´óÏó´«Ã½

"Tom Cruise plays Col Claus von Stauffenberg, who actually detonated the bomb beside Hitler. Cruise's belief in Scientology has caused waves in Germany, where it's regarded as a cult rather than a religion, and as such is banned. "

Why the focus on the trivial Scientology? I hope there'll more critical discussion about how films such as Valkerie, Schindler's List, Frost/Nixon and so many others which have come out of Hollywood are as much vested interest political propaganda as they are entertainment. It doesn't suffice to say that nobody pays any attention and that it's all just for fun. It isn't.

I have to agree with you JadedJean - the focus on Cruise rather than on the political agenda of some movies should not be a more important discussion. Why is a movie on a failed assassination plot against Hitler currently being made? Does it have anything to do with people's inability to cope with failed political ideologies or is to harken back to a more perceived politically pure period?

"Cruise's belief in Scientology has caused waves in Germany, where it's regarded as a totalitarian organisation and the government considered banning it."

Hmm it's changed. OK. The problem for recent generations of Germans is that immediately after WWII, as part of the denazification programme to 'liberal-democratize' them, their parents were taken on horror tours and generally treated rather harshly o they would give up their unspeakable thoughts of a centrally planned economy as part of the partially implemented USA Morgenthau (plus Dexter-White) Plan. This suited Stalin, as the USSR calculated that this would probably make the West Germans hate the allies (so they provided lots of horror material). As a consequence, lots of left-wing types found their way into government. Things aren't always as obvious as they seem, and when the allies caught on (part of which was the Soviets were using USA plates to print money and then exchanging them for dollars) they did a volte-face and implemented the Marshall Plan instead. Still, they kept peddling Liberal-Democracy and painting totalitarianism blacker than black as that made the evil Central-Planning Soviets the new bete-noir.

Who WERE the bad guys? Bet the panel won't touch on that, but it is topical.

#1 JadedJean...good blog.

FYI : Stauffenberg did not detonate the bomb in the Wolf's Lair. He put it in a briefcase, placed it under a table, and left the hut. Another participant at the meeting , irritated by the location of the case, moved it to his other side minimizing the impact on AH.

Not seen the film yet ...but 'looking forward' to it.

...discuss whether comedy been tamed...

people with talent are not tamed. they don't need to be.

here's how to insult people on TV.

Von Stauffenberg should have stayed in the room seen the job done even if it resulted in his death, the war would have ended a year early and countless thousands of lives saved. On a quirk of fate decided the course of the war. it is ironic that in today's confrontations religious fanatics have no problem in 'staying with the case'. Von Stauffenberg was a very brave man but not 'religious' enough.

1) being anti-Bolshevik (which was what the Tripartite Pact and the rise of Hitler, and WWII was really all about) isn't 'raving anti-Semitism'. At the time, the Bolshevik movement was widely regarded by all as a Jewish conspiracy by almost all, including Stalin who after expelling Trotsky spent the 30s purging the original Bolsheviks having told the German communists that their future lay with Hitler. It was, and still is, convenient to conflate classes - it isn't the 'semitism' per se that ever drives the hostility - it's the competitive sophisticated group politics, financial opportunism and nepotism. Charges of anti-semitism are just an egregious, aggressive defence which is part of this hegemonic battle.

2) We are not all born equals. People who think otherwise would do better to learn a little biology, think about height, educational attainment, and try to be a little more sceptical when listening to what appears to be impressive rhetoric. It usually sounds good like most fiction because it's disconnected from reality.

3) WETLANDS.........oh dear Newsnight, that was as bad as Russell Brand.

Did Russell Brand remind anyone of a younger Billy Connolly? Same clothes, same hair, same beard, same noise impressions, but where's the banana boots? ; )

Speaking of the film Valkyrie, which I won't be seeing anyway. I heard an historian talking about this bomb plot against Hitler. He stated that Stauffenberg wanted Hitler dead because Hitler was losing the war. So the film isn't even accurate.

