0 comment Monday, November 24, 2014 | admin
It appears that the story that was going around, regarding Jamie Foxx playing Frank Sinatra in an upcoming movie, was just a joke which the media ran with.
Was this really a joke, or was it a set-up? In today's insane media universe, almost anything is possible, especially where far-fetched racial ''statements'' are contained in much of our purported entertainment.
The rumor was not all that hard to believe, considering that modern treatments of the Robin Hood story place blacks in Sherwood Forest, not to mention Moslems, and a recent Oliver Twist production was to have a black ''Nancy''. What next?
Is this just another example of lefty multicultists trying to 'push the envelope' with the racial agenda? It seems as if nothing is to be left untouched by the politically correct meddlers, who feel the need to administer the diversity makeover to any and every part of our culture.
The recent Star Trek movie seems, from what I have read and heard, to be pushing the racial envelope too, but then the series always did that, even way back in 1966 when it first began. Of course then it was a little more low-key, with the underlying message being 'isn't it wonderful that in the future, we will all get along and work together as one united people under a unified global government.' Of course now we have had a glimpse of that possible future, and it is not the utopia some of us wanted to believe it would be.
The one ironic twist to the cozy little Star Trek multicult universe is this: if the idea is that the future will be egalitarian and colorblind, with racial harmony prevailing, why then are there still identifiable races and nationalities? Why aren't the people in Starfleet all of the same color and of similar features and hair texture? Why are there still hideously White people like Kyle or Janice Rand or Nurse Chapel or McCoy? Obviously the racial blender broke down, or something, between our age and the enlightened future.
The idea, though, that so many people were willing and able to believe that Jamie Foxx would play Frank Sinatra shows just how bizarre our racial politics have become. It appears that many people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that ''race is just a social construct'', or that it's in the (racist) eye of the beholder only.
So maybe it is not so far-fetched that a White icon might be played by a black actor in a movie. If it is not real today, it probably will be at some point, tomorrow or next month or next year. That's the direction in which we are going.
The whole surreal situation reminded me of a movie I saw some years ago. It was a 1993 movie called 'Suture.'
I've mentioned it and I've never encountered anybody who actually saw it, so I might be tempted to think it was all just a strange dream, but no, here it is at IMDB.com, being discussed by the liberal-leaning commenters there.
The plot of the movie, as best I can describe it, is that two brothers or half-brothers meet, after which one is killed, and his identity stolen by the second brother. The twist is that one brother is black, the other is White. Yet in the movie everybody believes the identity switch. The fact that the brothers were of two different races and resembled each other not at all is not noticed by anybody.
What could the point be? That race is not important? That if we, the audience, noticed the racial difference, we are racist? Who knows? The commenters don't even know, and the tone of their comments amuses me:
The concept of all reality being a facade and prey to the unexpected warpings of fate, accident and whimsical doom-laden coincidence is a fundamental aspect of noir. With the twist of no one actually making the obvious connection between the brother's difference and Dennis Haysbert's character Clay gradually absorbing the life of his (not) dead brother without incident, the surreality of the film is magnetically compulsive and as noirish as some of the best films of the 1940s and 50s in dreamy, menacing atmosphere. I found myself deeply caring what happened to Clay on his odyssey towards a (false) identity and finally claiming it.
The whole cast is good, but in this film Dennis Haysbert shows the gravita s and dignity and vulnerability that makes him the real star of the excellent TV thriller '24'. A landmark film of the '90s gone unnoticed!
[...]
The first time I watched "Suture", in 1994, it ripped through me like some kind of high speed extra-terrestrial spacecraft, and I found myself asking, "What was that?" A year later I watched it again and the whole thing began to make sense. This film is unapologetically bizarre, mysterious, and aesthetically engaging -- almost everything I desire in a film. It is more like a piece of music, becoming more enjoyable with each viewing. One reason for the films superb milage is that it can be enjoyed on so many different levels. It is both a mirror image of contemporary society and a message from some alternative universe. The Surrealists made the point that the transcendent is found in the mundane, and "Suture" wallows in the mundane.
[...]
Viewers will not find themselves concerned with such trivia as performances, costumes, cinematography or sets, but rather issues, questions and statements. Issues such as self-awareness, questions such as: "Can we become someone else?", and statements such as: "Skin colour has no relevance to the identification of self". In their black and white feature, McGehee and Siegel fail to differentiate between and African/American man and a man of European descent. We're concerned not with the physical here, but the meta-physical.
As for the answers to these conundrums, one can only reach one's own conclusions. For me though, the personal soul is unchangeable and cannot be interchanged for another's. We may take someone's place, but we cannot become who they are.''
It's strange to see these people dancing around the issue of race while not really touching it. It's as if they have an unspoken agreement not to notice the racial issue.
Only one comment on that page raised the obvious question:
So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!
The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.
Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.
If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.''
That last comment is very like the little boy in the Andersen fairy tale ''The Emperor's New Clothes.'' He is the only one who breaks the taboo and points to the obvious, while the others are blinding themselves. This is very much the state of our society, with a large segment of our White population agreeing to ignore the obvious, and to admire something which is not there, something which is only a construct of their minds.
Race-blindness is a social construct.
When I saw ''Suture'' back in 1995 or so, I found it absurd, but now it is becoming more and more plausible. In the context of today's willful race-blindness, in a world in which Ralph Kramden has become black and Morgan Freeman fits into medieval England, anything is possible, including a black Frank Sinatra.
