One of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood is that Jodie Foster is gay. Kind of falls into the “Who cares?” department. Nevertheless it prompted an entire CNN discussion when Foster openly thanked her long-time partner when she accepted an award recently.
And all I can think is that somewhere John Hinckley is shouting, “Son of a BÍTÇH!” I mean, jeez…discovering that you’re the guy who embarked on a failed attempt to assassinate a president in order to romantically impress a lesbian. That’s gotta hurt.
PAD
• 
Bah, so she’s gay. I never had a shot at her before so it’s not like this badly kept secret ruins my romantic plans or something.
Still, she remains a perfect woman to me.
I’m a huge fan, and remain so.
Makes sense she’s gay. I seem to have a thing for lesbians, even before I know they’re lesbian. (or maybe they’re just lesbians after they meet me…hmmm…)
Anyway, while I do not in any way shape or form endorse the assassination (attempted or otherwise) of a President I gotta say that if you’re a guy trying to impress a lesbian, you pretty much gotta go big, right?
Makes sense.
Girl flirts with you: Buy her flowers.
Girl ignores you: Buy her jewelry.
Girl is physically incapable of being attracted to you and has never met you: Assasinate a world leader.
Girl makes fun of the tiny scar on your cheek: Take over a small country and devote you life to killing Reed Richards.
I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians. :p
That is one of life’s mysteries to me. It has always caused me much bafflement.
“I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians. :p”
It actually has very little to do with lesbians themselves. It’s mainly about numbers.
One beer = good. Two beers = better. One steak = good. Two steaks = better. One woman = good. Two women = better.
Plus (as explained in the brilliant British show Coupling), there’s no chance of eye slippage. As a general rule, straight men really don’t want to see other men when they look at pørņ. If all the participants in the pørņ are women, then there’s no chance of accidentally looking at something you didn’t want to see.
Strangely enough, there’s actually science to back that up. I saw something on TV a couple years ago where a doctor was putting people in MRIs with a monitor they could look at. He measured their brain activity as he showed them various images. Whenever men saw half naked men on the monitor, the areas of the brain that control aggression flared up a little. Even if the men didn’t notice any feelings of aggression, there was at least a little activity in the aggression centers.
(Coupling is the BEST sitcom ever)
I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians.
Well, not all of us do.
On a personal level I’ve had a few great friends who were lesbians but it would never occur to me to pursue them romantically. It seems pretty stupid to go after a woman who has a perfectly valid hard to argue with reason for rejecting you.
In movies, I know I’m in the minority here but most sex scenes stop the movie dead in its tracks, getting in the way of me seeing things I can’t see on my own time, like zombies and giant robot gorillas.
Furthermore, this phenomenon is not limited to men–most of the writers of slash fiction are women and in Japan there’s a genre of manga for girls that deals with gay boys. Go figure.
People are fundamentally strange, which is cool.
I think what Jason says is perfectly true.
There’s also, if we’re being embarrassingly honest, at least some small percentage of kidding ourselves that we are ‘the one’ who could change their minds. It’s the same irrational R-brain response that let’s us find shy girls incredibly sexy…
Cheers.
Good point, Peter.
Rene, if you really don’t understand why men like lesbians, you’re probably overthinking it. Just go on a few binge drinking weekends until you’ve killed most of your brain cells. Then you’ll be thinking like a man. That will actually help you with understanding how men think in general.
I skimmed the thread, so forgive me if this was mentioned above.
I’ve seen articles about Foster in the past (and was probably also written after this latest story) that the whole Hinkley thing may have “nudged” her in the direction of lesbian.
Not trying to stir up the “nature/nuture” argument (my view is “however you got there is how you got there”), but it’s a theory I wanted to throw out for discussion.
In general, celebrity gossip doesn’t interest me. There is something to be said about being a high-powered role model, facing certain challenges, and to come clean about them.
The important thing is that she’s an actress. She happens to be a good one, and has been out there working for a very long time. She deserves the respect of someone who’s been in her field for a long time, perfecting her craft, and earning recognition for it.
Does personal life come into it?
It’s possible.
Must she step up to represent a closeted minority?
It’s possible.
Why?
To inspire other young lesbians, to tell them that it is possible, with hard work, to achieve in a world that doesn’t want you to. I would have found such an image great if Tom Cruise ever came out, I’m sure. Though, he publicly represents a different significant oppressed minority now.
Role models are important. Heroes are important. It would have been great for me to look up to someone.
Still, that’s the choice of the role model to be, not the outcrying public.
On Hinkley: She could very well be bisexual. There’s always a chance. Guy can always dream.
J-mo
“I’ve seen articles about Foster in the past (and was probably also written after this latest story) that the whole Hinkley thing may have “nudged” her in the direction of lesbian.”
Is that something she said herself? If it’s just people speculating, then it doesn’t really mean anything. That’s like people without telescopes guessing the distance from Jupiter to the Sun.
“Rene, if you really don’t understand why men like lesbians, you’re probably overthinking it. Just go on a few binge drinking weekends until you’ve killed most of your brain cells. Then you’ll be thinking like a man. That will actually help you with understanding how men think in general.”
LOL.
I’ve been in drinking binges, but I suppose I didn’t kill enough cells. :p
Heh, I have many touchy gay friends who would’ve been insulted by the remark, you know? I can hear they saying: “What, think like a man? I already do! I’m gay, but I’m also a man, dude.”
But no, not me, I sorta like when people say I’m not a man. I’m ladylike like that. 😀
I don’t see why they would be insulted. A gay man is still a man. Whatever he does in his sex life, he’s still not going to stop and ask for directions.
I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay is because Scientology says they can cure gay people and that they are against nature
so him even acknowledging this would cause him to lose his status in the church and probably completely ruin his career also.
a lot of people think that a gay person can’t play a straight person which is pretty ludacris considering how many straight people we have playing gay parts.
Am I alone in finding it sad (that’s sad as in vaguely depressing, not sad as in lame) that a persons sexuality becomes the single defining label we apply to them? Or that they apply to themselves.
I mean “yes” I can understand that it’s important, especially when there’s a lot of associated personal crap all balled up with an individuals sexuality, but please God it’s not ALL the person is, or is about…
Cheers.
Posted by: Pariah at December 21, 2007 02:24 AM
“I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay..”
Could possibly be that he’s actually not gay?
Or are we totally discounting that option?
Cheers.
“Am I alone in finding it sad (that’s sad as in vaguely depressing, not sad as in lame) that a persons sexuality becomes the single defining label we apply to them? Or that they apply to themselves.”
I think that’s actually becoming less the case. There are a lot of posts in this thread of people saying that that Jodie Foster coming out isn’t that big of a deal.
And Ellen declaring she was gay didn’t make that her biggest trait. Her biggest trait is that she’s almost-but-never-quite-funny. Well, to me, anyway.
I agree that it still gets way more emphasis than other arbitrary facts about a person.
I agree with Peter J Poole. At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader, I find nothing humorous or noteworthy in Jodie Foster’s sexuality. We should be past “Oooh, she’s a LESBIAN! Cool!!” Up to this point, Ms. Foster has been quite circumspect about her sexuality: Her privacy and dignity are as important as anyone else’s. PAD discourages conversation about areas of his own life he considers private, and closes strings when that rule is flouted. Snickering about someone else’s private life is inconsistent.
“I agree with Peter J Poole. At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader”
The very first post in this whole thread is PAD saying, “Kind of falls into the “Who cares?” department.”
The very first post is PAD bringing up the subject. Apparently he cares enough for that.
American men are taught to be ashamed of our pëņìšëš. Lesbians are our proxy for indulging in our gender-preference pëņìš-frëë.
The disgust I’ve witnessed here at the prospect of indulging in hedonistic sex after the fall of civilization seems to surrender to this shame of owning a pëņìš. I don’t see how it isn’t rooted in an inherent self-disgust in owning a pëņìš.
At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader
Are you now working to get every other active & semi-active thread shut down as well?
Craig wrote: Are you now working to get every other active & semi-active thread shut down as well?
Heh, I was just wondering the same thing.
Jeffrey, I believe the point of the original post was more of a “can you believe CNN decided to focus on that” rather than a criticism of Ms Foster.
Rather than getting into a long, fruitless (and aggravating) debate, may I suggest we all agree to disagree.
Jeff,
I really think that you should re-read the initial post by Peter. The post was less about Jodie Foster’s sexuality then it was about the fact that CNN did a major discussion piece on it as though it were some great secret that had just been revealed and the fact that, if it was a secret at this point, it was a pretty poorly kept secret. And the only “snickering” wasn’t really about her sexuality at all. It was an ironic observation directed at the idiot who shot Reagan in order to woo her and win her love.
