I recently watched Inglourious Basterds myself, and I had a similarly ambivalent reaction. Christoph Waltz was amazing, and I think my favorite scene was the drinking game scene in the basement of the bar.
As you observed, he did change history quite a bit. I don't mind parallel histories myself, but I have to wonder about the value of the alternate ending he's written. I am not the first to observe that he has basically conferred all the barbarism of the Nazis upon a group of Jews, and exacted a very Tarantinoesque type of revenge upon a group that will, for good reason, always be counted by history as villains. Again, I don't mind movie violence per se, and I'm as happy as any to see someone give the Nazis "what fer". Then again, the Nazis didn't really get "what fer" in the way illustrated in the movie, and I'm led again to wonder to what ends Tarantino altered history. The answer seems to be... so that we could watch Hitler get his face blown off. Which is nice enough, but bloody revenge is not, I find, a kind of catharsis that really sticks to your ribs. I personally felt almost nothing, apart from a mild repulsion, during the climax in the movie theatre. I actually found myself missing the delicate execution, and tension, of scenes like the very first one and the one in the bar that I've already mentioned.
Post a Comment