jump to navigation

It’s the Holocaust, Only Sexier! Fauxgressive Liberal Dickwads Strike Again September 12, 2009

Posted by FCM in entertainment, international, liberal dickwads, pop culture, race, rape, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , ,

still trying to get my head around this one.  could it be more offensive?  i dont think so.

these guys’ schtick is to take old movies and remake memorable scenes using bikini models.  ok, i’m with you so far.  not that i approve, but at least i can grasp the concept.  they have done on the waterfront, raging bull, and 12 angry men.  then they decide to remake “schindler’s list.” why?  for one thing, its not an old movie, so doesnt even jive with their own premise.  heres their mission statement:

Ever wished that all the actors in classic black & white flicks were replaced by bikini models? Well now your wish comes true!

“schindler’s list” is in black and white, sure.  but its not a “classic” film in the ways the other selections are.  so why did they choose to remake it?  what kind of misogynist anti-semite holocaust denier would come up with that? 

there are serious problems with sexualizing depictions of women during times of war, because of the history and tradition of raping women and forcing them to trade sex for survival in that context.  in fact, its beyond problematic, and perhaps particularly so with the holocaust, where many women were raped not only by jewish men, but were raped by the SS and then were immediately taken to the ovens or shot.  not because there were problems with the rapings or leaving live witnesses, but with potential “race pollution”:

A report from the Russian section of Auschwitz says that SS guards raped young, pretty, and healthy girls “until they were half dead. From there they went to the ovens.” Father Joseph Tyl testified that a “certain SS guard” who was a “pervert who killed people for pleasure …was also a sex maniac who satisfied his lust with young Jewish girls, whom he murdered immediately afterwards”.  (link).

interestingly, as is the case in all the reenactments in this series, the bikini models are playing the parts of men.  in this case, if i remember the original movie correctly, its liam neeson and his jewish man-servant.  so, whats the net effect of replacing the men in any of these films with young, hot women?  whats the effect here?  its pretty obviously sexualizing something that wasnt sexual to begin with.  as the creators’ theme song goes, “everybody likes watching movies, but all they really wanna do is watch some boobies.”

but in the case of the holocaust, the events that took place were actually highly sexualized, for jewish women.  jewish women were forced to perform as escorts to the SS and partake in orgies, where they served the guests of SS commanders in the nude and were later raped.  vicious rapes and executions of female victims were ignored even at the time, except where the perpetrator was punished for having risked impregnating a “non-white”.  the fact of particularly female suffering at the hands of the SS has been all but erased from the history of the holocaust, which focused largely on male suffering, or at least “collective suffering” that was gender-neutral:

Though we might expect otherwise because rape was a serious racial purity issue, rape happened, but was and, to some extent, still is—ignored or neglected. Ruth Seifert argues that rape and other abuses are another expression of male dominance: suppressing the mention of rape reinforces the marginalization and diminution of women’s importance. Indeed, a quick survey of the indexes of Holocaust history books suggests that rape and sexuality are not a significant part of the history. 

One exception is The Holocaust Chronicle, which mentions the rape of two Jewish teenagers in Warsaw in a Jewish cemetery by two German non commissioned officers on February 18, 1940; and, on August 25, 1943, SS troops at the Janowska labor camps forced 24 Jewish girls at an all night SS orgy.  [Additionally, Holocaust survivors who were] “victims of sexual abuse have largely kept silent”.  (link).

so what we have here is a bunch of lefty liberal men who appear to be completely ignorant of what was actually a highly sexualized, ongoing crime against jewish women.  indeed, they demonstrate their ignorance to the sexually-charged nature of it when they sexualize it in the remake:  presumably, the remake of 12 angry men is “funny” precisely because the orignal scene was not sexual, at all (a bunch of fully clothed men in a courtroom setting = not sexy.  one might also ask, not sexy to whom?).  