I know you’re likely peeved at being too dense to take several warnings and then getting the last thread shut down, but trying to bring that subject up here and grind a new axe over the thread closer is just stupid. And, besides that, you’d really have to stretch the concept that you’re now putting forward to molecularly thin levels to even begin to almost make it fit here. Why be Mike?
Craig J. Ries – Do you think PAD is quite that hypersensitive? Although I disagree with him about many things, I think he is more forbearing than that. I do not disagree with his stricture that his family is off limits – This would be a much uglier place if it were not. In light of his understanding that certain things should be respected, I just expected he should extend similar respect to other people’s privacy. Jodie Foster has spent more than three decades in the public eye, largely successful at maintaining the privacy of her private life. Mr. David’s lifestyle has (to the best of my knowledge) followed fairly traditional lines – the sort that has never engendered the risk of prison or mental institution – but he is entitled to keep his family and affections his own private affair – his business, and not ours. Ms. Foster, on the other hand, has had to deal with inborn desires which until recently were held to constitute a felony or evidence of mental disease. That she has never chosen to proclaim her sexuality is even more understandable than PAD’s own insistence on privacy.
Mike – I share your bemusement (if it is that) at the tendency of so many purportedly heterosexual men to salivate at the idea of lesbian sex, but I don’t agree with your notion that American men are taught to be ashamed of our pëņìšëš: Protective, perhaps, or even fearful of its loss sometimes, but not ashamed. Some may see it as a badge of authority – perhaps like a Marshal’s baton (but generally with less decoration and engraving). The only way I can understand the common fascination with lesbianism and degradation of male homosexuality is this: There is a very strong visual aspect to male sexuality, and the image of two naked women revealing themselves and engaging in sex is titillating to some men; On the other hand, because sexual identity is more complex than a simple yes/no, straight/gay dichotomy, and because there is still a very common teaching that homosexuality and sodomy are evil, many men fear and are disgusted by any fleeting thought that such things might interest THEM. They reject in others what they fear is in themselves.
Concepts are not measured in molecules, and I’m not even sure how they can be said to stretch. Given those qualifications, I don’t see how this sentence isn’t nonsense. Thank you for not challenging the analysis of my last post, since the disgust I referred to included yours.
Since you and Jeffrey have shutting down a thread in common, I guess there’s no point in warning him to not be like you.
I think the pc-scare is overblown, which makes me glad you aren’t aware of any pc-intolerance attributed to feminism at all.
I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay is because Scientology says they can cure gay people and that they are against nature
so him even acknowledging this would cause him to lose his status in the church and probably completely ruin his career also.
Assuming he is gay–I know that’s supposedly common knowledge but I’ve never seen any evidence to support it (not that I give a rat’s ášš)–one would then have to wonder why he chose Scientology as a religion. It’s not like he was born into it.
And Ellen declaring she was gay didn’t make that her biggest trait. Her biggest trait is that she’s almost-but-never-quite-funny. Well, to me, anyway.
She used to be pretty funny but her act is now more of her mannerisms then material. Still, she was great in FINDING NEMO (a case where I’d be astonished if the writers did not tailor the script to fit the voice actor)
The very first post is PAD bringing up the subject. Apparently he cares enough for that.
Jesus, Jeffrey. Why are you picking fights with PAD? His blog, his choice of topics. It was all over the news so it isn’t like he was digging for dirt. The joke was at the expense of Hinkley, which should only upset those who themselves suffer from severe mental disease.
The disgust I’ve witnessed here at the prospect of indulging in hedonistic sex after the fall of civilization seems to surrender to this shame of owning a pëņìš. I don’t see how it isn’t rooted in an inherent self-disgust in owning a pëņìš.
As if on cue…
In light of his understanding that certain things should be respected, I just expected he should extend similar respect to other people’s privacy.>/i>
Assuming we are correctly interpreting Ms Foster’s comments as a coming out statement, this is no longer a matter of privacy.
Look, you can talk about PAD and his family all you want but if you do it here there are reasonable consequences. It’s his blog! If someone wants to display their total lack of intelligence, class, common human decency and full set of chromosomes by insulting one of my kids, hey, it’s a free country. But do it in my house and be prepared to be tossed out on your ear. BTW-I’m not saying you are that bad a guy, though you have a streak of stubbornness that does not serve you well, IMO.
