Очень похоже пародия на нее ))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HxK8yRYna8
Printable View
Очень похоже пародия на нее ))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HxK8yRYna8
В наших кинопродуктах ляпы не такие броские.
Киноляпы или "Да гранаты у него не той системы!" страница 168
I think USA has this kind of movies as a consequence of freedom of speech. Anyone with a budget can film a trash movie about evil Russians to fit the target audience's expectations. In USSR, on the other hand, there was censorship, and censorship doesn't necessarily mean "dissidents and free-thinkers", it also means "censorship of different kinds of trash no sane person wants to see", every movie had to have some profound message, morale (="evil propaganda of evil communists" :), obviously dumb & ugly cowboys invading Vladivostok to build McDonalds restaurants isn't one of those, Soviet propaganda was about more specific & subtle political ideas.
See, sane people usually choose to decide what they will see and what they won't, and don't rely on censorship doing it for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by car
Quote:
Originally Posted by car
Well the "target audience" get their expectations from these types of films. There is no other material readily available. That is why Hollywood's stereotyping of Russians is such a great pity. I suspect that many in the US base their understanding of Russians and Russia on what they see on TV and cinema.
It is not like the US produces a great deal of balanced documentaries about Russia, for instance. It was much worse during the Cold war, but contrary to what you might thing, things do not appear to have improved. To the degree that any documentaries were made during the cold war, they were about some negative aspect that would picture the enemy country in negative light. I think it's fair to say that the USSR produced documentaries that focussed on the negatives of the USA, such as rasism or class division.But I don't think it villified Americans in films at all, while this is/was standard fare in US entertainment i.e. "evil Russians".
Even in media like Reader's Digest or Time magazine they choose negative stories from Russia - the trend from the Cold War has continued although I think the twist has changed a bit. Now it seems more like Russians are depicted as unscrupolous, corrupt, ruthless and involved with criminality.
One trend from the Cold War was that if there ever was a nice Russian person in the film, it was somebody who wanted to defect, slept (literally) with the enemy or was persecuted by their country.
Я встречал финна, которые считал, что все - абсолютно все - россияне в той или иной степени мафиози. И он очень боялся любого русского, бедный парень.
Yes, there is a bit of truth to this, sadly. I read how Finland *really* needs more people to learn Russian in school because it's very sought after by business due to the proximity to Russia. But kids don't choose Russian because they believe Russians are "bad" etc... There is even a campaign about studying Russian in school, but it has not been very successful and they have a shortage of people with Russian skills. Reading about this situation in both Finland and Sweden too, was one of the reasons I decided to pick up Russian in 2009. Still, the Finns know more about Russia, Russian culture and history than most European nations. The national interest is very much to have a good relationship with Russia - they've had that priority for a long time, with varying success....Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
In Helsinki you can watch Russian terrestrial TV with perfect reception and catch the train to St Petersburg that takes only a few hours. But instead of looking at the reality of their neighbouring country, they learn about Russia from American films that are so prejudiced that I'd call it "propaganda". To be honest there was quite a lot of criminality and vice by Russians in Helsinki in the 90s (I went to university for a term in Helsinki back then, and all the people who sold illegal alcohol and drugs were Russian, enough said....) but I think that has stopped a long time ago and everyone knows that the situation in Russia was terrible at the time - many people were driven into crime who would not have taken it up under normal circumstances.
Today - the only Russians in Stockholm where I live are normal, respectable tourists. Apparently the 3rd largest tourist group nowadays.
If a person can be "driven into crime" under whatever circumstances, it says a lot about them. (Deleted. L.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Ну, если по финским меркам, скажем, контрафактное ПО или фильмы с торрента - признак принадлежности к оргпреступности, то может он в чем-то и прав...Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
This Finnish guy even creates Russian culture. ))Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Хаапасало, Вилле — Википедия
http://img.dni.ru/binaries/v2_articlepic/236740.jpg
В 1991 г. Вилле Хаапасало отправился в Питер учиться на актёра и на себе испытал все прелести лихих 90-х. За один только год его 9 раз избили и 9 раз ограбили. Но Вилле не уехал и в итоге так полюбил Россию, что стал мечтать о роли Раскольникова. И даже написал на тему «Преступления и наказания» сценарий, в котором Раскольников не убивает старушку.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dow9SRj9A0g&feature=related
He is great!! Too bad he is an alcoholic.
And one thing worth mentioning about Finland - Russia: The Finns don't have a lot of complaints about the period when Finland belonged to Russia. According to them "Russia was better than Sweden" because Russia more or less left Finland alone.
It's kind of fascinating to think that Finnish heroes like Mannerheim were actually educated in Russia and spoke Russian.
I think they like Russia really, it's just the Winter War and the affect of all those Amercian films with bad-guy Russians that had a bit of effect. They used to say that they preferred Sweden over Russia in a comparison between their neighbours. But lately as Sweden has gone over the top with political correctness which is not so big in Finland, they might begin to change their minds.
Dropping the Visa requirement would do miracles, I think. Finland wants to relax it, or drop it altogether, it's just that they can't due to EU rules.
Just read recently about one of the biggest poets in the Swedish language - turns out she actually lived her life in what is now Russian territory (somewhere in Karelia, forgot where...) She spoke all three languages, as well as German (impressive!) but her mother tongue was Swedish so that was what she wrote most of her poetry in. She even went to school in St Petersburg, but the Russian revolution was completely disastrous for her family - they lost everything and she died at a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Very sad. Edit Södergran. Not my favourite poet, but some of her prose is nice and her story is rather fascinating from a modern perspective.
And a Russian Mafia member. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Полностью тред не читал.
Про «K-19: The Widowmaker» вспоминали?
Speaking of propaganda; The EU banned the "Press TV" alternative news channel and 19 other entertainment channels out of Iran.
So much for freedom of press!
You can look at whatever junk you want, as long as it doesn't have a controversial message.
I.e. there are about 10 big European news channels that pretty much say the same thing about everything, with a local twist. Then there are a few American ones that go along with the same message, just a bit more aggressive and dumbed down. Then there is Russia Today and Press TV that actually have a different message. And now one of them is shut down. Let's see how long until Russia Today is blocked! It's not available in any cable packages that I've come across, but at least those with Satellite can tune in to it.
Some think this was done in preparation for an attack on Iran, alternatively because PressTV reports the other side of the story in the Syria conflict.
Anyone who wants to sign the petition to the EU against banning PressTV, sign here! http://www.change.org/petitions/pres...s-tv-in-europe
It's obvious the EU (EU countries/states) are not interested in freedoms and thus, freedom of expression. But, Russia is no different. Putin et al. would have you believe that he is independent (that is an independent thinker and different from the EU) but that is false. The Russian government has similar policies and values to the EU. They also ban anything considered 'controversial.' There's many examples but the 'Innocence of Islam' video is just one e.g. What is interesting is that Putin speaks with a 'forked tongue' so to speak. :-) On one hand, he'll speak up to ordinary Russians and say what many want to hear. He'll lecture the West and state his grievances with their policies while he actually does the same or similar. It's very clever since many Russians are preoccupied with daily routine (problems inherent etc.) so to really care about perceived infringements or violations against (their) freedoms takes a backseat or is barely acknowledged, if at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Most countries are pursuing a sort of police state. One only has to open their eyes and be open-minded.
Are you freaking kidding us here? Why would anybody want to watch Iranian (!!!!!!!) TV? To know what terrorists think of the world events? Do you even realize how creepy it sounds? But ok, if that's what you really feel like doing, why can't you find it streaming on the Internet and watch it there? What century does a person have to be stuck in to rely on cable/satellite TV while everything's been on the web for years?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
That's not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
It's about censorship and I think everyone can decide for themselves how to perceive the news or what is reported to them. Even if it's 'propaganda' or the most biased of sources, so what?
So these countries who pride themselves on liberties (i.e. freedom of expression), are saying nothing. What do you know about Eutelsat? Probably nothing.
I probably agree with you on that. Even if those terrorist skunks can in no way teach people liberties, it doesn't give anyone a right to cut them off, coz it does violate freedom of expression. So, what I was saying is that for me personally, it wouldn't be a big deal coz I can barely imagine myself watching that stuff, and besides, I could figure a way to watch what I wanna watch, even if it got removed from satellite broadcasting.Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
Generally I think it's sad that stereotypes are perpetuated in cinema :( Some films I think are made with the knowledge that many people will find them humorous in their absurdity, but overall I think artists and producers should be responsible in the films they make currently to be reasonable in their portrayals of life, don't you?
Я думаю к сожаление, что политическые выражения проживают в многие фильмах. Пожалуй остатки от прошлых времен.
That's probably one of the problems. Too many people think it's not a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
The Innocence of Pussy Riot — RT
I know Russians that want to move (from Russia) and tell me about the problems/conditions but why do Russians ignore or sugarcoat them? Sure, the USA is fast becoming a joke in hypocrisy. The two main political parties are virtually the same and liberties in that country are being eradicated.
But, Russia is no better and it's a major disappointment for me. I don't like the tone and motives of the 'Opposition' but that status quo in Russia is eerily similar to what is going on in other Western countries. The politicians in all these countries are opportunists and traitors yet people in their own (native) countries are so brainwashed and conditioned, they can't honestly evaluate their own. Some are just stubborn. Others are just misinformed or clueless.
I'm not sure the existence or non-existence of liberties, or to say it better, the degree of liberties allowed is the major concern for the majority of people. I think most people just want to live their lives. And, in my opinion, at least they want that their government will not make their life worse. Everything else is up to the culture/customs/political fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
And both are equally powerful. Meaning, the 'watchdogs' know they are sure to get some support from either side. Which I think is presently among the best options available to fight corruption. One of the respected members of this forum Ramil once said truly that the major difference between Russian and the US internal politics is that: should a fraction of what's known about a typical Russian politician be known in the US, that politician would step down immediately. In Russia, that politician could safely ignore all the 'barking'.Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
So 'Press TV' and 'RT' aren't being beamed into every TV in the world.
I think the comments on both sites reveal the reason why.
"Because the Zionist Jew Rothchild banking cabal won't allow it.
Oh, and death to AmeriKKKa!"
With a target audience like that, how am I going to take them seriously?
It would be nice to read some news (just the facts ma'am) from and about their respective countries without the bias that The Colonialist American Oppressors blah, blah, blah.
From the Press TV comments:
"...It looks as Zionits are trying actively infest Russia AGAIN....." Russia talking to Iran
"go Frankenstorm, go! Take out as much of this sick country as you can!" A hurricane
" We have witnessed so many cases of drug cheating by zionist "athletes" over the years " Lance Armstrong.
Somehow it strikes me as odd that Iran protests Press TV not being shown because it's not a sound business decision while trying to isolate itself from outside influences.
"I think the comments on both sites reveal the reason why." Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by capecoddah
I suppose the target audience of ABC/NBC/CBS (news), CNN, MNBC and Fox News is a better one? Of course, these news sources have no bias. In fact, the entire smorgasbord of MSM news doesn't have a bias, Of course not.
I see any mention of the word, 'Zionist' puts up blinders for you, automatically. It sounds like your mind is made up and you're conditioned to think one way only. It's no surprise that the poster who concurs, i.e. Eric, thinks the same.
I don't care what country it is. Banning and censorship is usually a violation of freedoms.
Осторожнее на поворотах: переход на личности - это "но но".Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
Наверное, мы в основном все такие: как выросли - не умеем с лёгкостью мнение менять.
Careful with what? Why? Maybe I interpreted/translated incorrectly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
I was just telling the poster above that there is always a bias but I suggest reading everything with an open mind to then evaluate afterward. Even if we don't like it, that 'banning' or disregarding automatically is not the way to go.
But, everyone jumps to quick conclusions and is ready to hit the censor button as demonstrated.
P.S. Comments after a 'news' article usually include all kinds of views and statements under the sun.
Хотите покажу вам еще одну тяжелую артиллерию пропаганды? Ищите пользователя “leonidmart” на YouTube.
Это монтаж, но монтаж очень качественный для того, кто не сведущ в видео и звукомонтаже.
Видеохистинг, социальные сети, Твиттер, торренты и отдельные сайты. Подумав, я решил написать в администрацию президента и ФСБ, чтобы парнем занялись.
прототипом видимо была Ильза Кох, только было это в германии и историю нагло переврали.Quote:
Originally Posted by BappaBa
А Red Dawn наверное был снят по книгам Ларри Бонда тот ещё, видимо, пропогандист был. Они даже компьютерную игру сейчас умудрились сделать World in Conflict.
You may well be right. I have not visited Russia in modern times. Although I've read the stories about "Putin's censorship", I've taken it with a pinch of salt and "look who's talking".Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
The other thing is, if there is one country where people can recognise propaganda and censorship when they see it, and quickly find a way around it, it's probably Russia. I doubt it stops people from discussing and venting what they like. And it's not like foreign media isn't doing it's best to circumvent, i.e. Radio Free Europe, VOA and similar venues (whatever they call themselves these days).
Besides, the values of Russia are actually more appealing to me, personally than the values of for example Britain. So if I was going to find myself in a censorship situation I'd have a tiny bit more sympathy for the Russian angle of things, even if I hate propaganda and censorship on principle, regardless of the message.
The one thing that I'd really miss in Russian media, I think, would be serious scrutiny of the rich, and of corruption. Read a horrendous story today about Russian noveau riches. Disgusting and they deserve to be exposed in media.
35 per cent of the household wealth in Russia belongs to just 110 billionaires | Mail Online
The figure they complain about is incidentally similar in the USA - but it's disgusting regardless. In Russia's case specifically, because it was built on essential theft of the property of the "people's" state and happened over a timespan of only 20 years.
The free market concept assumes that you cannot steal, but if you're clever enough to make it to the Forbes list acting legally, so let it be. But of course there will be ones complaining about "the darn rich". So, I wonder what other people would consider "rich". Those of you guys who do not like "the rich", could you please name the upper limit of wealth one can have without having to be scrutinized or exposed in media?
So you are defending the Russian oligarchs now? Are you denying that people like Usmanov fit into the category of disgustingly rich, and are you saying that their riches are well deserved?
More so than the workers who spent a lifetime in the factories or mines that the oligarchs snapped up for a pittance.
The workers are now struggling to pay for decent food and heating, while people like the oligarchs who never worked a day in a mine or a factory is jetsetting around the world spending the fruits of thousands of decent peoples labour.
That's a situation you want to defend, is it? Let's hear how you do that.
Here is how these people choose to spend their money abroad, while millions of pensioners in Russia are struggling to get through the day:
The most obscene bar-fight ever? Russian beats rival in club spending duel with £64k bill | Latest News | News | Daily Star. Simply The Best 7 Days A Week
http://images.dailystar-uk.co.uk/dyn...1000/35521.jpg
They had a competition on who could have the highest bar bill at a members club in central London. Each managed to spend close to $120'000 in just one evening.
How very tasteful and cool.... (NOT!)
(these people are beaten only by the Saudis in their vulgarity and arrogance. Seriously)
http://fotohost.kz/images/2013/10/12/uCDLN.jpg
If you take the uber rich in Europe (who I am NOT defending), in most cases their wealth was built up over many generations, at least.
If you take the dot com millionaires, they usually came up with a very clever idea, and work incredibly hard to implement it.
The uber rich in many of the Northern European nations pay fabulous sums in tax, and are living in societies where there is next to no serious poverty.
(I personally don't think think any of the above deserve their obscene fortunes regardlesss, t at least there is some rationale)
Not so with these oligarchs! They grew up under identical conditions as anyone else of their generation, in Russia. They are well familiar with ideological reservations about what they are doing. They know very well that they are shameless opportunitsts and speculants.
They did not have any unique idea; mining, oil, gas and heavy industry is nothing new at all.
They did not necessarily work particularly hard, since the enormous profit margins were there from day one.
They don't even re-invest in their own country, but put the money in offshore, tax haven accounts.
So go ahead Eric; defend these people. Let's hear how you justify their actions, their wealth or integrity.