arguably, it might have been worse if these bikini models were reenacting scenes originally played by ralph finnes, as the SS officer who brutally picked off prisoners with a rifle from his bathroom window while he was taking a piss.  but then again, ralph finnes didnt wear sexy librarian glasses like the jewish man-servant, or type like a sexy secretary.  and girls cant really pee standing up (at least, its not sexy when they do).

this kind of graphically misogynist behavior, demonstrated in the reenactment of “schindler’s list” is really nothing new for these self-identified lefty liberals, who brought us the “top-10 conservative women we’d like to hate-fuck“.

what a delightfully misogynistic mental exercise!  dont forget that, as always is the case with these lefty liberal men, this offensive, misogynistic display is being used to advance a progressive agenda.  in this case, i am imagining that the agenda is the standard lefty-liberal male “free-speech, pro-porn, sex-positive” agenda.  you know the one: where lefty liberal men proclaim their sexual entitlement to women, while simultaneously patting themselves on the back for being champions of womens and minority rights.  this is so wrong on so many levels.

do we really want to see “schindler’s list” reenacted by sexy, young (and white) bikini models?  if “we” do want to see it, why?  and who is “we”, anyway?  these are not rhetorical questions.



1. femspotter - September 13, 2009

Wow – like you, I am not able to completely wrap my head around this yet…I am definitely going to need some time to process. Actually, my first reaction was to chuckle a little given that I actually thought that this film is making fun of male heterosexuals who have a shallow criteria for evaluating “good cinema.” Of course, all of your points are valid about the desecration of the Holocaust; however, I think this is so completely absurd that it passes offensive and comes full circle back to pointing out that we are a shallow, superficial culture. Again, I say “Wow!”

Think of all of the unattractive male movie stars in the business. They may be talented – I’m thinking Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Robert DeNiro, Danny DeVito, etc. – but they aren’t aesthetically pleasing at all. Now, think of all of the unattractive female movie stars in the business… Uh… (I’m reminded of an episode of 30 Rock wherein Jenna gains a little weight over the summer and Jack says that she either needs to lose 30 pounds or gain 65, as there’s no middle ground for women’s weight in show business.) There’s a double standard at work because shallow male heteros run Hollywood and think that all the world’s audience is made up of shallow male heteros too.

The Italian poet Torquato Tasso claimed that there is an appropriate time to write about or portray history’s horrors in art. He wrote epic poetry about the Crusades in the 16th Century. He even made it funny, gory, sexy, etc. I just saw Inglourious Basterds last night. I really liked it; and it utilizes this Tasso principle. We are far enough away from the Holocaust that we can begin to skew our perspective on it some. Of course, it was a tragedy…awful…no word completely sums it up for sure! But, enough time has gone by that we can start to analyze it in a different way than when it was a fresh sting and so many people were trying to get over suffering from its horrors. IB would not have been acceptable 20 years ago or so. Its wit and playfulness – and serious commentary – is acceptable today. I believe we have jumped the gun with movies about 9/11. But in 50 years or so, we might be able to romanticize the event into epic poetry of sorts.

I don’t know what the filmmakers are trying to do with this “art.” Are they trying to make fun of the Holocaust? I don’t think so. Are they making fun of American audiences? I take it that way, yes.

P.S. My pick for “Best Picture” at the Oscars in 1994 was The Piano over Schindler’s List. While SL is an important film, both times I saw it in the theater, it lost me when Schindler is crying at the end. I just didn’t buy this man’s transformation from sinner to saint, despite his saintly deeds. It’s funny that because of the content, we are not able to criticize serious films about the Holocaust. For instance, I thought Roman Polanski’s The Pianist was terrible. It was staged for shock value and clumsy. Artistically, I’m a huge Polanski fan. But I am critical of his Holocaust film because I expected him to purge himself of his own Holocaust memories (he is a survivor though his mother died in the concentration camps). I didn’t find much character depth in that film either.

