Lars Von Trier

[socketlevel]

He clearly starting fucking with the reporter's stupid questions early, and he just got on a roll; sadly it seems to be something he doesn't know how to stop. Kind of like that kid that doesn't get too much attention, but then gets it and doesn't know when to end the joke because he's been longing for other people's attention and laughter. He needs attention because he needs love and acceptance.

It first started with the porn film he was talking about and poking fun at Christianity. This is something that could have been attacked as well, yet it's less sensitive a topic. There is an over protective attitude, which reinforces an age old taboo, when Jews are brought up in most conversations. It's this need to polarize that issue that he is attacking. Scattered in his joke about the Nazis you can see him bring up points of contention regarding Jewish history.  He's saying it in a way, intentionally, to try and get out of the answer by giving examples of how various Jewish people or governments have done bad things and doesn't make it all cut and dry.

It's like he goes "hey I'm a Nazi, oh wait no I'm not. I'm not because of... (insert topic). oh wait that's not a good reason to say I'm not a Nazi. it's actually because of this... (insert second topic). that's not good either!"

I found it hilarious and poignant. Evil people exist on all sides. Nazis were horrible, but some others could take advantage of sympathies that followed the 2nd world war to push their own hatred under the guise of other people's guilt. America did this many many times in the 60s riding the ethical superiority from the 2nd world war. the second time in Iraq was the implementation of a similar sentiment and tactic because of a contemporary tragedy.

In the same way it would not be appropriate to call contemporary German people Nazis, it's just as equally inappropriate to look over Israel's actions (more specifically some people in their government) because a stigma of innocence from what happened 70 years ago.  

I thought it was great, he's obviously fucking around. The reaction that followed is everything that's wrong with reporting and mob mentality.  Journalists looking to push agendas for the sake of a story. He's clearly not a Nazi, he just doesn't like how a journalist was baiting him because he might like some Nazi aesthetics. Aesthetics have nothing to do with hatred, they are rather the methods of conveying said hatred.  people need to separate those kind of things.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I'm not sure the reporter was actually baiting him (didn't she say "Germanic?") and I don't think he was too upset. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. He did just kind of get lost in the whole thing, and although there's some undeniable cleverness in his performance, it would be a mistake to think this was a significantly purposeful statement. He was just playing around.

The lies and misrepresentation about this incident are beyond absurd. Don't journalists go to journalism school anymore? Did they actually watch the source material?

Possibly more disgraceful are the artists who have reached out to throw him under the bus. I doubt they've watched the video either.

And you're absolutely right about the Israel/Jewish issue. It's the most annoying political issue in the United States. The Israeli lobby (in lobbying for its own political/military ends, not for Jews) has made it seem like anti-Semitism is one of the most pressing issues in the world and that a new holocaust could be right around the corner. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and it needs to stop.

[Pas]

a new holocaust could be right around the corner. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, and it needs to stop.

I will make a thousand ennemies here but...

It's not ridiculous at all, it's true. Put a H-Bomb/WMD in the hands of Syria/Hamas and wave Israel goodbye.

They have sworn this a thousand times.

People who hate Israel are anti-semitic and would likely (not 100%) be Nazis if we were in 1935. Especially since anti-isreal folks are often left-wing just like Hitler and Nazis (please don't say Hitler was a right-wing guy, there is not a single element in his politics supporting that lie. Because right-wing americans are often racists doesn't mean it's linked. That's like saying orange juice causes divorce because people who get divorced drink it.)

It's the only way to explain taking the side of ''tyrants who stone to death rape victims for being whores'' vs ''people who have democratic values like us''

I mean it takes a serious amount of self-righteousness to take the side of sharia lovers and then complain about woman equality in america. In the sharia you can divorce at will, you can beat the shit out of your wife, pour boiling oil on her face if you like.

Jews are so mean..........................

[Jeremy Blackman]

Wow...

Should we go down this rabbit hole?

[Stefen]

[Pas]

Wow...

Should we go down this rabbit hole?

Haha throw it all at me ;)

I edited my earlier post a little btw... 17% more inflamatory now!

[socketlevel]

Wow...

Should we go down this rabbit hole?

Nope cuz it's the opposite end of the spectrum we both agreed on. Pas you're just polarizing it the other way.

JB i think you might be right about the baiting issue, but maybe not. She did say Nazi near the end of her question. It's only baiting to me because it had nothing to do with the rest of the press conference. My guess is she asked that question to see how crazy his answer would be, especially considering his cannes press conference for ANTICHRIST. the TIFF conference was interesting as well, so i have a feeling all the journalists know this and it takes very little to get something good.

[Jeremy Blackman]

people who have democratic values like us

I would recommend reevaluating Israel's "values." They hold democratic elections? Great, let's give them an award. So has Palestine, and so do many, many other countries in the world. And last time I checked, Sweden for example was not building settlements in Norway to try to expand its borders.