(I mention the possibility that Ms. Foster did not mean for this to be an official “Yep, I’m gay” moment because the actual transcript of her words was just thanking her partner for being there in good times and bad…nothing really dramatic or anything.)
Larry Craig is an outed gay man who is also an anti-gay republican, and Mark Foley text-messaged seductive emails to teen-aged boys living away from home while convening in congressional committees to protect children from internet pederasts. They’re hypocrites.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings–at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay. not that this makes it any less destructive.
And I suspect that both Craig and Foley were born into their religions, as most people are. Cruise chose Scientology.
You make it sound like Craig has had some kind of Jimmy Swaggart “I have sinned!” moment admitting he didn’t really need to spread his feet trans-stall to take a dump in a public restroom. You are denying someone holding others to standards he refuses to be held to qualifies as hypocrisy. I don’t see how that isn’t goofy.
Craig is clearly gay and is just as clearly disgusted with that aspect of himself. It’s truly sad to see such self-loathing but at his age it will probably be very hard to overcome it. Sad, but there you are. Just as your inability to believe that anyone who does not buy into your worldview can do so for anything other than the worst possible reasons, such attitudes will keep him from ever being the man he could be. Think about it.
Craig’s hatred of his own homosexuality also makes him anti-gay in his role as a leader. So no, I don’t see him as much of a hypocrite. Not that it matters. Unlike you, what I object to is that he is anti-gay. Were it suddenly revealed that he was, to everyone’s surprise, actually 100% heterosexual, that he really was just tapping his feet in a stall and everyone who has claimed an encounter with him was flat out lying…it would not change my opinion of him 1 iota.
I think a person’s bad actions are bad. You seem to put greater weight on whether or not their bad actions are consistent with their stated beliefs. Interesting. I won’t say they are goofy, since I could see where a truly awful person could talk themself into believing that their awfulness was somehow mitigated by the sheer consistency of their awfulness. Know what I mean? Of course you do!
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!–I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Happy Holidays!
(Bill Mulligan) “The joke was at the expense of Hinkley, which should only upset those who themselves suffer from severe mental disease.”
I fear you are showing unwarranted optimism in thinking that eliminates very many of the posters here. More seriously, I think you are correct about Craig and Foley, and that Mike misreads you. As I read your post, you make a good argument that Craig and Foley are self-loathing homosexuals (or in Foley’s case, nearly a self-loathing pedophile/ephebophile, which may be a different thing) who have overreacted in their pretense they are not. I suppose Mike disapproves of you not using the magic words “They are both hypocrites,” but I don’t see anything in your post which claims they are not. The fact that they do not acknowledge their homosexuality in no way prevents them from being anti-homosexual, self-hating hypocrites.
Bill, you suggest that Ms. Foster’s sorta kinda coming out eliminates any privacy issue. I’m not convinced she has quite come out, but even if she has, I do not find anything humorous about either her lesbianism or John Hinkley’s activities on March 30, 1981. Lesbianism, attempted assassination and grievous wounding are none of them particularly funny, and if PAD or you think they are, I disagree.
It appears we agree about the facts, but interpret them differently. A joke cannot be redeemed to someone who isn’t amused.
“Worst” implies a comparison to other explanations of what’s going. All you’ve provided are explanations that are only plausible if non-hypocritical confessions that haven’t taken place had taken place. I have provided the only plausible explanation of what’s going on that demonstrates any fidelity to events as they have been reported. “Worst” ain’t got nuthin’ to do with it.
Thank you for not denying Craig is gay. As such, his continued assertions he isn’t gay — to reserve the privilege that goes hand-in-hand with his homophobia — embodies hypocrisy as well as any other example of hypocrisy. This is not rocket surgery.
Yeah, it’s a wonder you feel the need to deny holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to qualifies as hypocrisy.
Accounts of lying are often offered to juries to demonstrate guilt. No guilt, no need to deceive. The wrong an accused person is demonstrated to have known was wrong is always more wrong than the wrong the accused is demonstrated to have not known was wrong.
Don’t let me keep you from your enablers.
Jeffrey, I would have to disagree that Hinkley is beyond humor. Now, you may not think PAD’s joke was funny, which is fine; humor is a funny thing. Lesbianism, attempted assassination and grievous wounding may not be inherently funny concepts but one can find some pretty funny examples that have used one or more of them.
