EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW

On Oct 17, 9:47 am, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> michael_schlesin....RemoveThis@spe.sony.com (precode) wrote:
> >>I didn't use the term "liberal." I wrote
> >>"left."
> >Kindly explain the difference, George.
>
> Simple. Liberals are committed to
> the democratic process (ideally) but
> not all leftists are.

Well, I must confess that this is an interesting distinction, one
which had not occurred to me before. However, it presupposes that some
leftists fall into the bomb-throwing stereotypes of yore. It seems to
me that they are simply a different breed of fascist, hell-bent on
destruction for their particular beliefs, which just happen to be
different from the traditional right-wing beliefs. Those of us who
consider ourselves liberals are as disgusted by them as we are by
those on the right, and political correctness--which is how this
thread began in the first place--is merely a relatively benign form of
it. But yes, you are right, they are not 100% the same. In any event,
I prefer to think of myself as a pinko. ;-)

Mike S.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 17, 4:15 pm, "Vitaphone" <vitaph....RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote:
> The one consolation is that, more and more, potential buyers for things like
> "The Jazz Singer" are turning elsewhere for information and opinion instead
> of fabricated, publicist-manufactured and studio-financed "buzz" (where little or none would
> exist in the first place.)

Exactly. Don't get too disturbed that EW wrote a dumb article-- it's
a magazine for dumb readers. Anyone who has any interest in buying
the new JAZZ SINGER DVD set knows better than that-- and apparently a
lot of people know better, since it is currently #24 on Amazon.com's
top DVD sellers (which DOES say a lot-- it's the only film on that
list made before the year 2000!!!).

-J. Theakston
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

George Shelps wrote:

> Lloyd Fonvielle wrote:
>
>>Having the left in power means we might
>>get back habeas corpus . . .
>
> That's a distortion....but the constitution
> does allow for the suspension of
> habeus corpus..(Lincoln).
>
>>but it also means that more and more
>>communities will ban smoking, drinking a
>>beer on a public beach -- enforcing the
>>totalitarian yuppie vision of social
>>hygiene that now rules California, "The
>>Wellness State", and, increasingly, New
>>York.
>
> In short, the "Nanny State," presided
> over by the Nanny-in-Chief, Hillary
> Clinton.
>
>>Habeas corpus is not something I'm
>>ikely to need, though I would die for the
>>principle of it -- it's not just a matter of
>>abstract ideology -- but the limits on my
>>personal freedom are something I feel
>>every day of my life. It's a sign of our
>>degraded times that we have to choose
>>between different forms of
>>totalitarianism.
>
> A wild exaggeration, Lloyd.

You can be arrested by armed agents of the government for smoking a
cigarette or drinking a beer on some public beaches in California. That
makes it a police state in my book.



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:

> Seems strange to equate an actual totalitarianism (to use your extreme
> terminology) which has done away with habeas corpus - the basis of
> law- which has disregarded the Geneva convention, and has fought
> viciously for its right to torture and wiretap Americans....with a
> hypothetical 'totalitarianism' which *might* interfere with your right
> to inhale carinogens or get bombed...
>
> But chacon a son gout, I guess...

There's nothing hypothetical about the left's intention to impose its
view of correct social behavior on everybody. They're doing it
everywhere. It's not a case of chacon a son gout but of chacon a MY
gout -- or go to jail.


Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

Mike S wrote:

> it presupposes that some leftists fall into
>the bomb-throwing stereotypes of yore. It

How about the "shouting down speakers"
type? Or the slandering type--like
Bachusio.

>seems to me that they are simply a
>different breed of fascist, hell-bent on
>destruction for their particular beliefs,
>which just happen to be different from
>the traditional right-wing beliefs. Those
>of us who consider ourselves liberals are
>as disgusted by them as we are by those
>on the right, and political
>correctness--which is how this thread
>began in the first place--is merely a
>relatively benign form of it. But yes, you
>are right, they are not 100% the same. In
>any event, I prefer to think of myself as a
>pinko.  

I think liberals are dead wrong on most
of the critical social and economc
and cultural issues, but as long as they
are willing to debate honorably
I have no problem.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:

> Times have changed. The majority doesn't smoke, and they feel no
> particular obligation to breathe in the carcinogens of those who do.
> The majority usually rules.

There are some areas of personal freedom in which the majority has no
right to impose its views on others. That's the essence of the American
system. If the majority of people want to go to non-smoking restaurants
the marketplace will happily provide them. If a few people want a few
restaurants and bars where they can smoke it's a form of totalitarian
thinking to say that the majority should use the armed power of the
state to stop them.

The American system is supposed to protect minorites from the tyranny of
the majority.




Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 19, 9:31 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
> bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com wrote:
> > Times have changed. The majority doesn't smoke, and they feel no
> > particular obligation to breathe in the carcinogens of those who do.
> > The majority usually rules.
>
> There are some areas of personal freedom in which the majority has no
> right to impose its views on others. That's the essence of the American
> system. If the majority of people want to go to non-smoking restaurants
> the marketplace will happily provide them. If a few people want a few
> restaurants and bars where they can smoke it's a form of totalitarian
> thinking to say that the majority should use the armed power of the
> state to stop them.

The state has a legitimate interest also in keeping the workplace safe
-- a libertarian would say that employees can work only in nonsmoking
establishments if they want, but in practice that's simply not true.
Still, we ALL pay the cost, even the libertarians, through taxes,
insurance premiums, and dying friends and relatives, when waitresses,
bartenders, and musicians come down with lung cancer.

There's a continuum of offenses against society. It ranges from
breathing out CO2 through dropping popcorn on the theater floor
through smoking in public enclosed spaces through driving recklessly
on roads through exploding dirty bombs of plutonium dust. There has to
be a cut-off between the extremes where we say no one should be
allowed to risk others' comfort, health, or lives that way. All that
has happened is that public tolerance has shifted, and the line now
cuts off smoking in a public enclosed space as an unacceptable
practice.

As a musician, even though (thank goodness) I haven't had to work in
bars to make a living for many years, I'm extremely thankful for the
smoking ban. There's nothing like unpacking your keyboard or accordion
and having it reek of cigarette smoke. And to bring it back on topic,
it's nice not having layers of cigarette smoke stains on movie
screens.

> The American system is supposed to protect minorites from the tyranny of
> the majority.

And to protect both majorities and minorities from easily-preventable
disease and damage inflicted on them by others.

Rodney Sauer
Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
www.mont-alto.com
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 19, 10:31 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS... RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
> bachu... RemoveThis @rogers.com wrote:
> > Times have changed. The majority doesn't smoke, and they feel no
> > particular obligation to breathe in the carcinogens of those who do.
> > The majority usually rules.
> There are some areas of personal freedom in which the majority has no
> right to impose its views on others. That's the essence of the American
> system. If the majority of people want to go to non-smoking restaurants
> the marketplace will happily provide them. If a few people want a few
> restaurants and bars where they can smoke it's a form of totalitarian
> thinking to say that the majority should use the armed power of the
> state to stop them.

Aw, yeah, you're right -

The American government torturing people - which even the Republican
nomination for A-G said the other day skirts dangerously close to Nazi
territory - is entirely comparable to The Man interfering with your
right to light up anywhere you please.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

rodney RemoveThis @mont-alto.com wrote:

> On Oct 19, 9:31 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS... RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:

>>The American system is supposed to protect minorites from the tyranny of
>>the majority.
>
> And to protect both majorities and minorities from easily-preventable
> disease and damage inflicted on them by others.

A strong case can be made that alcohol consumption burdens the public
health care system with preventable costs and endangers public safety on
the highways -- to a degree that's comparable to the social costs of
smoking. That's no excuse for using the power of the state to stop the
use of alcohol -- though of course it's been tried.

The rule of the modern leftist duppies is -- my sins ("A glass of your
best Pinot Noir, please!") and the costs associated with them are
acceptable, yours are not.

It's so easy to curtail freedoms that you don't care to exercise, as
long as the freedoms you do care to exercise are maintained. But it's a
form of social totalitarianism, any way you look at it -- and believe
me, it won't stop with cigarettes. New York City is already passing
laws about what kind of fats restaurants can cook their food in.
They're using the same arguments about public health costs to justify it
-- arguments which could just as easily be applied to the sale of prime
beef, with its high fat content . . . or to justify placing armed guards
at fast-food restaurants to prevent obese people from eating there.

Not everything that's good is good for you -- the state shouldn't be in
the business of deciding what risks people are allowed to take in the
interest of pleasure. The state is not my mommy.


Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

bachusio.TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote:

> The American government torturing people - which even the Republican
> nomination for A-G said the other day skirts dangerously close to Nazi
> territory - is entirely comparable to The Man interfering with your
> right to light up anywhere you please.

They arise from same kind of thinking -- MY rights are sacred, YOUR
rights mean nothing.




Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 19, 11:12 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
> bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote:
> > The American government torturing people - which even the Republican
> > nomination for A-G said the other day skirts dangerously close to Nazi
> > territory - is entirely comparable to The Man interfering with your
> > right to light up anywhere you please.
>
> They arise from same kind of thinking -- MY rights are sacred, YOUR
> rights mean nothing.
>

How so? The cigarette laws are based on the theory that a democratic
government has the responsibility to see that EVERYONE has a right to
breathe healthy air, the alcohol laws on the theory that EVERYONE has
a right to decide to be free of incompetent drivers (which is also why
there are driving and traffic law tests as prerequisites for drivers
licenses).

Torture, on the other hand, is based on the principle that a self-
proclaimed elite can ignore long established precedent, using an extra-
legal system created in secret, that excludes the democratic process.