Was this really a joke, or was it a set-up? In today's insane media universe, almost anything is possible, especially where far-fetched racial ''statements'' are contained in much of our purported entertainment.
The rumor was not all that hard to believe, considering that modern treatments of the Robin Hood story place blacks in Sherwood Forest, not to mention Moslems, and a recent Oliver Twist production was to have a black ''Nancy''. What next?
Is this just another example of lefty multicultists trying to 'push the envelope' with the racial agenda? It seems as if nothing is to be left untouched by the politically correct meddlers, who feel the need to administer the diversity makeover to any and every part of our culture.
The recent Star Trek movie seems, from what I have read and heard, to be pushing the racial envelope too, but then the series always did that, even way back in 1966 when it first began. Of course then it was a little more low-key, with the underlying message being 'isn't it wonderful that in the future, we will all get along and work together as one united people under a unified global government.' Of course now we have had a glimpse of that possible future, and it is not the utopia some of us wanted to believe it would be.
The one ironic twist to the cozy little Star Trek multicult universe is this: if the idea is that the future will be egalitarian and colorblind, with racial harmony prevailing, why then are there still identifiable races and nationalities? Why aren't the people in Starfleet all of the same color and of similar features and hair texture? Why are there still hideously White people like Kyle or Janice Rand or Nurse Chapel or McCoy? Obviously the racial blender broke down, or something, between our age and the enlightened future.
The idea, though, that so many people were willing and able to believe that Jamie Foxx would play Frank Sinatra shows just how bizarre our racial politics have become. It appears that many people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that ''race is just a social construct'', or that it's in the (racist) eye of the beholder only.
So maybe it is not so far-fetched that a White icon might be played by a black actor in a movie. If it is not real today, it probably will be at some point, tomorrow or next month or next year. That's the direction in which we are going.
The whole surreal situation reminded me of a movie I saw some years ago. It was a 1993 movie called 'Suture.'
I've mentioned it and I've never encountered anybody who actually saw it, so I might be tempted to think it was all just a strange dream, but no, here it is at IMDB.com, being discussed by the liberal-leaning commenters there.
The plot of the movie, as best I can describe it, is that two brothers or half-brothers meet, after which one is killed, and his identity stolen by the second brother. The twist is that one brother is black, the other is White. Yet in the movie everybody believes the identity switch. The fact that the brothers were of two different races and resembled each other not at all is not noticed by anybody.
What could the point be? That race is not important? That if we, the audience, noticed the racial difference, we are racist? Who knows? The commenters don't even know, and the tone of their comments amuses me:
The concept of all reality being a facade and prey to the unexpected warpings of fate, accident and whimsical doom-laden coincidence is a fundamental aspect of noir. With the twist of no one actually making the obvious connection between the brother's difference and Dennis Haysbert's character Clay gradually absorbing the life of his (not) dead brother without incident, the surreality of the film is magnetically compulsive and as noirish as some of the best films of the 1940s and 50s in dreamy, menacing atmosphere. I found myself deeply caring what happened to Clay on his odyssey towards a (false) identity and finally claiming it.
The whole cast is good, but in this film Dennis Haysbert shows the gravita s and dignity and vulnerability that makes him the real star of the excellent TV thriller '24'. A landmark film of the '90s gone unnoticed!
[...]
The first time I watched "Suture", in 1994, it ripped through me like some kind of high speed extra-terrestrial spacecraft, and I found myself asking, "What was that?" A year later I watched it again and the whole thing began to make sense. This film is unapologetically bizarre, mysterious, and aesthetically engaging -- almost everything I desire in a film. It is more like a piece of music, becoming more enjoyable with each viewing. One reason for the films superb milage is that it can be enjoyed on so many different levels. It is both a mirror image of contemporary society and a message from some alternative universe. The Surrealists made the point that the transcendent is found in the mundane, and "Suture" wallows in the mundane.
[...]
Viewers will not find themselves concerned with such trivia as performances, costumes, cinematography or sets, but rather issues, questions and statements. Issues such as self-awareness, questions such as: "Can we become someone else?", and statements such as: "Skin colour has no relevance to the identification of self". In their black and white feature, McGehee and Siegel fail to differentiate between and African/American man and a man of European descent. We're concerned not with the physical here, but the meta-physical.
As for the answers to these conundrums, one can only reach one's own conclusions. For me though, the personal soul is unchangeable and cannot be interchanged for another's. We may take someone's place, but we cannot become who they are.''
It's strange to see these people dancing around the issue of race while not really touching it. It's as if they have an unspoken agreement not to notice the racial issue.
Only one comment on that page raised the obvious question:
So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!
The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.
Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.
If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.''
That last comment is very like the little boy in the Andersen fairy tale ''The Emperor's New Clothes.'' He is the only one who breaks the taboo and points to the obvious, while the others are blinding themselves. This is very much the state of our society, with a large segment of our White population agreeing to ignore the obvious, and to admire something which is not there, something which is only a construct of their minds.
Race-blindness is a social construct.
When I saw ''Suture'' back in 1995 or so, I found it absurd, but now it is becoming more and more plausible. In the context of today's willful race-blindness, in a world in which Ralph Kramden has become black and Morgan Freeman fits into medieval England, anything is possible, including a black Frank Sinatra.
Labels: Entertainment Media, Liberals, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial