@ MBD

I hear your point

It will be here for a while though. Theres a whole bag of 9/11 films being commisioned so it will be on our screens more

The thing about movies is that they will always exagerate stereotypes

Any1 who has seen High School High knows that no inner-city school can be as bad as that. That was cartoonish repesentation of black folks to the extreme, same with I'm gonna get you sucker, Dont Be a Menace, Soul Plane, and a whole heap of films

Everone gets it. Even there own whites get it in the neck with the 'White Trah' stereotypes. Ireally dont think it can be helped. Doesnt mean it should be accepted though



@ Drunk

It was Alan Rickman who played Hans Gruber in Die Hard. Fantastically offkey pretend terrorist.



Final point

Alot of the films I have seen on here do not come across as racist to me. So when people write their list, could you please provide a brief explanation so that I will know what to look for if I watch the film again

Thanks

The Lion King apparentlyconfused3

The Lion King

by Fredrik Haerne

June 22, 2002

I was a young teenager in 1994 when "The Lion King" was released, and not yet fully awakened to the state of things in the movie industry. Even so I understood that Disney was moving away from European sagas to themes from the dark races, and "The Lion King" seemed to fit nicely into this picture: African theme, African music in the opening scene - business as usual in Hollywood. However, "The Lion King" also contains something else, namely the lesson of responsibility, and loyalty toward your own kind. A while ago I asked myself, how is it that this message can come through in a movie made by today's Jew-controlled Disney?

I learned that the reason is simple: Disney didn't make this story at all. "The Lion King" is a complete rip-off; its first writer and animator was the Japanese "god of manga" Osamu Tezuka (1928-1989), who pretty much shaped the whole manga/anime genre of cartoons. Tezuka wrote an anime TV series called "Jangaru Taitei," which was later turned into a U.S. series in the sixties called "Kimba The White Lion." After his death Michael Eisner and his tribesmen saw fit to plagiarize his work and make one of the best-selling movies of all times. Tezuka, who respected the old Disney but had only contempt for its modern, more sinister face, received no credits at all for the making of the story.

Then again, I wouldn't expect Disney ever TO want the "White Lion" part to show up in movie reviews tracing the film's origin. And a White lion Simba surely is.

A good thing with the movie being animated: you don't have to see the voice actors. And the fact that convicted drug addict and socialist Whoopie Goldberg does the voice for a hyena only lifts the movie in my eyes. However, the movie does not need lifting. Granted, Eisner & Co. picked the story because it takes place in Africa, instead of in Europe. They are safe in the knowledge that most Whites today couldn't spot nationalism if it is staring them in the face -- like this movie is. To a White nationalist, however, the movie is valuable, because it is one of few you want your children to watch. I will make sure to save it for when I have children of my own.

What is it then that is especially valuable here? Simple: "The Lion King" is pure nationalist education. Its lessons are many. For example, early in the movie King Mufasa of the Lions brings his son Simba to the top of a hill, where they look out over the lands controlled by their kind. There are many species living there, and the proud, strong, wise lions are their undisputed masters. No one makes any excuses for this order of things, and no one questions its wisdom. All animals are much better off this way than they would be without the elite looking after them, and the word "democracy" holds no value here. The reason is that this elite has a very clear and noble mission: to protect Life. Mufasa emphasizes that his son and all lions must always strive to protect the strength of Life, or "the circle of Life." When observing their wise rule, we can only agree.

This is, however, not a problem-free environment. The kingdom is threatened both from the outside and the inside. From the outside by the vile hyenas, the lowest form of life: violent, lazy and stupid. They are banned from the Lion Kingdom, and lead a destructive existence without any hope of improvement in their own, dark territory. Naturally they constantly long for the riches of the Lion Kingdom, but they have no chance of ever realizing their plans, as the superior lions can lick them with one paw tied behind their backs.

Things could very well remain the way they are forever -- orderly, safe, prosperous -- if it hadn't been for the inside threat. This comes in the form of Scar, the king's evil brother, who is an especially despicable creature. While he looks almost like the other lions he is physically inferior to his larger and stronger brother, and he is marked by a black mane instead of a golden one. Despite the fact that he prospers as much as anyone else from the order of things, he covets the power that is denied him. The king is aware of Scar's evil nature, but he underestimates his powers of deception and tolerates his presence. A fatal mistake.

Scar seeks out the lions' natural enemies, the hyenas, and gives them an offer: if they help him grab the throne, he will grant them citizenship in the Lion Kingdom and allow them to plunder at will. Scar doesn't even try to conceal his contempt for the filthy species, but he knows he needs them in order to take and secure power. The hyenas know this, but they also know that they could never pull off an invasion on their own, and so an unholy alliance is forged.

Scar and the hyenas succeed in murdering King Mufasa, mainly because of Scar's lies and treachery, while cleverly disquising their role in the drama. Simba runs off to a faraway land, and Scar quickly consolidates the throne. The darkest and most instructive scene in the whole movie is when he is holding his speech to the other lions, promising them a "new and glorious future" together with the hyenas. Meanwhile, the hyenas approach from all directions, evil grins in their faces. The lions all look terrified, but they do nothing; the throne has betrayed them, and they stand without leadership. They have nothing else to do but to give up their land and pretend to believe in the lies.

Any of this sound familiar yet? I should think so: Osamu Tezuka's references to the White world's plight are extremely clear, and anyone who doesn't understand this last scene should never have watched more advanced TV than Donald Duck in the first place. Eisner & Co. could erase "White Lion" from the title, but they couldn't erase Scar without remaking the entire story.

What happens next is not always as clear, however, but when you think about it Tezuka gives us a message even with Simba's exile. Simba (or Kimba in the original version) ends up living not with lions, but with smaller species. They are nice enough, but they have no understanding of the greatness of the Lion Kingdom and its ideals. When Simba tells his newfound friends of "ancient kings" they just laugh at him. The mythology of his ancestors is discarded, and cut off from the guidance he should have had, Simba caves in. His new philosophy is Individualism: do whatever you want, you don't have any responsibilities at all. The movie calls this "hakuna matata," and it threatens to make Simba blind for the rest of his life, a permanent loss to his people. Furthermore, the alien philosophy is strengthened by Scar's managing to make him believe that he, Simba, was responsible for his father's death. Guilt and self-hatred were the Jew's first tools against us, and Osamu Tezuka clearly understood their importance. Simba's fall to Individualism in an atomized existence mirrors ours.

We are in luck, however -- the catharsis comes when Simba's childhood love finds him and pleads to him to return to the kingdom. Simba understands that he has been misled by a selfish ideology; the true way to live is by serving a greater good. He returns to his people after many years in exile, only to find a society that has taken a drastic turn for the worse. Scar and his dark legions have bled the kingdom dry, and neither lion nor hyena can now survive much longer. The lions have every reason to regret their earlier cowardice at a time when they could have stood up against the intruder. It is clear they now understand their situation better than ever, but still they do nothing; despite their greatness they will do nothing on their own, not without the right leadership.

Enter Simba: strong, powerful, and filled with rage against the intruders. There will be no more talking, no more lies. There will be no more tolerance of either Scar or his lower allies. They have betrayed the trust the lions gave them, and their crimes will be paid in blood. Simba is the leader his people need, and he comes at a time when they have suffered so much that they are prepared to do what they should have done even before Mufasa's death. Too bad for the hyenas. Facing an awakened Aryan race -- sorry, awakened lions -- they understand that they don't stand a chance. In one clear sweep the old injustices are swept away, and the lions reclaim their land. Scar and the hyenas vanish in an ocean of fire and blood.

The movie ends with Simba's son being shown to the people, a symbol of that things have returned to normal, and the lions are once again the masters of their own destiny; the destiny as the guardians of Life.

As I said earlier, this is a very clear message from a man who looked at our world with open eyes. I would like to see Tezuka's original TV series, but this version will do. "The Lion King" should be included in any movie collection, but it should be explained to those who see it, as I realize most never expect this movie's message and so aren't looking for it. That done, pass the popcorn and watch Nature take its inevitable course.


Of course it would make much more sense to replace "white" and "aryan" with Afrikan instead

confused3Am confused here Prince Hakeem....is the author talking about the rift between Whites and Jews? He lost me....confused2

I think you're stretching it with all that lion king stuff to be honest. It's not that deep. Using that sort of argument you could basically say that ANYTHING is racist. This to me diminshes the argument against those stupid films which really are.

My one thatgot me as a kid was Captain scarlet.

Admiral white leader of the goodies.
Bunch of colourful goodies including white angels and....
Captain black as the only baddie.

Now THAT shit was a pisstake.

@All Doggville...Really powerful and uncomfortable film which had me wanting to jump through the screen and grab a boy..No black people, oh one in it. Not about black people but a small out of the way town and how they treat this woman who is in hidding...