That makes the torture situation distinctly different from either of
the other situations (smoking and alcohol consumption) you are trying
to shoehorn into some kind of similarity.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

On Oct 14, 9:56 pm, djwein <djw....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "The Jazz Singer" reviewed
>
> Sound and Fury
>
> The Jazz Singer gave movies a voice, but the 80-year-old film hits
> some wrong
> notes today.
>
> by Steve Daly
> Entertainment Weekly, October 19, 2007
>
> Why does the cover for The Jazz Singer, a three-disc paean to the
> creaky 1927 Al
> Jolson flick (not to be confused with a wretched 1980 remake starring
> Neil
> Diamond), show its leading man, arms out in a crooner's pose, only in
> silhouette? Because there's an ugly stereotype under wraps here,
> that's why. The
> jacket soft-pedals the fact that Jolson spends a significant portion
> of Jazz
> Singer in blackface, masquerading as an African-American man -- that
> is, as a
> grotesque, degrading approximation of one. Original posters for the
> movie
> featured Jolson's made-up visage; hence the censored DVD image.
>
> Jolson, of course, didn't invent blackface. He was part of a larger
> pop-cultural
> obsession with ethnic impersonation. Born Asa Yoelson, the Jewish
> Lithuanian
> entertainer blunted his own "racial" heritage (a term used freely at
> the time in
> discussing Jewish identity) by assuming the trappings of another. The
> gimmick
> helped make him a recording superstar... and pigeonholed him forever
> inside an
> indefensible minstrel-show tradition.
>
> Are we supposed to celebrate The Jazz Singer unabashedly, as this DVD
> set does?
> Among the voluminous extras a commentary track -- a documentary on the
> dawn of
> "talking picture" technology, a huge, nearly four-hour sampling of
> early sound
> short films -- you'll find only passing, borderline-apologetic
> references to
> racial politics, and no one speaking from an African-American
> perspective. The
> movie itself, taken in context, still works provided you can get past
> Jolson's
> bug-eyed acting style. The plot is powerful because it's so absurdly
> melodramatic: A stern Orthodox Jewish cantor (Warner Oland, who went
> on to
> caricature Asians in the Charlie Chan movies) wants his son, Jakie
> Rabinowitz
> (Jolson), to follow in his footsteps. But Jakie rebels. He leaves
> home, renames
> himself Jack Robin, lands a big Broadway show (that's where the
> blackface comes
> in), and is savagely rejected by his father. Jolson has a freaky
> ability to
> portray the wounds of that rejection, especially when Jack clings to
> his mama
> (Eugenie Besserer) as recompense. After battling his parents, Jack
> suddenly
> reforms, punts his Broadway opening night, and serves as a one-time-
> only cantor
> to honor his father's wishes as the old man lies deathly ill. It's a
> four-hanky
> spectacle.
>
> Watching Jolson treat Jewish ritual as just another form of
> "showmanship,"
> thereby equating blackface with cantorial melodies as an expression of
> a
> mournful history, remains a remarkable act of ethnic drag. Still, the
> sight of
> that dark makeup ultimately makes Jolson's act seem less empathetic
> than
> condescending. Thankfully, history has moved beyond this movie and its
> attitudes. How sobering to be reminded that something so wrong could
> ever have
> been so popular.

This is not a real movie review. It is an anti-"blackface" editorial.
While I don't think the minstrel stereotypes should be revived, I
don't think it is the film's most notable feature. Contemporary
viewers should accept that, rightly or wrongly, "blackface"
entertainment was not seen as harmful and it is a relic of an earlier
era. It was popular during the late '20's because of Jolson's
popularity at that time and because of the novelty value of talking
actors in the cinema. People today remember the Jazz Singer primarily
because it is the film which sparked the talking picture revolution.
It should be noted that it is not the first dialogue picture, but it
is the one that revolutionized the industry. I would not consider the
Jazz Singer as one of my personal favourites. Yes, I concede the Jazz
Singer is "creaky" by today's standards and it is quite dated in many
other respects but it is a technical achievement worthy of some
consideration.
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW 

bachusio.RemoveThis@rogers.com wrote:

> As for your right to smoke, it's relevant to quote the old dictum,
> 'your rights end where they interfere with my rights'. People have
> the right to breathe air free of the carcinogens you choose to breathe
> into it.

Look, dude, if I want to go into a 24-hour video poker bar in Las Vegas
at 3 in the morning and have a hamburger and a beer and a smoke
afterwards, and the owner of the place doesn't object and the only staff
member in the place, the bartender, who's invariably a smoker himself,
doesn't object -- tell me, what the hell business is that of yours?
What right do you have to send armed policemen into the place to stop me?

Do you think you have some sort of "right" to go anywhere you want and
only find uptight, intolerant Puritans like yourself hanging out there?


Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: EW JAZZ SINGER DVD REVIEW