0 comment Monday, October 6, 2014 | admin
Again from Western Voices World News, there is a link to this Daily Mail piece about Mel Gibson's planned new Viking movie. I wondered why WVWN was linking to this piece when the article is rather dated, the movie having been announced back in 2009. But WVWN suggests this Gibson movie as an alternative to the controversial Thor movie.
Actually, it probably is not accurate to call the Thor movie 'controversial' when in fact the only controversy consisted of the discussion at WN or race-realist websites and blogs. I read a great many reviews online and virtually nobody, nobody, mentioned the bizarre casting, or the fact of a black actor playing Heimdall, the 'whitest of the gods.' I had to shake my head at the conspicuous absence of any mention of that fact in the reviews and comments; have the PC masses out there become so brainwashed and conditioned that they really, truly do not notice the race of actors in a movie like this? I noted the same thing when reading discussion of the Merlin TV series, in which Guinevere is a black or interracial woman. No one seemed to notice. It's very much like the ''Emperor's New Clothes'' story, in which the people seem to believe they see clothes on the Emperor, and are adamant that the clothes are fine and impressive. In this real-life case, though, it's as though people are agreeing NOT to see something that is glaringly obvious to the rest of us. Are we really at the point where we and our politically correct fellows even differ on what our senses perceive? Are we really the odd ones out because we perceive the obvious reality that was in fact noticed by all our ancestors?
I've said before on this blog that I think we live in an age in which most people have no interest in, nor regard for the truth for its own sake. Most people are not only content, but happy, to say that up is down, east is west, black is white (or that neither black nor White exist, among human beings) -- because they prefer to be part of the majority, the consensus. They don't want to swim against the tide, and will accept lies rather than the uncomfortable truth every time.
And when something is labeled as ''entertainment'' then all matters of accuracy or even verisimilitude are thrown out the window.
So what about Gibson's new movie? I know a lot of people on our side love his movies, seeing him as some kind of kindred soul as far as ethnic consciousness is concerned, even if only implicitly.
The discussion of the Viking movie at the link is interesting to read. It seems that Gibson is perceived by many of the English readers as being anti-English, and some of them said they expected the new movie to stereotype the English and misrepresent history. It appears there is growing ethnoloyalty there or at least some kind of consciousness of English identity.
Gibson does seem to have a grudge against the English. His mother was Irish-born and his family Catholic, so it is not surprising that to him, the English are perennial villains. I noted that in the movie The Patriot; the English were the usual effete and foppish villains in that movie.
The premise of the Viking movie sounds a little divisive, with the Vikings apparently being set up to be depicted as bloodthirsty savages. There is a great deal of this kind of choosing-up sides among pro-Whites these days, with many people reciting how some other White nation or group did their ancestors wrong. Heroes and villains, good guys and bad guys, with little hint of any kind of solidarity. History is more complex than that, and movies invariably reduce everything to stereotypes and caricatures which only foster more resentments and divisiveness.
The usual rejoinder is 'But it's just a movie. No movie is 100 percent accurate. History is too boring; they have to spice it up and make it more dramatic'', etc. Actually I don't buy that. Granted, things tend to happen more slowly in real life; much of life consists of long lulls between dramatic events, not a rapid-fire series of exciting scenes as in movies. But that being said, real life, real history, is to me much more interesting than the cartoon version, or the sensationalized counterfeit presented by most movies. Truth is stranger, and often more interesting, than fiction, which is often predictable and hackneyed, at least when brought to us by Hollywood or TV.
The other argument apologizing for historical inaccuracy in movies is that ''people know it's just a story; they can tell fact from fiction. They understand dramatic license.'' Do they? Maybe they did, at one time. I would say most don't, not in 2011.
I've been in many discussions on the Internet and elsewhere, wherein somebody cites something from a movie as if it is real history, or proof of historical fact. Braveheart is constantly cited by Internet denizens as real Scottish history. The fact that many Americans have come to believe in the PC version of history, with the English as arch-villains, probably aids in the acceptance of Gibson's distortions.
