Friday, September 24, 2010
Inglourious Basterds(The Movie)
Wow, I don't know why I actually just looked at imdb, and searched google to find some underlying message about this movie that I seem to have missed. To think for one second that you(and about half of America) would have some profound insight into the ingeniousness of this film which distinguishes you from I, is completely absurd. My capabilities of understanding film are obviously that of a child. I in no way, shape, or form, shall be deemed a personal opinion for I have not come as far as you and the rest of the likers of this film in my own development. As far as categorization goes I'm that which descends from pure madness ceased to see the blindness of Lady Justice. Inconsequently, there is a place reserved in Hell for Steven Colbert, Darby Crash, people who make anime, and most certainly you! So to you and people like you Sir, I must undoubtedly stand firm on my beliefs, stick my tongue out... and blow - while firmly holding one thumb up and one thumb down as a beckon for the everlasting demise to which you most certainly will endure. I feel to leave this message without properly stating the pros and cons of this film in my opinion, would only exacerbate the sticky situation, or Mexican standoff(if you will), we have found ourselves in.
Inglourious Basterds
The title is a discussion in itself. The misspelling of the title is derived from Jean-Michel Basquiat - a Neo-expressionism artist and the American pronunciation of the word bastards. It was inspired by the 1978 film Inglorious Bastards.
On a cerebral level it is definitely amazing without a doubt. It is quite amazing to see how a director can actually get worse throughout his career - and continue to do so with financial success and critical praise. This is a typical Quentin Tarentino Film, which to me means that it is told in his style of storytelling aka mixed up chapters that assemble at the end like a puzzle. This style of storytelling is fine in itself, but puzzling, is the expended rate of which this director has come to rely upon it...it is at best, exhausting. If you are to use the very same format time and again, then you had better come up with something very original and exciting. Given, this is a point of view from the WWII era seldom seen in mainstream cinema for which kudos will not be given due to the fact of...well where do we start? According to wikipedia.org there are at least 707 films about WWII, and this list does not include documentaries or holocaust specific films. Among these films is Casablanca, Schindler's List, and the Pianist. But never before has it been told like this! A slogan that I've heard many times before. However, and I would be lying if I didn't say this, the film is entertaining. I can still appreciate his "chapters". Gone, is the fast-paced, self conflicting dialogue that Quentin Tarentino is known for. Gone are the conclusionary statements that offer profound insight to the internal conflict of characters.
The plot of this film tells the story of two plots: Lieutenant Aldo Raine, who leeds a group of Jewish-American soldiers in a plot to kill Nazi political leaders, and Emmanuelle Mimieux who escaped to Paris after her family's murder. It is in effect, entertaining to see how the lives of these characters intertwine and come together for resolution at the end of the film. The fictional story of The Basterds is told through an expended poor attempt of humor from the likes of no other than Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt is by far one of the best actors of our time. How can this be you ask? The ranking of actors does not lie solely upon technical ability or the portrayal of emotion but on the talent of entertaining([scoffing]a relatively new concept for mainstream America). Throughout all of Brad Pitt's film's I find myself thinking, "This is Brad Pitt", where as other popular actors of our generation, such as the young Jack Nicholson clone: Leonardo DiCaprio - are so involved in their roles, that one could almost believe they are actually watching a documentary, and the characters are in fact, real. This is not the case with Inglourious Basterds, nor was it mean't to be. The story contains many holes. The perspective of this film is an original concept to my immediate knowledge. There are of course historical inaccuracies, but who cares? You just paid your hard earned money to watch the new Quentin Tarentino Flick!
The film is entertaining at best. The cinematography was superb. Nation's Pride(the film within the film) is reminiscent of 1930's Hell's Angels meets Saving Private Ryan and was directed by Eli Roth and is a testament to the quintessential emotional portrayal of actors - which I feel we have in a sense lost the dramatic feel of, due to the big Hollywood(or Bollywood) Blockbuster type films. I felt that the ending was good, giving me a sense of empowerment from modern-American Naziism. I also thought that the story could have been better given the past capabilities of the writer/director and circumstances.
The bottom line? Any film lover owes it to them self to watch the new Quentin Tarentino Film. But given the theater rates these days? I'm glad I waited for it to come out on DVD. One thumb up and one thumb down, the latter signifying the place this film will rest in the annals of cinematic history.
Should you have to pass a drug test to receive Welfare?
Should you have to pass a drug test to receive Welfare?
You know what? I don't like this one actually because welfare affects and helps more than just the person who may be using drugs.
Someone responded with: "No its more like if u have to get drug tested when ur workin your ass off. Then so should the people sittin their lazy ass home collecting welfare who are THE ONES probably spending the governments money on drugs rather than what is is meant for...(this is not in the case of everyone tho)"
If that's not the case for everyone then wouldn't this be pointless? Would it matter if the money went towards gummy bears vs. drugs? Public "misuse" of funds will always exist.
