 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.128.235
2006 film from Netherland about life in Holland at the tail end of WWII and the German occupation. We've seen WWII films depicting France, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, why not Holland. This is allegedly based upon a true story. Femme Fatale, played by a very sexy Carise van Houten, is a Jewish woman who is informed by a local police officer that the Germans will be rounding her and her boyfriend up the next day, and that he is orchestrating the escape of other Jews, meet him back here tomorrow, etc.
Things do not go as planned, watch the film to find out why, and she soon finds herself among the Dutch resistance. She dyes her hair blond, complete with dying her pubic hair, and she is now a bona fide German. On a train smuggling contraband, she placed the goods next to an SS officer, cozies up to him using her wiles, discovers he is an avid stamp collector, and escapes discovery from the stormtroopers.
She is soon asked to infiltrate the local SS officer's headquarters. She some becomes romantically involved with the SS officer, who, using his keen eyesight to see her roots, concludes that she is Jewish, but, hey, she is hot, the sex is good, so why not? She developes affectionate feelings for him, and he, in turn, attempts to negotiate the continued survival of resistance prisoners for no more terrorist attacks.
However, a rescue attempt goes horribly wrong, and it becomes clear that there is a mole in the resistance. They blame her. The Nazis discover who she is, and now she is wanted by both sides.
The film works on so many levels. On the one hand, we learn a little of the German occupation in Holland, and the resistance in that country. The story works as a very tight thriller. More than one time during the film I found my heart beating fast as our heroine escaped a tight situation, or I was wondering whether one of the sadistic Nazis commanders found her out, and, during some scenes where they were singing, whether he would or would not lower the boom on her. The film also works as a good love story - this Jewish woman whose family was murdered by the Nazis, falls in love with a Nazi SS officer, who eventually is willing to risk his life for her. It is also a good whodunnit, as we wait to see who was the mole in the resistance, and what is in store for them.
The film runs about 2 hours, 20 minutes. Eventually, the allied forces, led by Canada, take over Holland. Curiously, the Canadian military allowed Nazi leaders to give them advice, and carried out Nazi military executions. This left me a little incredulous, as I would have suspected that anyone in a Nazi uniform would have been immediately incarcerated. I guess I am not as understanding as the Canadians.
The last act of the film sees some turn of events, the discovery of the spy, etc. More information would be spoil the film. I did feel that the ending was a little truncated, as a lot gets wrapped up in a little time. I cannot help but feel the last act was edited to get the film down to a certain run time. But it did not spoil a very good film.
The film was directed and co-written by Paul Verhoeven - the gent who brought us Showgirls - what I think may have been the worst film I have seen, until I saw 'Because I Said So' last week. The film is in German, subtitled, and a complete departure from his prior work on these shores, which includes Basic Instinct, the underrated Total Recall, and the goofy fun of Starship Troopers. I am not sure how long this film was germinating in his head, but he pulled out a dandy.
The acting is very good. The actors are able to build real suspense, and do not rely on a soundtrack, or special effects. The material provides the suspense, and they do not overplay their hand. And did I mention that Ms. van Houten is very sexy? Highly recommended.
Follow Ups:
nt
Coincident to your parenthetical comment on "Because I Said So" I had put this on last night and lasted about 10 minutes. Truly horrible.
I watched the entire film. Something about me refuses to quit even on a bad film. I delude myself into thinking that it will get better. It just has to. That usually does happen. After the film is over.
Is is just me who thinks that Dianne Keaton is reduced to playing the same role over and over, all of them derived from the same annoying person? Although she has aged very well.
with an SS officer. No, these are not guys who were wishy-washy Nazis, these were the most sadistic of a sadistic lot.
Of course, since our heroine fell in love with him, he has to be a Nazi with great heart, who decides, after a life of killing Jews, that he loves one and so he's ready to lead a new life!
"I didn't mean sending off those hundreds to the ovens! I didn't really enjoy torturing, either!"
Pity, because there were some good moments.
Okay, one or two.
"No, these are not guys who were wishy-washy Nazis, these were the most sadistic of a sadistic lot."
Please. The Nazis were not the deranged "ghoulies" seen in Schindler's List. Fascists are not the Three Stooges with a "kick me" signs on their backs. Schindler's List was the movie all real Nazis waited for. By making the Nazis out to be Charles Manson or Ichi the Killer types, nobody is a Nazi.
The simple fact is that no leader in America or Europe objected to the "final solution" as long as the Nazis kept a lid on it. Britain could have saved half a million Jews, but replied, "What should we do with half a million Jews?"
I do agree that racism and bigotry are the biggest evils of the world. But there's no difference between the Nazis and the people in the American south who supported segregation in the 1960s. But somehow a noose in a tree is just a harmless prank, while a swastika on a synagogue is a hate crime.