Makes it even more powerful that it was not about black people because only god knows what they would have done. Great film about human groups and society positive and nice and when they turn..The rape scences really well and it is not the violence is that everybody knows it is happening and the intellectual town scholar full of ideals who loves her does not have the balls to confront his community.

Heavy really really heavy..

Had no idea what people saw in Nicole Kidman until that film. Bad gal actress big time. America did not like the flim because it was viewed as an alagory of the US and their small town mentality by a German director..Got them mad as hell...

The end is wicked....

FB

One of the film that i think contains some repulsive elements is The King And I....i know its about some Asian king and an English teacher, but i found the arrogancy contained in this film is way too much for people to have missed it and turned the story into a classic

In the beginning, the English Rose character storms into the King's palace, which is automatic death, yet he lets her off. When adressing the King, you are meant to be bowing down, yet she is standing straight and almsot shouting at him.lol

And as the film goes on, you realise that king who had an abundance of cocubines of exotic women was falling for a pale skined bluefoot who has never moisturised in her life. And he lets her get away with all sorts, yet allows the killing of one if his cocubines who wanted to leave.

Oh and don't forget how the good old white lady saved his empire by her so called war technics.....i swear this story is complete Eurocentric bullshit....alas i digress

I haven't seen Hustle and Flow and I don't want to as I don't like the theme..it repulses me. I couldn't care less that it's receiving rave reviews from the mainstream critics. We don't need any more pimp, crime, drugs or violent films right now, we need a major boost of positivity..and that doesn't mean we need to churn out another brain-dead bourgois flick about sex power and money either!

To Kill a Mockingbird is an adaptation of a novel written by Harper Lee. The actual movie was released in 1962, during the civil rights movement. It was set roughly 30 years in the past, but was obviously meant to have a comtemporary relevance. The essential effect of the movie is to soothe the white conscience by suggesting that racial prejudice was worse in the past, and that massive bigotry is largely restricted to southern rednecks. That old displacement technique. There will always be a white liberal saint willing to fight for justice and equality for black folks.

The movie deals with the subject of race prejudice in an indirect fahion, by showing it through the eyes of a little girl. The voice over narration is given by Jean Louise Finch looking back on an event in her childhood. Her father Atticus Finch ( a likeable Gregory Peck) defended the black sharcropper Tom Robinson, a man accused (unjustly) of raping a white woman.

Atticus is a liberal messiah type figure and his oppisite is Bob Ewell, a white farmer, and father of the woman that accused Tom of rape. Ewell doesn't understand how Atticus could defend a black man, and beginns to stalk him and in the movies climax tries to kill his children. We again see the split in the white self, with the projection of undesirable qualities on a charactured villian, and the projection of themselves onto a herioc figure.

Both Atticus and Ewell are widowers and also have daughters, but that's the end of the simililarity. Atticus is middle-class, edcucated, liberal, displays bravery, peaceful, and an excellant father, infact an idealised figure. Ewell is working class, ignorant, cowardly, violent and a drunkard, also a child abuser. So we have the familiar idealised white self, and a kind of anti white-self.

Boo Radly, retarded white neighbour of the Finches. He's meant to be a double for Tom Robinson. Although white, as a victim of prejudice, he is symbolically black, and like tom a pariah in their community, wrongly accused of being violent and brutish even though their kind men. Both Boogeyman. There's a positive outcome for Boo which balances the negative for Tom, thus suggesting the posibility of overcoming prejudice. When Ewell attacks the children he is killed by Boo, not Atticus because that would taint him.

Funnily enough Atticus is revealed to be pretty powerless. He stands outside the jail obstensilbly to protect Tom from a lynch mob, instead one of the children saves him, by greeting the mob by name, thus shaming them. He also doesn't defent him in the court room, since he lost the case, and he can't defend his children from Ewell, so Boo saves them.

He's really a failure, but the movie applauds him for his integrity. All black folk in the movie follow the usual convention of being powerless and docile. Narcisssitic fantasy, and smug self congratulatory tale about overcoming racism.

Oh yep, A Time to Kill is sort of similiar.

Aren't we actually stretching things here ? I mean lets be honest, if you really want to you can find racist undertones in Winnie the Poh (don't get me started). That said there are of course movies who are very, very suspicious to say the least.

It is kind of interesting that someone took up the Lion king. A friend of mine told me that the Lion King 2 (or 3 ) was really racist from the way the good golden lions treated the darker "Scar-like" lions. I havent' seen it yet...so I can't say any...

Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith)