Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

battlefieldanomalies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#21

Post by notahacker »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #17
1832 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The film was controversial even before its release and it has remained so ever since; it has been called "the most controversial film ever made in the United States" and "the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history." The film has been denounced for its racist depiction of African Americans. The film portrays its black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and…

The quotes in the Wiki page are modern, not from the time of the release. It was controversial at release, but not so much that there wasn't a White House screening. It was the first motion picture to be screened inside the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.

I'm not sure the fact that his film glorifying the Ku Kux Klan was watched by a president also noted for being racist even by the standards of his time (who later condemned the film and claimed to have been unaware of its contents) somehow innoculates it against charges of racism

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#22

Post by pavlov »

cliftonpowell wrote: post #13
pavlov wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you have to draw a line somewhere, though? Adolf Hitler was a painter and Kim Il-Jong directed movies. Neither of them was any good, but if they had been, would it really make sense to judge their art in isolation, without the slightest mention of the authors’ tyranny and mass murder? Griffith made movies that he fully intended as Ku Klux Klan propaganda. That is not in doubt. At the same time these movies are…

As a joke I'll sometimes show images of Hitler's art to people. They're always received with high praise, and rarely is the praise retracted when they learn who the artist was. It's usually "oh that's funny, well he was pretty good. Wow. Didn't know that." Yeah I think art and artist can be evaluated on separate criteria.

Nobody thinks Hitler’s art is museum-quality or art historically important in the same way that Griffith’s and Riefenstahl’s movies are.

And even if Hitler’s paintings really had been particularly good, I still don’t think museums in Germany and elsewhere would exhibit them. Enough people feel that would be highly disrespectful of the victims of the Holocaust (probably most museum curators would think that). You can of course believe this kind of red line shouldn’t exist in society, but it’s there.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#23

Post by Finnucane »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #17
1832 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The film was controversial even before its release and it has remained so ever since; it has been called "the most controversial film ever made in the United States" and "the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history." The film has been denounced for its racist depiction of African Americans. The film portrays its black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and…

The quotes in the Wiki page are modern, not from the time of the release. It was controversial at release, but not so much that there wasn't a White House screening. It was the first motion picture to be screened inside the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson, his family, and members of his cabinet.

The movie's title cards include pro-Klan statements from Woodrow Wilson.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#24

Post by dotancohen »

pavlov wrote: post #22
cliftonpowell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a joke I'll sometimes show images of Hitler's art to people. They're always received with high praise, and rarely is the praise retracted when they learn who the artist was. It's usually "oh that's funny, well he was pretty good. Wow. Didn't know that." Yeah I think art and artist can be evaluated on separate criteria.

Nobody thinks Hitler’s art is museum-quality or art historically important in the same way that Griffith’s and Riefenstahl’s movies are. And even if Hitler’s paintings really had been particularly good, I still don’t think museums in Germany and elsewhere would exhibit them. Enough people feel that would be highly disrespectful of the victims of the Holocaust (probably most museum curators would think that). You can…

My grandfather was a slave in Hitler's work camps. His parents and brothers perished in Hitler's death camps. And the story of his wife's family, my grandmother, would leave you shivering.

I would most certainly visit a museum exhibit of Hitler's paintings.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#25

Post by dotancohen »

trickyager wrote: post #12
daseiner1 wrote: post #2

[flagged]

If anything, leaving this information out would flatten the complexities to an even greater degree. Understanding and sharing a well-rounded perspective of a person (e.g. that this person held objectively incorrect beliefs that were despised among his contemporaries) is quite literally why people study history.

  > objectively incorrect beliefs
Do you honestly not see the irony in declaring your own culture "objectively correct"? Do you eat meat? Burn carbon? These are things that conceivably may one day be considered even worse than we consider racism today. Don't be so quick to judge the past by today's values.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#26

Post by trickyager »

dotancohen wrote: post #25
trickyager wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, leaving this information out would flatten the complexities to an even greater degree. Understanding and sharing a well-rounded perspective of a person (e.g. that this person held objectively incorrect beliefs that were despised among his contemporaries) is quite literally why people study history.

> objectively incorrect beliefs Do you honestly not see the irony in declaring your own culture "objectively correct"? Do you eat meat? Burn carbon? These are things that conceivably may one day be considered even worse than we consider racism today. Don't be so quick to judge the past by today's values.

You're bringing up subjective beliefs as a straw man. The idea that it's morally wrong to eat meat or burn carbon are subjective. I specifically said objectively incorrect beliefs. The idea that there exist races of humans who are uniquely "superior" or "inferior" is an objectively incorrect belief. It is not true now, and it has never been true.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#28

Post by dotancohen »

trickyager wrote: post #26
dotancohen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> objectively incorrect beliefs Do you honestly not see the irony in declaring your own culture "objectively correct"? Do you eat meat? Burn carbon? These are things that conceivably may one day be considered even worse than we consider racism today. Don't be so quick to judge the past by today's values.

You're bringing up subjective beliefs as a straw man. The idea that it's morally wrong to eat meat or burn carbon are subjective. I specifically said objectively incorrect beliefs. The idea that there exist races of humans who are uniquely "superior" or "inferior" is an objectively incorrect belief. It is not true now, and it has never been true.

The idea that there exist species who are uniquely "superior" or "inferior" is an objectively incorrect belief. It is not true now, and it has never been true. Every species on Earth fulfills a purpose, and humans have no right to farm any of them. It is objectively better for humans to return to pre-agricultural levels of population and eat only what we catch with our bare hands.

Of course, I don't believe that statement. But it is as "objectively true" as yours. I just don't want to dispute yours, because I personally agree with it. But I can not call it an objectively better statement.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#29

Post by cliftonpowell »

pavlov wrote: post #22
cliftonpowell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a joke I'll sometimes show images of Hitler's art to people. They're always received with high praise, and rarely is the praise retracted when they learn who the artist was. It's usually "oh that's funny, well he was pretty good. Wow. Didn't know that." Yeah I think art and artist can be evaluated on separate criteria.

Nobody thinks Hitler’s art is museum-quality or art historically important in the same way that Griffith’s and Riefenstahl’s movies are. And even if Hitler’s paintings really had been particularly good, I still don’t think museums in Germany and elsewhere would exhibit them. Enough people feel that would be highly disrespectful of the victims of the Holocaust (probably most museum curators would think that). You can…

Your question was does it make sense to judge their art in isolation from the artist. I'm saying you can in fact do that and as an exercise in proving this fact I front load the art and follow with the artist and the net effect is positivity rather than hostility. But even if you were to present a monster's art in tandem with the fact that the artist was a monster I would go even further to bet that most people would judge the art on its own merits and find its origin trivial, even ironically humorous. I've known very few people who pearl clutch in life the way they do on the internet.

Re: Battle Scenes depicted in moving pictures before CGI

#30

Post by ssklash »

daseiner1 wrote: post #18
misnome wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you object as strongly if it had said that he was a really nice guy? Would it be more or less honest a retelling of history if this was ignored or left out? TFA is clearly not discounting the work because of it, and probably nobody would good-faith argue that personality was always decoupled from work? In which case how much you care is just a POV?

I would. I'm not advocating white-washing here. My point is that this piece is not about artist biographies. For this sort of piece, I don't care if he was a serial adulterer, a volunteer fireman, or a local hero, and think that inserting those details is an unnecessary thumb on the scale.

I'm not sure why you think your personal opinions about mentioning that a well-known racist was in fact a well-known racist matter, and why you think you have some sort of say in another person's blog post. This "scale" that you think the author is putting their thumb on does not exist. They are writing on their own personal website.
Post reply on HN