/film/ - FILM

Everyone talks about how much they hate Israel that I never really got to see the country's culture, this was a decent war film. Jews really do look fucking disgusting, those aren't cherry-picked samples.

Paradise now

It's about two bombers.

Ha-Shoter Azulai (1971) is a fun one. It's a comedy in the vein of Jacques Tati about a dimwitted policeman.

If you want a glimpse of life in Israel you should watch the documentary project Diary by David Perlov, filmed over the course of a decade

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179546/

>>14373

While yes i'm a north mex, also my ideologies very probably fall in the fascio area and architecture is one of my main interests probably my only strong point but you would be much more likely to see me drop dead than defend scumbag trash buildings except the military school than how that jungle monkey did.

Sorry man, got carried out, no it's not me, he also got it half-wrong, in terms of historical context he got brutalism right, but in terms of concept he got it extremely wrong, it's first and foremost a construction system instead of merely a stylistic/conceptual one, one which serves 3 purposes: building durability (if done like it was supposed to), rapidness in construction wherever the place (if an industrial sector is near) and high plasticity (if you have top-tier woodworkers). And its dense nature provides a very strong object visually, hence being the preferred way for government institutions and monolithic companies, as most banks and institutions employ it. The bigger picture he seems to miss is that concrete and steel have roughly the same properties in terms of elasticity, and both are highly common materials that can be mass produced and easily applied anywhere, reinforced concrete is a constructor's dream.

While many examples have worked against the spirit of its local population (see pic 1, a grey but brick-based area with notable angled roofing) due to gommie ideologies and low-budget approach of a government (consequence of the infamous International Style and overall justdoit mentality) you also have craftsmen who have molded the system into their local surroundings (pic 2, 5 blocks away from the other mex's second example, geometry and pathways done to mimic the moutains surrounding the city and pre-hispanic buildings) and some others, like the majestic Paul Rudolph, have even turned it into a Bourgeoisie architecture itself (pic 3 and a notable mexican architect's example at pic 4).

It might not be always grey as you can tint it at pleasure, plus it can be highly ornamental if you have the money, a high plasticity and choice of color makes it playdough for a man conscious of his culture, the altiplanic cricket eater simply blames the material instead of the man with the tools. Mexicans being hateful of one another, plus an umbrella frankenstein culture that erases all regional traces not from the capital and Jalisco, doesn't help either.

Also the man is tripping and being plain ignorant of the country, just like any smug-breathing hominid, due to preferring a colonial-style building in >any< national city (as his wording implies), i say this because half of the country didn't even have a colony government or doctrine, the northern states were relatively just military fortresses constructed by mercenaries using local materials and some knowledge from the soldiers themselves, leading us to cities with no distinguishable structural styles. How can you add spice and colonial accent to a city that started taking its big steps in plain modernity? we can't add that spaniard's slave mentality into a city that was never in the colony's grasp and hit the jackpot in the 20th century without looking like a phony or a foreigner, hence why the Californian style of suburban architecture in the West Coast of the United States is sketchy and plastic at best, as it does not follows any known rule in terms of its complete context, it's an oddity that was vastly reproduced that it turned into its own thing with no past.

That jumper feller might have good intentions but he's lost, at least in that certain aspect. And how can you be a national socialist without having a nation to speak of? disregarding the culture/everything of your fellow denizens of the federation simply makes you a mere socialist, the clear ideological enemy of this so-called "man", unless he believes in the separation of his cultural region to be its own soup, in which case i agree, the farther the better in terms of fauna living down there.

Also pic 5 to make this long-winded rant thread related, Habitat 67 is a highly-Functionalist Brutalist building, done in the classic "let's erase all trace of identity and culture" way of modern-era architecture, done by Israeli architect Moshe Safdie, which reminded me of >>13626. We can go further mentioning who were the inventors of that kind of reset-everything architecture that was the modern movement, but let me just say that you are more likely to known the answer, the surprising part is that in the middle of it all there were well-meaning germans and austrians that would regret it, and also Mussolini-era italians who weren't expecting a reversal of their ideologies.