This writer, listing inaccuracies in Braveheart, says
''Many, perhaps even most, of the nobles of Scotland, especially those involved in the wars with England, were not Gaels, but rather were culturally similar to English nobles. These Scottish nobles, and also many lesser land holders, would have dressed more or less like their English counterparts, many of whom were their relatives, and spoken a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French, again like the English nobles. Such were the families of Wallace, Bruce, Balliol, Murray, Stewart, Douglas, Comyn, and many others.''
[...]
There is no reason at all to think that late 13th century Scottish men had "mullet" haircuts from the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or feathers in their hair.
Further, there is no reason at all to think they hadn't ever encountered a comb... [In general, the hairstyles shown for the Scots throughout the film seem to be distinctly late 20th century fantasy in inspiration, influenced by the film "Last of the Mohicans" and the television series "Xena: Warrior Princess" more than by history.]''[emphasis mine]
Those things may be relatively trivial by the standards of some, but what about the depiction of the English as pagans when in fact Christianity was established in England by no later than the 2nd century? Christianity took hold in England before it was established in the rest of Europe.
As for the Vikings vs. the Scots, given Gibson's biases, the Vikings will have to be the double-dyed villains, though when you get right down to the facts, all the peoples of Northwesetern Europe were close kin: Scandinavians, Dutch, Normans, the ''Celts'', the Angles and Saxons. There is little genetic difference among these groups, and their languages show the close kinship. Frisian is said to be the closest language to Old English.
The Scots in fact have been declared to have the most ''Viking'' ancestry of all the British Isles peoples, so it will be rather strange if the Vikings and the Scots are shown as some kind of opposites, as is usually the case with the English and the 'Celts'.
Giving credit where due, although perhaps grudgingly, I will say that it's good that somebody's making a movie that is about our ancestors or kindred peoples. But just this once, I hope he can keep his own biases from coloring the narrative of the movie. And it would be nice to follow historical fact, instead of wresting history to make it fit some predetermined notion. Facts do matter; history is interesting enough in and of itself to justify following facts, rather than inventing fables masquerading as ''history.''
We have to be vigilant about falsified history presented as 'entertainment'; such fiction has deluded so many people in our day. "Knowing'' something that is really a lie is worse by far than utter ignorance. We Western peoples have been manipulated by entertainment to an alarming degree, and we have to learn to be wary and to judge and discern the truth.
Truth matters. We need truth above all else to strengthen us.
Actually, it probably is not accurate to call the Thor movie 'controversial' when in fact the only controversy consisted of the discussion at WN or race-realist websites and blogs. I read a great many reviews online and virtually nobody, nobody, mentioned the bizarre casting, or the fact of a black actor playing Heimdall, the 'whitest of the gods.' I had to shake my head at the conspicuous absence of any mention of that fact in the reviews and comments; have the PC masses out there become so brainwashed and conditioned that they really, truly do not notice the race of actors in a movie like this? I noted the same thing when reading discussion of the Merlin TV series, in which Guinevere is a black or interracial woman. No one seemed to notice. It's very much like the ''Emperor's New Clothes'' story, in which the people seem to believe they see clothes on the Emperor, and are adamant that the clothes are fine and impressive. In this real-life case, though, it's as though people are agreeing NOT to see something that is glaringly obvious to the rest of us. Are we really at the point where we and our politically correct fellows even differ on what our senses perceive? Are we really the odd ones out because we perceive the obvious reality that was in fact noticed by all our ancestors?
I've said before on this blog that I think we live in an age in which most people have no interest in, nor regard for the truth for its own sake. Most people are not only content, but happy, to say that up is down, east is west, black is white (or that neither black nor White exist, among human beings) -- because they prefer to be part of the majority, the consensus. They don't want to swim against the tide, and will accept lies rather than the uncomfortable truth every time.
And when something is labeled as ''entertainment'' then all matters of accuracy or even verisimilitude are thrown out the window.
So what about Gibson's new movie? I know a lot of people on our side love his movies, seeing him as some kind of kindred soul as far as ethnic consciousness is concerned, even if only implicitly.
The discussion of the Viking movie at the link is interesting to read. It seems that Gibson is perceived by many of the English readers as being anti-English, and some of them said they expected the new movie to stereotype the English and misrepresent history. It appears there is growing ethnoloyalty there or at least some kind of consciousness of English identity.