People who hate Israel are anti-semitic and would likely (not 100%) be Nazis if we were in 1935.

Haha, nice edit there, but honestly you really should have scrapped the sentence completely. You're sort of insulting the intelligence of anyone who reads that. I don't think it warrants a response (even after the edit), but I see what you're trying to do, so I'll bite.

"Jew" and "Israeli" are not synonymous, nor are "Jews" and "Israelis," nor are anti-Semitism and disagreeing with what Israel (the state) does. I sincerely hope the absurdity of what you've tried to do here is clear to you. If it's not, please log off for a day or two and come back when you're ready to have a rational conversation.

In review: you're comparing (A) people who might disagree with a country's political/military policies with (B) genocidal/muderous/racist Nazis. No. Just no.

please don't say Hitler was a right-wing guy, there is not a single element in his politics supporting that lie

- Authoritarianism
- Imperialism
- Legitimacy through religion
- Militarism
- Eugenics
- Racism, Homophobia, etc.
- Racial segregation
- Social Darwinism
- Anti-Egalitarianism
- Corporatism
- Anti-Intellectualism

It's not ridiculous at all, it's true. Put a H-Bomb/WMD in the hands of Syria/Hamas and wave Israel goodbye.

They have sworn this a thousand times.

Yes, I'm sure Hamas wants to detonate a nuclear weapon in their own backyard, in the country they want to inhabit. That makes sense.

Have you looked at what Hamas actually said at their most extreme? "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine." Liberation does not mean "blow the whole thing up." It means take the country for Palestine. Crazy? Yes. Holocaust? No.

Hamas and other groups are certainly political or military enemies of Israel. (Israel, making enemies? But how?) However, the connecting line between this and holocaust just doesn't exist.

The most important point here is that, again, you're trying to turn a political matter into a specifically racial one. Do you really think Palestinians are upset with Jews because of, what, how they look, or any number of stereotypes? Do Palestinians believe they are the Master Race? Does the Palestinian agenda involve seeking out Jews in other countries, just to kill them because they are racially Jewish?

Of course not. Your argument is complete garbage. Palestinians have a very specific territorial grievance, and bringing the holocaust anywhere near that is probably more offensive than anything the press thinks Lars Von Trier said.

[Pas]

The ''likely to be Nazis'' was a semi-joke jab on my part, hehe. But what you write is also full of holes... I added examples beside each of your points to show it's left wing as much as right wing

- Authoritarianism (Stalin? Pol Pot? Fidel Castro?)
- Imperialism (the Soviets did none of that of course...)
- Legitimacy through religion (Atheism is a form of religion in the way the soviets preached it)
- Militarism (Soviets?!!!)
- Eugenics (SOVIETS! Oh my good the Olympics back in the days)
- Racism, Homophobia, etc. (Pol Pot)
- Racial segregation (Pol Pot)
- Social Darwinism (Pol Pot, Soviets)
- Anti-Egalitarianism (''Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others'' soviet type thing)
- Corporatism (All corporations in Nazi Germany were puppets and/or completely dependant of the central state. All White Germany industrialists went broke if they didn't side with the State)
- Anti-Intellectualism (Hitler loved intellectuals and was arguably one himself)

What you listed are traits of craziness and anti-freedom type of personalities. They are found left and right. (mostly left but whatever)

Yes, I'm sure Hamas wants to detonate a nuclear weapon in their own backyard, in the country they want to inhabit. That makes sense. Have you looked at what Hamas actually said at their most extreme? "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine." Liberation does not mean "blow the whole thing up." It means take the country for Palestine. Crazy? Yes. Holocaust? No. Hamas and other groups are certainly political or military enemies of Israel. (Israel, making enemies? But how?) However, the connecting line between this and holocaust just doesn't exist. The most important point here is that, again, you're trying to turn a political matter into a specifically racial one. Do you really think Palestinians are upset with Jews because of, what, how they look, or any number of stereotypes? Do Palestinians believe they are the Master Race? Does the Palestinian agenda involve seeking out Jews in other countries, just to kill them because they are racially Jewish?

Who uses their civilians as human shields and bait to make the enemy look bad? Which side promotes the beating and humiliation of women?

Palestine always play nice in front of occidentals and then in their local speeches they pledge the annihilation of Israel. This is not propaganda. To separate themselves from Hitler, they stopped calling Jews Jews and now call them Zionists. That is such a wonderful play on their part, bravo.

Their LAUGHABLE claim to that territory is also stupid. The territory was given to Israel, but before the first world war that territory was Ottoman Empire. If any side has any legitimate ancestral claim to that land it's the Jews, both I could agree that none of them have.

Basically I can't defend any country/nation/culture that promotes SHARIA law and that encourages people to beat their wife to a pulp when she speaks out of order.

Edit: I'm sure you're not like : ''well I for one love my women degraded! go Palestine go!'' but it's just a side fact that occidentals choose to ignore about Sharia followers.
edit2: I don't think you're a nazi i was kidding
edit3: I think you're good even if I don't agree with you (Putdown Pas!)