factcheckme - September 13, 2009

i like QT but frankly i can do without torture scenes, and i heard there were plenty of them in IB. so i will be waiting for that one to come out on DVD. you know, its entirely possible that the guys who remade SL were doing it to make fun of their own audience. but i cant help but notice the internal inconsistency of remaking a new movie, when their schtick is to do old movies. why do you think they chose to do schindlers list?

i also have to object to the use of “irony” to advance a progressive point, when the object of the ridicule are images of female suffering. it reminds me of the use of an image of michelle obama being lynched by the KKK that some lefty liberal blogger created, in order to make the point that the GOP are fearmongerers and race baitors. huh? and the glen beck rumor that he “raped and murdered a young girl in 1990” was started to punish beck for making damaging claims that he cant back up.

it really makes me feel alienated from the dems who are supposed to be supportive of “dem” issues but also to issues of sex and race. and clearly, they arent. heres a link to an article i wrote about those lefty male bloggers, with links to the offending images etc.


2. femspotter - September 13, 2009

I can’t think of any torture scenes to speak of in IB. A girlfriend told me in advance that it was very violent and that I would probably have to look away. It wasn’t VERY violent; certainly less so than Kill Bill or True Romance or Reservoir Dogs. Part of its “thrill” is in riling up an audience of Nazi-haters and getting us to root for violence. The whole film is winking at us.

It strikes me that these filmmakers are choosing black and white movies because of their severity and that in choosing SL they are choosing the most severe of movies to parody. The humor only works if it’s out of the realm of possibility. No sane person would ever suggest that SL would be better with “hot chicks.” It’s ridiculous. I don’t find it offensive.

But maybe I’m not understanding it entirely. What are the “images of female suffering?”

factcheckme - September 13, 2009

well, the michelle obama image and the “rape and murder of a young girl” are admittedly more obvious, and more obviously offensive. i am considering the SL remake images as more of the same (or similar): ignorant male free-speechers who think they can say and do anything in order to advance their progressive agenda, without even considering whether its harmful to women or minorities (or minority women). with SL, i found it striking that they were using near-naked women as sexual objects in a holocaust context, because of the realities of naked and near-naked female suffering that actually happened there. the only way that women were sexual persons in that context were as rape victims (either violent rapes or coercive ones). the “progressive” agenda being pushed is free-speech and pro-porn…which is devoid of consideration for women, or even female progressives within these guys’ own political party. i guess it would be similar to remaking “hotel rwanda” with all the characters being played by naked women. theres an ick factor there, isnt there? the subtext in times of war is always the sexual victimization of women. a true progressive is aware of subtexts like these. fauxgressive liberal dickwads never are, and just want to see boobies. its free-speech, donchaknow! thats my take on it anyway. the 12 angry men remake wasnt nearly as problematic, no more so than the “girls gone wild” franchise anyway…which is also not without its problems.

3. femspotter - September 14, 2009

I can’t find Michelle Obama or the young girl, but I did watch Raging Bull, On the Waterfront and 12 Angry Men. The REAL crime, I think, is the bad acting. But other than that, I found them amusing…but again, I think they are poking fun at the viewer. Then I watched a mock trailer for a scary pony movie. Ha ha. Can you post a link to the MO and rape imagery you are referring to. I’d like to fully understand. Thanks.

factcheckme - September 14, 2009

hi fem

the link is to an article i wrote about it, and there are links to the offending images within. https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/liberal-bloggers-laugh-at-rape/ they werent in the movie clips. did you think that the remake of SL was different, or the same, as the others? dont forget, i watched them all after having already seen what the lefty liberals have been up to recently, and it pissed me off in tendem. and only the SL remake was offensive to me, other than in a generic girls-gone-wild kind of way.

womanist musings cross-posted this if you want to see the dicussion over there. http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/09/its-holocaust-only-sexier-fauxgressive.html there arent any comments yet, but i will check back later and see if anyone has left their take on it. thanks for posting!

4. redmegaera - September 17, 2009

Oh. My. God.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry