3 Reasons YouTube Shouldn’t Censor Downfall Parodies
[. . .]
It’s understandable why Downfall’s production company, Constantin Film, might be upset that such a serious movie is being burlesqued, but pushing YouTube to ban the parodies is a terrible idea for at least three reasons:
1. It’s fair use! The parodies, which transform a few minutes of a three-hour movie, are clearly legit under existing copyright laws. Because they clearly transform the original and have no possibility of confusing viewers, the parodies are clearly protected speech.
2. This is free promotion! As George Lucas could tell the filmmakers, fan-generated videos help keep the original source material vital and relevant. Lucas used to try to police all Star Wars knock-offs, until he realized that his audience was promoting his films more effectively than he ever could. More people have surely seen Downfall due to the popularity of the parodies.
3. Let’s keep the Internet creative! The greatest cultural development over the past 20 or so years has been technologies that allow producers and consumers to create and enjoy an ever-increasing array of creative expression in an ever-increasing array of circumstances. This development is nowhere more powerful than on the Internet, which has unleashed a whole new universe of writing, music, video, and more. Indeed, YouTube is itself one of the great conduits of cyberspace. Pulling down the Downfall parodies may be within YouTube’s rights, but it nonetheless strikes a blow to the heart of what is totally awesome about the Internet.
May 5, 2010
Three reasons not to remove the Downfall parodies
April 22, 2010
British Lib Dem leader on Britain’s “war guilt”
The leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats may have a lot of apologizing to do after an article he wrote as a member of the European parliament came to light:
A rattled Nick Clegg today sought to defend himself over his claim that the British people have a ‘more insidious cross to bear’ than Germany over World War II.
The Lib Dem leader attempted to laugh off criticism of his astonishing attack on our national pride — in which he said we suffered ‘delusions of grandeur’ and a ‘misplaced sense of superiority’ over having defeated the horrors of Nazism.
Campaigning ahead of tonight’s crucial second live TV showdown with party leaders, Mr Clegg said: ‘I must be the only politician who has gone from being Churchill to being a Nazi in under a week.’
Then again, despite the apparent anti-British taint, it might gain him votes in some crucial swing ridings where anti-British feelings are treasured and welcomed.
Update: Sorry about the original headline . . . must have started a cut-and-paste and then forgotten to fix it. Fixed now.
April 13, 2010
Another interesting use of Twitter
The brief log entries at RAF Duxford, a Royal Air Force airfield in Cambridgeshire, will move from the historical Operations Record Book to Twitter to mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain:
Every squadron, station and certain other units in the Royal Air Force had to complete an Operations Record Book, known as a Form 540.
Those for RAF Duxford and No 19 Squadron from 1940 show events such as patrols over Dunkirk, the problems encountered with early cannon-armed Spitfires, and the arrival of Czech pilots to form 310 Squadron.
They describe the sorties carried out by No 19 Squadron and pilots’ experiences during dogfights over south-east England.
A museum spokesman said: “This exciting new campaign will give a direct insight into Battle of Britain history, and will show how the campaign built in momentum throughout 1940.
Follow RAFDuxford1940 on Twitter.
March 18, 2010
Bombing of Dresden horrible, but not as horrible as we thought
The bombing raids which destroyed much of the fabric of the city of Dresden late in World War Two didn’t cause as many civilian casualties as has been claimed:
Up to 25,000 people died in the Allied bombing of Dresden during World War II – fewer than often estimated, an official German report has concluded.
The Dresden Historians’ Commission published its report after five years of research into the 13-15 February 1945 air raid by Britain and the US.
The study was aimed at ending an ongoing debate on the number of casualties in the German city.
Germany’s far-right groups claim that up to 500,000 people died.
They say the bombing – which unleashed a firestorm in the historic city when the Nazi Germany was already close to defeat – constituted a war crime.
Note that the “they” in that final paragraph refers to the “far-right groups” and not to the Dresden Historians’ Commission. It’s not the judgement of the commission that the bombing was a war crime.
March 16, 2010
This is taking nostalgia too far
Britain survived the second world war partly through the early introduction of rationing — there were too many people to be directly supported from British farms, so food importation was critical. My mother told me that rationing was actually an improvement in basic nutrition for a lot of working class families: they got a wider variety of foods, even if it wasn’t of high quality. George Orwell’s pre-war writing solidly confirms this for miners and their families (probably the best known example is The Road to Wigan Pier).
All this being said, I still think that this is taking nostalgia too far:
I’m intrigued by this Time Out review of Kitchen Front, a restaurant at London’s Imperial War museum that serves accurate re-creations of the (mostly horrible) food eaten in Britain during WWII’s rationing period. Time Out gave it two star for food quality and full marks for accuracy (in the print edition, at least — they haven’t recreated this online). It sounds like a uniquely wonderful and horrible dining experience, especially as the food is prepared by a well-loved firm of caterers who’ve really gotten into the spirit of things.
November 11, 2009
In memorium
A simple recognition of some of our family members who served in the First and Second World Wars:
The Great War
- Private William Penman, Scots Guards, died 1915 at Le Touret, age 25
(Elizabeth’s great uncle) - Private David Buller, Highland Light Infantry, died 1915 at Loos, age 35
(Elizabeth’s great grandfather) - Private Walter Porteous, Northumberland Fusiliers, died 1917 at Passchendaele, age 18
(my great uncle) - Corporal John Mulholland, Royal Tank Corps, died 1918 at Harbonnieres, age 24
(Elizabeth’s great uncle)
The Second World War
- Flying Officer Richard Porteous, RAF, survived the defeat in Malaya and lived through the war
(my uncle) - Able Seaman John Penman, RN, served in the Defensively Equipped Merchant fleet on the Murmansk Run (and other convoy routes), lived through the war
(Elizabeth’s father) - Private Archie Black (commissioned after the war and retired as a Major), Gordon Highlanders, captured at Singapore (aged 15) and survived a Japanese POW camp
(Elizabeth’s uncle)
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
September 17, 2009
An alternate reading of Inglourious Basterds
Tyler Cowen has a very different view of Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie, Inglourious Basterds:
Tarantino made his Hong Kong movie, his martial arts movie, and his Blaxpoitation flick but I never expected him to dip into Nazi cinema. He sure loves hearing those Germans talk — boy are they eloquent — and fascist chattering takes up most of the movie. There is a veneer of a Jewish revenge plot against the Germans, but most of the movie strikes me as a re-aestheticization of various Nazi ideals, cinematic, linguistic, and otherwise. I’m not suggesting Tarantino literally favors the rule of Hitler, rather he probably got a kick out of getting away with such a swindle, right under the noses of Hollywood and with commercial success to boot. The Jewish assassin squad members hardly seem virtuous (in some ways they’re portrayed to fit Nazi stereotypes), whereas the German characters light up the screen and show extreme cleverness. (Hitler by the way is a “crummy Austrian,” not up to the more rigorous German ideal.) The sniper “movie within a movie” — which has Tarantino constructing a Nazi movie for a screening scene — is a stand-in for the broader enterprise. Throughout one wonders what are the implied references to Israel, such as when the Jewish suicide bombers strap explosives to themselves. There is homage to Riefenstahl, Pabst, Emil Jannings, Nazi “mountain movies” and other unsavory bits. I found viewing this movie a disturbing and negative experience. I’ve done a lot of work on the history of the state and the arts; if you don’t believe me, go away and research Nazi cinema and watch the film again.
Once again, it isn’t a movie I was particularly interested in seeing, and this interpretation makes me even less likely to shell out the price of admission.
September 3, 2009
1939: Britain declares war on Germany
The German invasion of Poland two days earlier triggered the French and British governments’ guarantee to Poland, so after the expiry of the ultimatum, war was declared. Here’s British PM Neville Chamberlain’s announcement of the state of war (RAM file, not WMV).
Unlike the situation in 1914, where Canada was automatically at war when Britain went to war, in 1939 Canada was able to decide whether and when to go to war. It wasn’t until a week later, on September 10, that Canada was formally at war with Germany.