Anything can happen between and man and a woman. Remember Fiennes relationship with his "Jewish whore" as he fought his emotions to fall in love against his sworn duties to hate the same?
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
the Jewish lover meet a rather unpleasant end?
Schtupping a prisoner and falling in love means you're an okay guy? It certainly didn't stop him from using Jews for target practice or running the camp, did it?
Besides, Black Book had the absolute dumbest premise of recent filmdom. She and all those brilliant guys couldn't guess there was an informant and who it was?
Hey, I'm not the brightest bulb, known among my friends as the guy least likely to solve a whodunit, but I guessed the guilty guy about three minutes into the betrayal.
"Besides, Black Book had the absolute dumbest premise of recent filmdom. She and all those brilliant guys couldn't guess there was an informant and who it was?"
Man, your obtuseness is unbelievable. The resistance, and the audience, learns of a betrayal when the Nazi nut pulls the wire from behind the picture. WE ARE WATCHING THE FILM AND SEE HER BEING HELD CAPTIVE BY THE NAZIS AS THEY ARE PULLING THE WIRE FROM THE PAINTING, TALKING TO THE RESISTANCE INTO THE MICROPHONE. THE RESISTANCE DOES NOT SEE THIS (they apparently forgot to look into the camera), AND THINK THAT SHE HAS SQUEALED, AND THAT HER CRIES WITH HER MOUTH CUPPED IS ACTUALLY LAUGHTER. THEY THOUGHT THEY KNEW THE RAT AND DID NOT NEED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE.
Now, do you think you can figure out, since I spelled it out for you, why the resistance did not know the identity of the rat while the audience had a fighting chance? Tin, you must try to remember that the characters in the film are not actually watching the film contemporaneously with us.
that episode.
But we're not characters, are we?
It was painfully obvious to the viewer, or at least this one, which was my point.
Actually, the guy was shown to be so unctuous a non-cretin could see it in his first scene.
I like the way you seize on one point, trying to ignore the other ten barbs poking into your face.
I am beginning to think we are dealing with a fifteen year old prankster who has seized control of the family computer while mom and dad are asleep.
Your first post contained but one barb, to wit: how could this woman fall in love with a sadistic Nazi. Well, the story is presumably based upon true events, so I guess the answer to your query is to contact her and ask her yourself, if she is still alive. Or perhaps one of her children. But that critism is not a critism of the film, assuming it simply recorded a true event, but rather a critism of her choice in lovers. That you cannot see the distinction tells me you cannot deviate from the script of your reference book "How to Sound Smart to Those Who Do Not Know You."
Which you did not substantively respond to.
Your second post, in response to Mr. Grits, contained your second barb, to wit: They could not guess who the informant was. To which I responded that they did guess, they guessed wrong, and that their guess was reasonable in light of the information available to them, as opposed to the audience.
Again, you did not substantively respond to.
Your third post was merely anothe version of the first, to wit: the filmmakers made the SS officer too sympathetic. To which I responded that, well, how do know? Perhaps he was sympathetic. If your world view is that all Nazis are the same, all sadistic killers, and there is no room for any belief that maybe some had a glimmer of compassion, then your issue is not with the film, but rather with yourself. Perhaps you need to learn more. By the way, what did you think of Hogan's Heroes?
I, as usual, substantively address your posts, whereas you merely restate the same old statements, incapable of supporting your ideas with facts, or analysis.
And please point out the ten barbs to which you referring that I am ignoring. I count three barbs, all of which I responded to. Three more than you have. You brilliant retorts are limited to telling me to cuddle with my Adolph doll. Now I know why your wife supports you.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
Rather than discuss the film, you would prefer to discuss the film's content. Okay. Fine. First, let's begin with the premise that the film is based upon real events. So, are you suggesting that the apparent fact that the heroine fell in love with a Nazi SS officer was not true? Are you suggesting that she dreamed the entire thing up, because, well, she would never let herself fall in love with an SS officer? Are you suggesting that her falling in love never happened, that this was a screenwriter's fantasy, designed to make the film more "exciting?" Odd. Since you seemed to advocate the very same thing only a few posts below.
So, I am not sure what you mean by courage, if the film merely recounts the events that took place. Indeed, it would seem, to you, that the film was really courageous, in that it humanized an SS officer. Certainly, contrary to popular prejudice. Having written that, the film clearly takes a position on the kid glove treatment of certain Nazis after the fall of the Third Reich.
Now, try to follow this analysis. If it really happened, and she really fell in love with an SS officer, because, well, sometimes love is not planned, and just happens. Maybe you married for a practical reason like money, so that you could wile away your days in bliss watching films in between trips to the refrigerator. But maybe, despite her better judgment, she lost control. Who knows? Let's assume that this really happened. Explain how that is the fault of the film, if the film merely recounts the events?