Again, the joke may have fallen flat for you, that’s cool, but you can’t say assassination can’t be funny–for one thing, I’ll never be able to watch LOVE & DEATH again, and that’s just not cool.
Thank you for not denying Craig is gay.
No, thank you for not denying Craig is gay!
No, you’re Don Francisco’s sister!
(Somewhere, Tim Lynch laughs.)
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!–I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Don’t let me keep you from your enablers.
I’ve felt so sorry for you as I do this moment. Sorry about the Soup For One crack. Take care.
Bill Mulligan – Then I’ll have to disappoint you again. I did not find “Love and Death” funny or interesting. Philistine that I am, I have enjoyed perhaps three Woody Allen films, and found perhaps two amusing (I’m not sure there are any laughs in “Manhattan,” but I like it anyway). For the most part, urban, neurotic humor doesn’t amuse me. Certain aspects of Allen’s public persona increase my dislike of his work. Obviously you find (attempted) assassination appropriate subject matter for humor, but I do not – at least not those within my own lifetime. Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Ray, Bremer, Moore, Fromme and Hinkley’s actions are too recent to seem amusing – particularly those which left currently living victims and bereaved. (Ask Jim Brady if he’s quite over Hinkley’s little aberration.)
“Obviously you find (attempted) assassination appropriate subject matter for humor, but I do not – at least not those within my own lifetime. Oswald… “
Another sad, sad case of a non-fan of Red Dwarf it seems.
” (Ask Jim Brady if he’s quite over Hinkley’s little aberration.)”
I don’t know about that. Reagan sure had a few chuckles over it in the years after the attempt.
I guess this would be a bad time to joke about Sirhan Sirhan changing his name to just Sirhan.
Well, someone (I think it was Mel Brooks) oce said; The difference between comedy and tragedy is that when I stub my toe it’s tragedy. When you fall down a manhole and die it’s comedy.
But not liking LOVE & DEATH. Wow, man, that’s pure gold. Well, to each his own. I was about the only one laughing during WALK HARD (granted, it was just me and my kids in the theater).
Jerry Chandler – Yes, but Reagan’s injury could be healed, while Brady lost a good chunk of brain – not really very funny, depending on your perspective. I have watched and often enjoyed Red Dwarf, but it hasn’t formed my tastes for me.
The point is, Reagan did joke about the assassination attempt, so it’s not like the topic was off limits. true, he didn’t joke about jim Brady but then again, neither did PAD.
I guess you could argue that only reagan could joke about it because he went through it…but it just seems pointless to argue what or who is allowed to be funny. You risk falling into the PC That’s Not Funny trap–what movie can possibly be used as an example of being both A-funny and B- not possibly offensive to anyone?
I guess this would be a bad time to joke about Sirhan Sirhan changing his name to just Sirhan.
Actually, the joke goes–if I’m recalling correctly, it was a Chevy Chase “Weekend Update” gag–“Assassin Sirhan Sirhan has legally changed his name to Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan. No explanation was given for the change.”
PAD
Ok. Thank you for relenting in denying Larry Craig qualifies as a hypocrite. It’s a wonder you felt the need to deny it in the first place.
When one jokes about John Hinckley, Jr., (sorry, I’ve been spelling it wrong all along) one automatically is joking about what he did – shooting James Brady in the head, Thomas Delahanty in the neck, Timothy McCarthy in the chest and Ronald Reagan also in the chest (by a ricochet, rather than a direct shot). While I can admire Mr. Reagan for being able to joke about his own injury, he had no standing to minimize the suffering of three other men.
None of this stuff is funny, and I don’t give a dámņ about anyone here thinking it is. Here’s something to consider – Who wants to make a joke about the following series of facts?
There was this guy. He was an Austrian, but he thought Germany was really neat. In World War I, he joined the German Imperial Army, became a corporal, and was decorated for bravery under fire. He grew a big mustache that looked sort of like Field Marshal Kitchener’s although he really didn’t like the guy all that much. After the war, he couldn’t get a job as a painter, because his work was really pretty banal – you know, not too bad, but nothing special. He got involved in right wing politics, went to jail, cut his mustache so it looked sort of like Charlie Chaplin’s (really funny guy, that Chaplin!), became Chancellor of Germany and killed tens of millions of people. Oh, boy, what nasty guy!
I don’t think it’s very funny to make a joke about an evil SOB. What do you think?
There was this guy. He was an Austrian, but he thought Germany was really neat. In World War I, he joined the German Imperial Army, became a corporal, and was decorated for bravery under fire. He grew a big mustache that looked sort of like Field Marshal Kitchener’s although he really didn’t like the guy all that much. After the war, he couldn’t get a job as a painter, because his work was really pretty banal – you know, not too bad, but nothing special. He got involved in right wing politics, went to jail, cut his mustache so it looked sort of like Charlie Chaplin’s (really funny guy, that Chaplin!), became Chancellor of Germany and killed tens of millions of people. Oh, boy, what nasty guy!
I don’t think it’s very funny to make a joke about an evil SOB. What do you think?
Everybody sing!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We’re marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Sorry, while there are crass and tasteless jokes of course, I don’t think that subjects like the above are by their very nature crass and tasteless.
I think you should avoid at all costs THE GREAT DICTATOR, TO BE OR NOT TO BE, HOGANS HEROES, a whole mess of Warner Bros cartoons and 3 Stooges shorts, THE PRODUCERS, TOP SECRET, ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT, DER FUEHRER’S FACE, LITTLE NICKY (no great loss there) and WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT (ditto) among others.
Since war is unfunny and kills children you should also avoid DUCK SOUP and DR STRANGELOVE.
And hey–you have every right to do so. If it ain’t funny to you it ain’t funny. To you. I make no judgment. I’m just glad I don’t see it that way since it would deprive me of a lot of laughs from just the ones listed above.
Ok. Thank you for relenting in denying Larry Craig qualifies as a hypocrite. It’s a wonder you felt the need to deny it in the first place.
Since you have been unwilling and/or unable to respond to the points I made why should I keep on making them? Repetition doesn’t make an argument better. Think about it.
…but I do. The saving grace of “The Producers” is that the humor is used to mock and demean Hitler and neo-nazism, rather than to recognize him as a great springboard for gags.
…well, that’s conjecture, but if I don’t look at it that way it just looks like a colossal crap taken in the faces of millions of victims – not just the victims of the Holocaust, but many million more in addition. Call me humorless (I know that’s not very hard) but I think it takes more than the few generations that have passed to make the greatest known crime against humanity funny. When it’s as remote as Kublai Khan, perhaps that will have changed.
Bill, you left out the “Time Slides” episode of Red Dwarf. Ðámņëd red Dwarf haters!!!!!!
“And he’s only got one testicle!!!”
Jeff… Get a f’n life for Christ’s sake. Or, barring that, a sense of humor.
Bill Mulligan: to be truthful, here’s what I think about those movies and shows.
1. The Great Dictator: Its purpose is to mock and demean Hitler – and it succeeds. Also, the extent of Hitler’s crimes was not entirely understood in 1940 when the film was made.
2. To Be or Not to Be: I don’t think it succeeded as completely as the Great Dictator, but its intentions were the same. Also, the Nazis in this picture were more monstrous than funny.
3. Hogan’s Heroes: Yes – It’s a load of crap, and not funny, either.
4. Warner Brothers Cartoons and Three Stooges shorts: Most of them succeeded at demeaning the Nazis, rather than taking good natured jabs.
5. The Producers: I don’t like it very much, but its intentions are clear: Nazis are degenerate idiots.
6. Top Secret – Well, I think it stinks, and that’s reason enough for me not to watch it again.
7. All Through the Night: The filmmakers didn’t understand the depth of Nazi depravity, but still, the Nazis are the bad guys. It was made before Pearl Harbor, when most Americans ignored what was going on in Europe.
8. Der Fuehrer’s Face: The whole concept was that it would be hellish to be under Hitler’s thumb. That’s about right.
9. Little Nicky: Yeah. It stinks. So what?
10. Which Way to the Front?: I was unlucky enough to see it. It’s pathetic and stupid (and deadly unfunny). I agree that I shouldn’t see it.
Jerry, there’s no point in telling someone that something is funny if they don’t find it so. There are people who like beets but no amount of convincing will make them taste good to me.
If Jeffrey were trying to claim some moral high ground in his lack of fondness for humor based on tragedy that would be one thing but I am not getting that vibe. Though I do wonder, Jeffrey, what ARE a few examples of movies you find hilarious?