[Jeremy Blackman]

But what you write is also full of holes... I added examples beside each of your points to show it's left wing as much as right wing

You know, I almost didn't respond to this part because I thought you might be baiting me into a completely unrelated semantic debate (which seems to be the case), and I'm truly not that interested in nailing anything down as "right" or "left," because of the very exceptions you named.

But notice that now you're responding to an argument I never made.

Your argument was "Nazis were not right-wing." My response was a list of traits most commonly associated with the right, which the Nazis shared. All your follow-up response does is show that some authoritarians who had left-wing economic policies were right-wing in every other regard. It's not even close to being black and white, left and right. The whole thing is pretty much pointless, and I have no idea why I played along.

- Corporatism (All corporations in Nazi Germany were puppets and/or completely dependant of the central state. All White Germany industrialists went broke if they didn't side with the State)

Yes, that is Corporatism.

To separate themselves from Hitler, they stopped calling Jews Jews and now call them Zionists. That is such a wonderful play on their part, bravo.

"Zionist" is also a word. And it can be used, accurately, to describe people with a certain agenda. If anything, it's more accurate/respectful and stripped of racial implications. Really not sure what your point is there.

Basically I can't defend any country/nation/culture that promotes SHARIA law

So this is your logic?

1. [Group of people] has laws with which I disagree.
2. Whatever is happening to [group of people] is therefore acceptable, I dunno, in some cosmic way. They're savages; might as well treat them savagely.
3. [Group of people] may also be Nazis.

Their LAUGHABLE claim to that territory is also stupid. The territory was given to Israel, but before the first world war that territory was Ottoman Empire. If any side has any legitimate ancestral claim to that land it's the Jews, both I could agree that none of them have.

The Ottoman Empire ruled Israel, but its occupants were mostly Arabs. It wasn't an empty country. And I'm not sure who had any right to "give" it to anyone other than its actual occupants. Right, so because we want our own state, let's suddenly correct a historical wrong from 1,379 years ago with another wrong? That makes sense.

It's 2011... what are we doing talking about "ancestral claims?" Do you know how many ancestral claims could be made? Should Native Americans, for example, lay claim to North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and drive out all the whites? Why not? That wasn't even close to 1,379 years ago; that land belonged to them much more recently. We could re-draw borders throughout most of the world. If ancestral claims are of this much importance, let's get to work.

[Pas]

Sadly for stefen's popcorn eaters this can't be a good debate because we look at the same thing and see two completely different things. Corporatism is a great example of this as we both agree as to what it is, both think it's a great ennemy AND yet we can never fight it TOGETHER because what I think causes it you think cures it and vice versa.

Freaky yeah?

[picolas]

WHERE WERE ALL THESE REPORTERS WHEN THIS HAPPENED???? oh right, LAUGHING OUT OF SHEER TERROR. THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO REPORT THE REAL MONSTER OF CANNES. MORE LIKE BAN PITT.

[polkablues]

More like Adolph Pittler, am I right?

[Sleepless]

Bradolf Pittler. And his initials are BP. Maybe it is the end of the world.

[MacGuffin]

Lars von Trier Responds to Iranian Culture Minister’s Criticism of Cannes
by Peter Knegt: indieWIRE

Lars von Trier has released a response to a letter the Iranian Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari released to Persian media outlets Monday that criticized the Cannes Film Festival’s decision to declare the director “persona non grata”, after his controversial press conference comments. “Surely you remember that the Cannes festival was established with the aim of struggling against fascists,” Shamaqdari wrote in the letter. “After 64 years, it is sad to see the traces of fascist behavior in the Cannes organizers’ decision to expel one of the acclaimed European filmmakers… Perhaps it is necessary to provide a new definition of freedom of speech for encyclopedias. Otherwise, the behavior Cannes exhibited toward Von Trier by forcing him to apologize several times causes everybody to recall the churches’ medieval treatment of Galileo.” Shamaqdari continued by noting that the Cannes Film Festival has “left a dark stain on its history.” After issuing a brief apology during the festival, Shamaqdari’s letter has resulted in a more extensive statement from von Trier, which was released to the media Tuesday:

In connection with the Iranian Vice Minister of Culture Javad Shamaqdari’s letter to the Cannes Film Festival regarding the “Persona non grata” stamping of my personality, I feel called to make the following comment:

In my opinion, freedom of speech, in all its shapes, is part of the basic human rights. However, my comments during the festival’s press conference were unintelligent, ambiguous and needlessly hurtful. My intended point was that the potential for extreme cruelty, or the opposite, lies within every human being, whatever nationality, ethnicity, rank or religion. If we only explain historical disasters with the cruelty of individuals we destroy the possibility of understanding the human mechanisms, which in turn are necessary in order to avoid any future crimes against humanity.

Lars von Trier