Kneejerks, Straw Men and the attack of the blindly devoted

[MantaRay at aol.com]

P-listers:

davemarc calls me on:

>MantaRay just doesn't know the facts here.  Spielberg is, in fact,
>spearheading the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, which is
>dedicated to videotaping and otherwise documenting the testimony of
>Holocaust survivors around the world.  By the end of last year, 2937
>interviewers (they have the option of getting a $50 stipend per interview),
>1307 videographers (they get paid union scale, as far as I know), and 2974
>volunteers had conducted a total of 21,755 interviews, including 11,676 in
>the US, 2,339 in Israel, 1,376 in Australia, 236 in South Africa, and 1 in
>Zimbabwe.  Profits from Schindler's List help fund the project.  So
>Spielberg is, in fact, offering oral histories to the world.  If the money
>and awards that stemmed from the film he made of a Booker Prize-winning
>book make that possible, what's so terrible about that?  How the hell
>should Spielberg make his money so that it'd more "pure"?  For about five
>decades after the Holocaust--during which time many survivors died--no one
>else managed to cough up any pure or impure money to undertake this kind of
>work.
 
yet these are not the "facts" I am disputing. As a matter of fact, I asked
why is this project not turned out to the public, rather than the calculated
crap which won Best Picture. I am less concerned with Spielberg's actual
intentions, which are, as usual, weakly transmitted in his work, than with
the public sucking that has commenced due to the fact that America's most
popular Jewish filmmaker finally tackled (and I mean tackled) the Holocuast,
so it MUST be good. As for the funding, check Steely's rap on the channeling
of Schindler's profits and DreamWorks clever rape of Los Angeles. $50
stipend? Whoopee! Spielberg is indeed "offering" oral histories to the world,
as davemarc says, but he and his publicity dept., again, are forcefeeding his
quasi-moral movie to us. Personally, I'm sick of seeing his fucking face. 

And davemarc continues:

>For about five
>decades after the Holocaust--during which time many survivors died--no one
>else managed to cough up any pure or impure money to undertake this kind of
>work.

Eh? We are speaking of Shoah only, yes? Ok, you win. But there are countless
works on this subject, and Shoah or no Shaoh, there are countless oral
histories of detention in print today. It's not like it's hidden from public
view. Anyone with half a brain can find material at any low-rate library. My
family made me watch and read endlessly on this subject, before Shoah and
before Schindler's list. 

I still haven't changed my mind that you knee-jerked, even with the good
numbers you put up. Look, I'm happy that Spielberg is doing so much for this
project, but this doesn not take away the crap he's foisting with DreamWorks
or the crap he's foisted upon us in the past. Why isn't this ever talked
about? Because it would be, conveniently, like condemning Schindler for
helping the many he did. I put out the Oscar/Oskar Spielberg/Schindler joke
for a reason: Spielberg is covering his blatant corporatist tracks with this
project and this movie, and I'm sick of it. You should be, too, my man. 

MantaRay

P.S. On this day, MantaRay got a bug up his ass.