Gibson does seem to have a grudge against the English. His mother was Irish-born and his family Catholic, so it is not surprising that to him, the English are perennial villains. I noted that in the movie The Patriot; the English were the usual effete and foppish villains in that movie.
The premise of the Viking movie sounds a little divisive, with the Vikings apparently being set up to be depicted as bloodthirsty savages. There is a great deal of this kind of choosing-up sides among pro-Whites these days, with many people reciting how some other White nation or group did their ancestors wrong. Heroes and villains, good guys and bad guys, with little hint of any kind of solidarity. History is more complex than that, and movies invariably reduce everything to stereotypes and caricatures which only foster more resentments and divisiveness.
The usual rejoinder is 'But it's just a movie. No movie is 100 percent accurate. History is too boring; they have to spice it up and make it more dramatic'', etc. Actually I don't buy that. Granted, things tend to happen more slowly in real life; much of life consists of long lulls between dramatic events, not a rapid-fire series of exciting scenes as in movies. But that being said, real life, real history, is to me much more interesting than the cartoon version, or the sensationalized counterfeit presented by most movies. Truth is stranger, and often more interesting, than fiction, which is often predictable and hackneyed, at least when brought to us by Hollywood or TV.
The other argument apologizing for historical inaccuracy in movies is that ''people know it's just a story; they can tell fact from fiction. They understand dramatic license.'' Do they? Maybe they did, at one time. I would say most don't, not in 2011.
I've been in many discussions on the Internet and elsewhere, wherein somebody cites something from a movie as if it is real history, or proof of historical fact. Braveheart is constantly cited by Internet denizens as real Scottish history. The fact that many Americans have come to believe in the PC version of history, with the English as arch-villains, probably aids in the acceptance of Gibson's distortions.
This writer, listing inaccuracies in Braveheart, says
''Many, perhaps even most, of the nobles of Scotland, especially those involved in the wars with England, were not Gaels, but rather were culturally similar to English nobles. These Scottish nobles, and also many lesser land holders, would have dressed more or less like their English counterparts, many of whom were their relatives, and spoken a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French, again like the English nobles. Such were the families of Wallace, Bruce, Balliol, Murray, Stewart, Douglas, Comyn, and many others.''
[...]
There is no reason at all to think that late 13th century Scottish men had "mullet" haircuts from the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or feathers in their hair.
Further, there is no reason at all to think they hadn't ever encountered a comb... [In general, the hairstyles shown for the Scots throughout the film seem to be distinctly late 20th century fantasy in inspiration, influenced by the film "Last of the Mohicans" and the television series "Xena: Warrior Princess" more than by history.]''[emphasis mine]
Those things may be relatively trivial by the standards of some, but what about the depiction of the English as pagans when in fact Christianity was established in England by no later than the 2nd century? Christianity took hold in England before it was established in the rest of Europe.
As for the Vikings vs. the Scots, given Gibson's biases, the Vikings will have to be the double-dyed villains, though when you get right down to the facts, all the peoples of Northwesetern Europe were close kin: Scandinavians, Dutch, Normans, the ''Celts'', the Angles and Saxons. There is little genetic difference among these groups, and their languages show the close kinship. Frisian is said to be the closest language to Old English.
The Scots in fact have been declared to have the most ''Viking'' ancestry of all the British Isles peoples, so it will be rather strange if the Vikings and the Scots are shown as some kind of opposites, as is usually the case with the English and the 'Celts'.
Giving credit where due, although perhaps grudgingly, I will say that it's good that somebody's making a movie that is about our ancestors or kindred peoples. But just this once, I hope he can keep his own biases from coloring the narrative of the movie. And it would be nice to follow historical fact, instead of wresting history to make it fit some predetermined notion. Facts do matter; history is interesting enough in and of itself to justify following facts, rather than inventing fables masquerading as ''history.''
We have to be vigilant about falsified history presented as 'entertainment'; such fiction has deluded so many people in our day. "Knowing'' something that is really a lie is worse by far than utter ignorance. We Western peoples have been manipulated by entertainment to an alarming degree, and we have to learn to be wary and to judge and discern the truth.
Truth matters. We need truth above all else to strengthen us.
Labels: British History, Entertainment, Films, Popular Culture