"I didn't mean sending off those hundreds to the ovens! I didn't really enjoy torturing, either!"
Did you know that a very small percentage of German military were actually Nazis? Sort of like our own military. Some are Democrats, some Republicans. Do you know the political persuasion of the soldiers that exterminated villages in Vietnam?
Point is that, while it is easy to assume he was a member of the Nazis party, he was not necessarily a member of the Nazis party. How do you know he sent anyone to the gas chambers? Did every soldier or police officer in Germany at that time send people to the gas chamber? And let's not forget that the hero of the fatherland, Rommel, who was not a member of the Nazi party, but directed killing in Germany's name, eventually attempted to assassinate Hitler, a crime for which he was quietly executed, so as not to alert the German people that Rommel, their hero, was eventually opposed to Hitler. Is it therefore so crazy to think that this officer, at some point, saw the writing on the wall, that the sins of the fatherland should stop? Hardly.
If you going to criticize the content of a film, at least do so from an educated perspective.
The film is a travesty because, to keep the female character from being the reprehensible pig she is, the writers' tried to portray an SS TOP OFFICER (just so you don't miss it I raised the caps) as a sympathetic figure transformed by love.
Believe what you will.
Yes, "based on a true story," Hitler was a dog-loving, woman-loving, warm-hearted little fellow who suffered terribly from his WWI injuries.
Go cuddle your Adolph doll.
:-)
"to keep the female character from being the reprehensible pig she is"
That's the shittiest attitude toward women and humanity I have heard outside of the Christian Right.
Ingmar Bergman was driven by trying to understand the misogyny in society, why this hatred of women? But I guess that's nothing for you.
You do better staying away from European cinema and sticking to the simple-minded world of provincial Hollywood.
Her character is a reprehensible pig.
Your logic implies you think she stands for all women, everywhere.
Lie down, rest, and hope you feel better in a few hours.
I should apologize for your wretched, simple-minded view on humans?
I find you a waste of time
asd
...The movie is a lame fantasy-like most movies. And your question...
"Did you know that a very small percentage of German military were actually Nazis?"
...Is disingenuous at best. Are you joking? In the context of this movie, the character is a member of the SS, not an average Joe. If you were in the SS, you were likely to be the most enthusiastic ideologues of the Nazi party. Trying to compare political affiliation of the average German soldier, to the members of the SS, is just flat out wrong. They should hang your post in the Isolation Ward.
I sense confusion. I'll expound. I understand that members of the SS were, as rule, members of the Nazi party. But your post assumes that everyone who was a member of the Nazi party were "believers." I have no doubt that there were members of the SS who became members because it was a way for them to move up into German society, or the ranks of the German government. Those who believed that the persecution of the Jews and other undesirables was wrong, but their own desire for power, prestige, etc. outweighed their conscience. Although different in scale, Dennis Kucinich has displayed the same moral relativity: a life long opponent of Abortion, he suddenly became pro-choice when running for Presidenct. Or Romney, a longtime pro-choice advocate, who becomes opposed to abortion when running for President. They put aside their moral beliefs when it became expedient to do so.
Now, to this character. Now, let's look at some facts, which we will assume are true. Upon finding out she is Jewish, he does not turn her in. He negotiates with the resistance to prevent the deaths of prisoners, at the risk of execution, things a "true believer" would not do. Is it not possible that the SS officer was not a real advocate of murdering innocent people, but, as long as it appeared the Germans would win the war, he condoned that activity, but that when defeat was imminent, he began to feel more comfortable differing with the regime?
Those are certainly potential facts. And facts have no value, in and of themselves, independent on the value people place on them. The film merely recites those facts. Why get your panties up in a bunch because the film merely recites the facts. Neither the film, nor I, placed any value upon the facts. You seem uncomfortable accepting facts that are not in your world view. All Nazis are bad. They all did the same bad things. For all the same reasons.
So, what is the ultimate value of those facts? My personal take, which I would have at least appreciated a request for before you launch into a mindless tirade, is this: He went along with the Nazis, and probably called himself a Nazis, because it was expedient for him to do so. He was complicit in the murder of people. For that, he should have been executed along with the rest of them, because, murder is murder, whether it was because of prejudice or because he wanted a nice office. The allies would likely have executed him (although I find it ironic that the death penaly opponents here are the first to call for their execution.)
But these values do not change the facts that this SS officer had, for lack of a better word, a change of heart. I think your hatred has blinded you to the real possibility that such a conversion is possible, and confused for you the distinction between what happened, and whether such a conversion changes the results. I think the conversion is certainly possible. I do not think it should change the penalty.
As to the difference between a German soldier and a SS officer, do you think that the recipient of the bullet in the brain, or their respective family members, really gives two shits about whether one was a Nazis and the other not? Perhaps you are the one in need of some sensitivity training.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