September 2, 2009
Canadian troops acting badly . . . in WW2
Jon sent me an interesting anecdote from The Telegraph. According to this (as far as I know uncorroborated) story, the Canadian soldiers stationed in Britain during the Second World War were far from being boy scouts:
Apparently the manoeuvres had got completely out of hand and some of the people living in the Forest Hill and Shotover areas of the county and adjoining Wheatley were being terrorised by tanks, driven utterly without care and thought through the area.
They ploughed up gardens, ruined hedges and flattened walls and carefully cultivated vegetable plots. Concrete pavements were smashed and local roads were apparently chewed up like ploughed fields.
One woman out for a walk with her children was terrorised by a madman in a tank and had her pram damaged.
Stories of the causes of this irresponsibility abounded and the memory of that awful Sunday lived on for years.
The Canadians had the dubious distinction of having inflicted more damage and fear on the civilian population that the Germans!
I’d not be surprised to hear that there’d been some incidents, but I hadn’t heard of anything of quite this magnitude. Has anyone else heard about it before?
Speaking of historical revisionism, here’s Pat Buchanan!
Pat Buchanan recently published a book called Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War. From the title, you can probably pick up the notion that he feels that Hitler was misunderstood and didn’t really want to go to war. If you aren’t busy retching already, try this on for size:
Did Hitler Want War?
Well, from the title alone, we’re off into cloud-cookoo land already. Yes, Hitler did want war. He was pretty emphatic about it too, and not just in 1939. His written-in-prison Mein Kampf was not a particularly pacific and conciliatory little homily.
The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.
Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.
Danzig was an excuse, not a reason. The plebiscite had shown that the inhabitants wanted to be part of Germany again, which is probably not surprising as the pre-war Polish government was anti-German and were actively trying to suppress the German language and culture in former German areas of Poland. The Polish government was authoritarian, not democratic, and were not the innocents that some later portrayals might try to indicate. Few of the governments of central or eastern Europe would pass muster as democracies in the 1930s.
Poland did not trust the German government to negotiate in good faith, with plenty of reason, so trying to blame them for the outbreak of the war is ludicrous.
But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?
Um. There’s a tiny little bit of evidence. His book. His speeches. The war plans he had his military leaders draw up. The re-armament program, far in excess of what a peaceful nation with nearby enemies might need as a deterrent.
But yeah, aside from that, he didn’t — so far as we know — conduct a secret pinky-swear session with Mussolini and Hirohito at midnight in the Chancellery basement to conquer the world or else. I mean that’d be the smoking gun, wouldn’t it?
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
Why did he build the Westwall (aka “Siegfried Line“)? Well, perhaps it was because the French had already constructed large sections of the Maginot Line? This — at least as far as generals on both sides thought — provided a dual purpose: to prevent a German attack into France, and to provide a safe starting point for a French attack into Germany. The fact that the line failed to prevent an attack which came from beyond the flank of the line is hindsight. The Westwall was also multi-purpose, in this case it had three goals: prevent the French attacking, provide a base for an attack on France, and (borrowing the modern term) infrastructure. The Nazi party came to power partly because of the unemployment situation in Germany in the early 1930s. A vast construction project like the Westwall offered chances to soak up lots of “excess” labour . . . and to provide money to the “right” kind of private firms (those who supported the Nazis or those which the Nazis needed to curry favour with).
Go read the whole thing if you’re interested, but I’m feeling that there’s little point in going on . . . I’m certainly not going to persuade Mr. Buchanan or his followers of anything.
September 1, 2009
70 years on, Poland remembers
Seventy years ago today, German troops crossed the Polish frontier, starting the Second World War in Europe. Poland held a memorial to that event this morning:
The first ceremony took place at dawn on Westerplatte peninsula near Gdansk, where a German battleship fired the first shots on a Polish fort in 1939.
Poland’s president and prime minister led a sombre ceremony at the fort.
President Lech Kaczynski added to a row with Russia over responsibility for the war, saying his country had received a “stab in the back”.
Foreign leaders from 20 countries including Germany and Russia are expected in Gdansk during the day as ceremonies continue.