The blindness of certain people here makes me incredibly sad, the blindness that doesn't let them read what's being said; not only did I not get an answer to my question, I'm now defending particular oligarchs! That wasn't what I meant at all! I do NOT defend any rich person in particular! I was speaking generally, and my primary concerns were how people treat those much richer than they are in general. I could see here that the treatment wasn't so great, and I got an impression that some people think just because one's rich means they steal someone's property and therefore have to be monitored. Would you agree that such generalization is a bad trend? Everyone should have ability to make as much money as they can using their skills, and no one should be blamed for being richer than someone else. So, my question was solely what that wealth limit that one should exceed to raise hostility from the others is...
Most of those aren't even ethnic Russians either. Take a look. Yet, they enjoy the conveniences of Putin's indifference (for most).
Putin and the other clans 'friendly' to him don't care about it. There is no desire for change but to distract other Russians. I find many Russians are very indifferent or impassive to politics and I suppose, it's understandable, if you think you can't change things. Still, isn't it better to have a recognition of what's going on?
Большинство алигархов этнически не русские. Ну и что? Что Macterrussian должен делать по этому поводу?Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
" ...Согласно списку журнала "Финанс", по итогам 2009 года "рейтинг" миллиардеров России приблизился к показателям 2007 года. Суммарное состояние десяти богатейших людей России увеличилось почти вдвое по сравнению с прошлым годом и достигло 140 млрд. долларов (75,9 млрд. долларов в 2008-м).
В первой десятке "рейтинга" есть двое евреев. Вот полный ее список:
1. Владимир Лисин – 18,8 млрд. долларов (год назад 3-е место)
2. Михаил Прохоров – 17,8 млрд. (год назад 1-е место)
3. Роман Абрамович – 17 млрд. (год назад 2-е место)
4. Сулейман Керимов – 14,5 млрд. (год назад 5-е место)
5. Михаил Фридман – 14,3 млрд. (год назад 6-е место)
6. Олег Дерипаска – 13,8 млрд. (год назад 8-е место)
7. Алишер Усманов – 12,4 млрд. (год назад 10-е место)
8. Вагит Алекперов – 10,65 млрд. (год назад 4-е место)
9. Алексей Мордашов – 10 млрд. (год назад 14-е место)
10. Владимир Потанин - 9,95 млрд. (год назад 7-е место)
На 11-м месте в "рейтинге" с 9,05 млрд. находится Герман Хан, один из учредителей и спонсоров фонда Genesis. На 66-м месте с 1,2 млрд. долларов находится президент Европейского еврейского конгресса Вячеслав Кантор. На 87-м – Тельман Исмаилов с 860 млн. долларов. ..."
Подробности: http://izrus.co.il/oligarhi/article/...#ixzz2hjPCEFyK
«IzRus.co.il»
______________________________________
2013: http://www.forbes.ru/rating/200-boga...full=1&table=1
Well, you guys don't like "the rich"; it's different for me, I don't like those taking on too much power, that is dictators, authoritarian rules, etc. I'm ok with someone having $100B as long as they don't tell others what to do. Absolute power is evil, but absolute wealth is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Russian
Недавно узнал, что, согласно американской пропаганде, это СССР (а не США) распространял порнографию (наверное с целью подорвать нравственные устои американского общества).Quote:
Originally Posted by BappaBa
Now both Americans and Russians would agree the most popular phrase in those movies is "Das ist fantastisch" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Юрка
Дело не в количестве денег, а в способе их получения. Но много денег невозможно получить своим трудом. Тут либо паразитизм на своей собственности (когда зарабатывает не человек, а его капитал), либо несправедливое перераспределение того, что заработали другие (менеджеры, не являясь собственниками, могут получать гигантские оклады, бонусы и т.д.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
In different countries at different times, very different "systems" can exist. Still they all can be called capitalistic. One can imagine society where single person owns 99.9999% of wealth. It is where we are going to. No wonder that not all are happy. These bags with money have no plans to invest so that society, infrastructure, people could benefit. They just like to watch how numbers on their accounts are growing. In "normal" systems, the richest men DO have a big influence, but this very influence has a lot to add to nation's power.
Иметь свой капитал работающим на тебя - это тоже честно, при условия что при его накоплении использовались легальные методы. А насчет бонусов менеджеров - я не думаю что они могут быть получены без согласия собственника.Quote:
Originally Posted by Юрка