We should just become a communist regime and distribute jobs, and funds accordingly. Then we wouldn't have this problem. ;) Lol
And what I mean by that is perhaps they should have a welfare reform? Assign housing, food(Wic checks for example), transportation, etc. Then there will be no room for public misuse of government distributed funds. Only problem is: What if you have a problem with something? I'm just saying something like this isn't so black and white. It opens a Pandora's box and a plethora of problems/options. My concern is about their children. How safe can they already be if they are in an unsafe environment and we strip public funds from their parents/guardians? Thailand for example. Or any country that doesn't have a welfare option. What happens with those children? I'm just sayin'.
And I'm just curious as to who's paying for these drug tests? There's around 50 MILLION Americans on some form of state assistance as of 2009[according to the internet]. Administering drug tests would have to be done many times over the course of someone's benefits. Also, even your basic 4-panel dip tests do not detect all drugs. So are we going to single out users of meth, marijuana, opiates, etc. and ignore use of synthetic such as Methadone, or Darvocet? Barbiturates? The 10-panel tests are more expensive and still do not test for all substances. The only responsible course of action would be to use lab tests. So actually, that's a great idea because it can create more American jobs we can tax to pay for this whole process! Only problem I foresee is: Are we going to include alcohol in this too? It's legal but can be abused. Should we incorporate acceptable amounts of use? And what if they fail a drug test? Is there a certain amount of time they have to wait before reapplying? 6 month period perhaps? Over the course of which they are ordered to complete a government funded chemical dependency course? What if it was an isolated incident and they don't meet the WA. State criteria for being chemically dependent? Then do they get their check or what? Has anybody reading this ever sparked up a joint at a party before? Or at some point in their life consumed one alcoholic beverage?
And let me be very clear. I'm not trying to single out any one person's beliefs. And I respect the opinion of others. If you were to take custody from them or cut their funding then who is going to pay for their needs or their children's? Where do they turn for money? Family, friends, etc. Foster care and adoption is a lengthy process. You thought the housing market collapse was bad? A single thing like this that sounds good on paper could have devastating effects and cause an economic collapse. Is everybody ready to take on the responsibility of the needs of these people?
Here's a quote from my friend Mikey:
"drug tests for welfare? What!? what are we supposed do with our money.... buy shoes?"
You know what? I don't like this one actually because welfare affects and helps more than just the person who may be using drugs.
Someone responded with: "No its more like if u have to get drug tested when ur workin your ass off. Then so should the people sittin their lazy ass home collecting welfare who are THE ONES probably spending the governments money on drugs rather than what is is meant for...(this is not in the case of everyone tho)"
If that's not the case for everyone then wouldn't this be pointless? Would it matter if the money went towards gummy bears vs. drugs? Public "misuse" of funds will always exist.
We should just become a communist regime and distribute jobs, and funds accordingly. Then we wouldn't have this problem. ;) Lol
And what I mean by that is perhaps they should have a welfare reform? Assign housing, food(Wic checks for example), transportation, etc. Then there will be no room for public misuse of government distributed funds. Only problem is: What if you have a problem with something? I'm just saying something like this isn't so black and white. It opens a Pandora's box and a plethora of problems/options. My concern is about their children. How safe can they already be if they are in an unsafe environment and we strip public funds from their parents/guardians? Thailand for example. Or any country that doesn't have a welfare option. What happens with those children? I'm just sayin'.
And I'm just curious as to who's paying for these drug tests? There's around 50 MILLION Americans on some form of state assistance as of 2009[according to the internet]. Administering drug tests would have to be done many times over the course of someone's benefits. Also, even your basic 4-panel dip tests do not detect all drugs. So are we going to single out users of meth, marijuana, opiates, etc. and ignore use of synthetic such as Methadone, or Darvocet? Barbiturates? The 10-panel tests are more expensive and still do not test for all substances. The only responsible course of action would be to use lab tests. So actually, that's a great idea because it can create more American jobs we can tax to pay for this whole process! Only problem I foresee is: Are we going to include alcohol in this too? It's legal but can be abused. Should we incorporate acceptable amounts of use? And what if they fail a drug test? Is there a certain amount of time they have to wait before reapplying? 6 month period perhaps? Over the course of which they are ordered to complete a government funded chemical dependency course? What if it was an isolated incident and they don't meet the WA. State criteria for being chemically dependent? Then do they get their check or what? Has anybody reading this ever sparked up a joint at a party before? Or at some point in their life consumed one alcoholic beverage?
And let me be very clear. I'm not trying to single out any one person's beliefs. And I respect the opinion of others. If you were to take custody from them or cut their funding then who is going to pay for their needs or their children's? Where do they turn for money? Family, friends, etc. Foster care and adoption is a lengthy process. You thought the housing market collapse was bad? A single thing like this that sounds good on paper could have devastating effects and cause an economic collapse. Is everybody ready to take on the responsibility of the needs of these people?
Here's a quote from my friend Mikey:
"drug tests for welfare? What!? what are we supposed do with our money.... buy shoes?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)