Where do I draw the line? If Frank Skinner uses bad language it is not a problem. It may be bad taste but I can turn off. If he takes his clothes off that may be a lack of decency but again it is not a problem. I can look away. If he and Kirsty were to phone me in an attempt to harass or bully me and they did that during a live broadcast, that would be something quite different and that is where I draw the line. Bullying is unacceptable but what gets me really mad is that presenters like Kirsty don't get it. Phoning an old man in order to embarrass and humilliate him is bullying. It may involve bad taste and a lack of decency but that is not the point. The point is that it is bullying and if that is allowed on the radio then how do we stop bullying in schools and in places of work. So please Kirsty and please ´óÏó´«Ã½, stop farting around with questions of taste and decency and take a stand against bullying. That is where I draw the line.

tortoise4square (#10) Nicely put.

Look up Narcissistic Personality Disorder (one of the Cluster B, Axis II Personality Disorders in the US DSM-IV-TR - ICD-10 is a little different).

Devaluation is what they do 'best', they can be oddly charismatic, and VERY . It's an understatement to say that we seem to be reinforcing this behaviour these days. There are lots of these people in the media (and politics/power), which is hardly surprising.

BULLYING IS IN THE VISCERA OF THE RECEIVER? (#11)

We have the term 'killing with kindness' long established in English expression. That must surely be a form of bullying? An attractive person can passively bully an unattractive one. Someone good at the Times Crossword can bully through its rapid completion. An eloquent debater will bully a less fluent one. The informed can bully the uninformed. The easy winner can bully the loser, just by winning?

Is it just that what Ross and Brand did was unusual? That, being mostly animal, we bully most of the time, to establish a pecking order, and the vulnerable FEEL bullied for much of the rest?

Might it be that (as above) 'alpha' may properly bully 'omega' but the crass R and B reversed the process and reaped the whirlwind?

THE GHOST OF MARK WHITEHOUSE SPEAKS

barrie (#12) The bottom line is prevalence in professions/trades. I've touched on those in Financial Services via a link to Hare's work, and as to the entertainment industry, it speaks for itself daily.

What we should be noticing is that some professions dispropotionately attract and celibrate (reinforce) classes of behaviour which are demonstrably detrimental to the stability of society as a whole. The fact that many don't see this (albeit, for many, not until very recently with respect to the arrogance and mendacity so prevalent in the Financial Services sector) doesn't mean that there isn't a major problem. That problem is anarchism, and as Paul Mason's thread reiterates, it's pre-meditated anarchism, as I've asserted ad nauseam, and a rollback seems unlikely as the reason we're at this point is because the regulation and statism has been rendered anathema through systematically conditioned fear through shrewd politically correct abuse of the 'free' media.

Comedy Lecture.

comedy and tragedy are two parts of the greek trilogy [philosophy being the other one]

it is one part of a mean analogy. It is an art and what function does that art serve? in the light of understanding its purpose we can decide how successful it has been?

Should anyone claiming skill not also be able to explain the relationship between comedy, tragedy and philosophy?

socrates take the point that anyone who can write a comedy can also write a tragedy [and vica versa] . So maybe that could be a test? Anyone who claims skill in comedy can prove it by writing tragedy.

there is a more interesting lecture on comedy that explains how comedy fits into the greek classical trilogy of performing arts.

DAMNED CLEVER THOSE GREEKS (#14)

But they insisted on wrapping insight up in a thick layer of allegory - not unlike the therapeutic dream, as analysed in Jungian therapy. I seem to remember the two aforementioned, meet in the story of Midas who, having come upon the sleeping Silenus, must BIND AND THEN AND WAKE HIM whereupon some vital information would be imparted.
There you have a Greek myth that tells us the value of the remembered dream (often an 'upon waking dream') BUT WE MUST BIND IT i.e. hold on to it's content if we are to gain. Fascinating stuff.

Off to follow your link now.

there is a video in the same series that deals with Jungs Psychology and Alchemy in relation to the Hellenic Tradition called Platonism and Alchemy. [on google video - NN board won't let me llink]

it shows how they developed allegory from the divided line. allegory is optional.

NOT MEAN - BUT GOLDEN!

Many thanks for the link Bookhim, a whole new seam opens up. I would love to watch the entire series but 'the guru' does do my 'ed in a bit with his ponderous guruness. (:o)

I intend to watch it again with my No2 son and his lady, and we will then dissect. And you made it possible! Thanks.