I remembered a week ago due to a news article a movie i saw when i started delving into the hobby, one night a certain channel had one of these "Festival" weeks and broadcasted 2 very contrasting movies, Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry and after having done a quick search on the tubes, our topic at hand: James' Journey to Jerusalem

Seems to have been made by a certain Ra'anan Alexandrowicz in Israel around 2003 but it felt older, it had a lot of this mid-90's aesthetic around base colours and the bright display of them, along with the happy-go-lucky attitude in the face of adversity. Very juvenile stuff akin to a movie targeted at teenagers but things do get to the gutter quickly in this one IIRC.

It's about an african, James, who comes from a very devout (and poor) christian village that candidly works very hard to collect a few scraps and send their smartest to a pilgrimage to the Holy City along with requesting some kind of proof of his adventure, preferably a photo; All this while ignoring the crucial point that the city is now controlled by the Israelis.

We see this little, dream-like and bright montage of some kind of celebration with James being the focal point, for sure we can deduce by our protag's optimistic narration and images that he's the chosen one, the trip goes well enough until he reaches Israel, very early into the movie, were some customs set him up for some other shady individual to take advantage of the confusion and pass the border. Then our lad James here is somehow co-opted by a guard to work as cheap hand labor to pay up his release, he goes with it until he realizes the boss hauls him whenever he wants to at whatever time, said boss keeps the money to safeguard it and deducts it by providing housing, which turns out to be basically an overcrowded cell full of illegal not-very-christian africans in a ghetto housing tower, thus making our boy here basically a de-facto slave who cleans windows and mops floors instead of picking some kind of soft crop.

Things turn a little different in the latter half with the protag somewhat befriending an israeli, a spitting image of an old new yorker stereotype, along with becoming in all its original definition a house negro. Still i don't know how the director got away with this movie in Israel (same with Waltz with Bashir) i guess the intention of the movie was to join these different beliefs and cultures under the banner of friendship along with providing tough insight into the domestic labor workbase but it fails tremendously in adding a lever to the grim sight, the whole thing plays out like an unfortunate /pol/ joke and the narration adds a burlesque ironic flavor to it (disdain for africans, certain part explaining one of the few jolly moments as "feeling like a human").

Almost by the end of the movie you ought to hate every single living entity that appeared with the exception of the protag, and simply because he also became jaded after being bullied and having to exert his dominance/peace by killing the cell bully by bashing his head repeatedly and the bittersweet ending doesn't help either.

It's been around 15 or 14 years since i've seen it but it still strikes me, i was very young so i probably didn't perceive that it maybe wasn't a teenager movie (just using the imagery as visual parody) nor see the message behind it all because i couldn't get past the bad things happening (probably the point of the director). Also not to be a homo but due to age this was one of the only movies that have choked me, depend on who you are it's hard to feel bad for these kind of protagonists yet the low-light but persistent misery this silly african endured was like seeing Winnie the Pooh and Clifford the Dog as subjects in Gallipoli. Nowadays i would probably laugh but at a young age this is quite the ride, certainly not a taste of any kind of cherry in terms of impression this is not good at all for the jewish cause.

>>14574

Is that banter mate? i got banned from a board and got cleaned-out in another for reposting a polite version of the architecture part when prompted to.

Somehow brutalism has been a topic recently and it puzzles me how many got it misinterpreted. Must've been a e-celeb/youtuber or something, personally i think Deconstructivism is the real enemy in contemporary and historical architecture.

>>14618

>but it functions as reaction and it functions good imo.

Just like the tool, it depends on the man behind them but in the case of deconstructivism it's a specific ideology that has been used almost solely to cause reaction, the function part, at least from the buildings i've been, is poor because it's a normal system only slightly modified to support a fancy shell, which is the primary tool to visualize an idea thus create an emotion, because even the interiors are not that livid. I'm not a die hard functionalist, in fact i tend to dislike their contemporary proponents for ignoring such basic things as views (panoramic or simply light entries) but one needs to justify certain things when they are more than half of the project's budget, because we also need to take into our client might not be on the same page as our ideology.

>fatalist reaction on ever increasing alienation

The movement started somewhat benign, back when it was still called post-modernism and was almost solely a movement to make fun of the strict and sterile rules of the modern way, just like you said, a reaction to the architecture that had been degenerating itself. Robert Venturi being this way's principal advocate due to his terrorist projects which actually started having a justification (his mother's high tastes and low budget) until he went loony with stuff like putting a giant column in front of a main entrance because "why can't i do it if i'm this project's god?". One of the actual decent post-modernists would be Mario Botta, but anyways in terms of the form+function of the deconstructivism i can attest to:

You have the Walt Disney concert hall in Los Angeles, California in which the form only functions in the hall itself with the ceiling in catenary but the walling gets shafted due to the same irregularity thus having to place fake walls to create the optimal geometry for the acoustics, the rest of the public building is average steel beams+columns in orthogonal arrange that have small overlaps that create the supports for the shell made of some kind of alloy that blinds the shit out of you from the near highway and 2 street-level roads in most months not summer when the sun angle is not 80+. It was made for fancy likings, which is understandable and completely valid (except the massive reflections) but it has been sold to us as one of the go-to examples of innovation and cool, which i can't agree with. Made by Frank Goldberg aka Frank Gehry and made using the classic high school student technique of architecture: Make the cool form in its entirety first and then shove all the necessary spaces to make it work, except he brought 4 draftsmen for the last part without him doing anything else. The reaction he wanted from this shell is quite obvious, awe and full on the eye (literally) plus a certain form that reminds us of flying pages in the wind, supposedly the music sheets... a mere touristic landmark.

The other i remember is the infamous entrance to the jewish contemporary museum in Fagdom, California. Rarely mentioned i found it by mistake when walking around the few non no-go zones in the city, the reaction and intention was clear as crystal, from my view it was disbelief and utter shock. A set of black cubes (the tefillin) a few meters directly behind the apse/altar of the only historical christian church in the area and towering over it. This would certainly boil the blood of many who know these symbols, but for the usual denizen of the city it's nothing more than a cool form for a spiritual and solemn space (and just near a church!) but still i doesn't hide the fact that it's extremely transgressive thus functioning perfectly in its reaction objective, pure chutzpah. In terms of function what can i say, doors are angled in the south spaces in such a way that a normal +1.8m american would have to lower his head (bow down to say it for directly) or angle your head as if you were in an attic, the exposition area is just an angled box that serves no purpose because the lights are hanging thus making you know the wall is inclined, not you and losing the confusion aspect that was meant to be (in my opinion). It does function in that physical limit regard, but the interior doesn't reflect the flashy exterior, you can only see the same language with the doors and a certain ceiling element that serves as the transition between this area and the restored old one... ah yes forgot to mention they made the old city museum into this one and broke the roofing and the back facade to do a black geometry extension. Made by Daniel Libeskind, a polish jew also known for doing the just-as-radical new segment of the Dresden Military Museum, which coincidentally was also the area for the city's bombing history segment.

I think i dragged on too much, what i meant to say is that the vast majority of deconstructivism is just the same old modern architecture made to support a distinctive outer image to either bring views and interest, make itself a landmark or place a strong message from its creators; It's just as, if not more, corporativist in its full extreme than the good old International Style. And it was always like that, since its conception in the mid-80's its most famous examples go to such lengths that it cripples even the most basic functions that it was meant to improve thus making the whole thing a joke as the strict functionalism becomes a preferred alternative. Zaha Hadid made IMO the most interesting projects but she also suffered from lack of maintenance factor and high costs for no reason, but she made, or at least her 300-men studio, very kicking interiors that did reflect the nature of the project (even when they were almost useless in some cases, see Firefighter Station turned into a museum just 2 years after build). And the original post-modernism has been retconned to be late-modernism but with more aesthetic liberties and "artist's share".

Of course that's only my opinion on the subject, i seem to be a little hard on the jewish aspect but it's a fact that most of the projects in this form of building are from jewish architects for jewish clients. Who knows what the correlation is between the ideology of deconstructing/destructing established objects, manufacturing from thin-air points of cultural interest and lots of money for the sudden betterment of areas which at the end get erased or ignored from the project.

Polite sages due to off-topic content or is it

>>14619

You can improve it by expanding it with your knowledge.