Lies
Just more leftist historical revisionism.
Just stick to the facts, they're terrible enough
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you're going to make statements, you should at least demonstrate. How was it revisionist? Just stating your opinion without explaining means nothing.
shareLol, so you thought Aida and her story were real???
shareIt's fictional based on facts. That doesn't mean revisionist. Maybe you're too ignorant to understand that you need to explain your claim. Just saying it is dumb.
shareWhat the...? This isn't just a fictional story that happens to take place during the war. It's revisionist, because the events are portrayed differently than they actually happened. Even the real life translator walked out on the movie because he took issue with that. The bias of the director becomes very clear when she ties the message of her movie to the rise of populism in Europe. I'm sorry you have trouble understanding that, but you should be careful who/what you call ignorant and dumb. Just saying...
shareMaking a claim without demonstration is ignorant. Can you be specific as to what scene or moment was revisionist?
shareYou don't know how the movie differs from real life and you call ME ignorant? Lol, now that's hilarious.
By the way, you should probably look up the word "ignorant", because making a claim without demonstration does not in any way suggest one isn't informed on the subject. And my "demonstration" is the movie itself and the acknowledgement by those involved that it does not stick to the facts.
You are unininformed on proper debate and discourse. All claims need to to be demonstrated. I can say this sucks or that sucks. That's the same as a child. A proper claim requires an explanation as to why that claim is being made. Making an empty assertion is not smart. It's what children do. You still have not explained what about the film is revisionist. Why should anyone care about your opinion if you haven't explained why you have it.
shareFalse argument. I didn't say the movie "sucked" or expressed any opinion like that.
It's revisionist because it's a FACT that historical events are portrayed differently than they happened in reality. This has been acknowledged by the people involved and everyone who knows their history. I simply made a complaint about this fact. If you want to discuss something specific regarding the subject, then go right ahead. It's not my responsibility to initiate a discussion.
Dishonesty is not proper debate and discourse either. You most likely are also aware this movie doesn't stick to the facts, you simply believe this should be excused.
I didn't say you said the movie sucks. I gave an example of an empty assertion without any explanation or demonstration. It's considered unsophisticated. If you make a claim the movie is revisionist, it's like someone saying something sucks without explaining it. If you can't understand why that's unsophisticated, then I can't help you.
share"I didn't say you said the movie sucks."
I see you have some kind of comprehension problem. I did NOT express an opinion (like saying this movie sucks). It's a FACT that this movie portrays historical events differently than they happened. So I'm not trying to argue a claim here, I'm simply making a complaint. If you have trouble understanding that, then that's on you.
"It's a FACT that this movie portrays historical events differently"
Until you demonstrate it's just an opinion. Saying other people said so is not demonstration. Based on the history, which I've been reading about since the 90s, this is not revisionist. If you mean creative license, then that's all movies. But for the most part, this movie stuck to the history.
"Until you demonstrate it's just an opinion."
Lol, so it's just the "opinion" of the director, huh?
Creative license is not changing events in such a way that people get a certain idea about those events and the people involved. When the director says not a single shot was fired by Dutchbat in Srebrenica and she tries to tie the massacre to the rise of populism in Europe, it leaves no room for doubt that there's more to it than the tired old excuse of "creative license".
Aida's entire story is a complete lie. The translator's story is a very specific story and hers ain't it.
Not sure I understand your reply. That's because you want to give as little info as possible so your claim can't be challenged. Are you saying that the director has admitted that her film is revisionist? So the Dutchbat not firing a single shot is revisionist because? Explain. Also, provide link to director's quote.
share"That's because you want to give as little info as possible so your claim can't be challenged."
Wrong. I haven't made a claim, it's a fact that historical events were changed and the director has admitted this.
"So the Dutchbat not firing a single shot is revisionist because?"
Are you freaking kidding me? It's revisionist, because it's a lie. And a very important one at that.
You're getting repetitive. I've already explained how the movie is revisionist. I give an example and you still refuse to accept it. Why should I go out of my way to provide you with quotes and more examples? You complain I don't back up my claim, but you already excuse it as "creative license". It's clear an honest disussion with you isn't possible and your question about Dutchbat is obvious proof of that. If you choose to deny the truth, that's YOUR problem.
Based on the examples you gave, I don't feel the movie is revisionist. I call it creative license, but the heart and essence of the story is realistic. Great movie. Live with it.
share"Live with it."
Yeah, because I committed suicide instead of just posting one complaint on a movie board...
Portraying the UN and the Blue Helmets as passive, unempathetic and complicit (throughout the movie) is a big lie and reading the director's own words her motive for that kind of revisionism is quite clear.
They should make a movie about Hitler being a loving family man and call it "creative license"...
Can you tell me where this director's comments are?
shareIf you think this movie is so great, why haven't you read a single interview with the director???:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2020/film/global/jasmila-zbanic-venice-film-festival-quo-vadis-aida-new-projects-1234755302/amp/
I'm sure you're not too lazy to put this Dutch article, where she tries to link Srebrenica to the the rise of the extreme right in Europe, through Google translate:
https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/quo-vadis-aida-is-een-essentiele-film-over-srebrenica-er-is-niets-moois-aan-iemand-zien-doodgaan~b56d1a23/
Then there's more than one article where she accuses the Blue Helmets of being prejudiced (read "islamophobic") against the Bosnian muslims and having a "colonial view" (ah, such a lovely Marxist concept!) of them:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.indiesales.eu/assets/download/quovadis_presskit-2508-vdef.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwji89b8zovyAhVI4qQKHV8HBCUQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw3ItcyTQAkWsKPLVYnKE6NC
I'm sure you wholeheartedly agree with her. Anyway, that's more than enough, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Nothing here that shows this is revisionist. She made her film from her perspective, especially as a survivor herself. Why are you defending right-wing extremism? This was a story and event of ethnic cleansing. Are you a right-winger/white supremacist? You seem to be on the right, or at least defending it. Are you a Serbian or from Serbian descent? That would explain your issues.
shareWhy is she attacking right wing politics? Why are you defending a political attack like that? Why are you both accusing people of bigotry without any evidence? Is she a communist? Are YOU a communist? That would explain pretty much everything. (See, I can play that stupid game as well).
I said her words made clear WHY she changed historical facts (which she admits to doing, and no, it's not her perspective, she wasn't even there), of course she's not going to call herself a "revisionist". And obviously you didn't understand a word of what she was saying there. It's appalling she tries to tie this massacre to politics on that side of the spectrum she just happens to disagree with. Frankly she exposes her own prejudices and ignorance right there and so do you. I mean, how bad is your reading comprehension that you took all that from what I said? Not that it's any of your business, but my father is actually an ethnic muslim from Bosnia and I've lost family members in the war. My issue is only that I don't like people using real life human tragedy to spread their BS agenda.
Like I said before, you're being dishonest. You're not interested in facts, just in defending an agenda you agree with.
The massacre occurred as a direct result of far right politics. How is that not politics, and therefore how is that revisionist?
shareLol, the fact that the country had been under left wing communist rule for 45 years had nothing to do with it, of course. The massacre occurred as the result of the politics of Milosevic and a whole bunch of other crap that had been going on for centuries (which also involved left wing politics, for your information).
And again, you fail to understand anything she said (or what I said). She tries to link something that happened in Srebrenica to current politics all over Europe AND, in her own prejudice, makes unfounded accusations against people about the (political) views she just assumes they have. And AGAIN, I did not say THAT is revisionism, I said it's the motivation behind the revisionism in the movie.
It's no use talking to you, you're simply part of the choir this movie preaches to.🙄
Milosevic was left wing?? Who else was left wing, Hitler?
shareWell, Hitler WAS a socialist, of course...🙄
But, uh yeah, Milosevic was the president of the left-wing Socialist Party of Serbia. What else do you think he was?
But thanks for once again proving your dishonesty, ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. If you REALLY have no clue how left-wing politics played a role in the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, I advise you to do some research about the country, its history and the true events of the civil war. You can even start with the unbelievably biased Wikipedia. That way you can form your own opinion instead of having it spoon-fed to you by like-minded folks.
Give my regards to the CCP!
You're going by names such as Socialist Party. It doesn't mean the same in those countries or 1930s Germany as it means now in my country (U.S.). It's an economic model, and all parties embrace socialism in some form or another in those countries. None of their major parties embrace capitalism in the same way American Republicans do. By no means are they left-wing, and certainly not liberal. The act of genocide and ethnic cleansing are strictly far-right concepts. That's why here in the US, neo-nazis, kkk, proud boys, etc. are all on the right. Hitler is celebrated on the right here, not the left.
shareWhy are you going on about the US? This took place in Europe and the director is also European. Milosevic was a communist who became a socialist, his policies were NOT far-right.
"The act of genocide and ethnic cleansing are strictly far-right concepts."
You are even worse than the director. In fact, you're absolutely delusional if you're being serious. The far-left may not follow some kind of superior race theory, but they have certainly been guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide: Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. And plenty of other kinds of expulsions and mass killings by communist and socialist regimes based on bigotry. And how about how China is treating minorities in this day and age? It's ridiculous to suggest that mass killings like Srebrenica could not have been the result of far-left politics...because it WAS. Mladic=hardcore communist.
Yeah, it's becoming more and more obvious you have absolutely no clue about these subjects. Funny how you were trying to lecture me...🙄
Left can commit atrocities, but for different reasons. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao killed political opponents and/or citizens that were perceived as threats to the regime. They didn't pick out different groups/ethnicities to rid the land of their presence. Ethnic cleansing is a far-right/conservative concept. Learn your history.
share"Ethnic cleansing is a far-right/conservative concept."
Ah well, in that case, the massacre at Srebrenica can't be called a genocide, right???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns
Please just stop, you're making a fool of yourself.
Nice playing with words to try to win. I never said genocide can't be used for the left. I said left-wing atrocities happened for reasons that are not ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is a specific type of genocide, and it is by definition a far-right concept borne out of fascism. Ethnic cleansing ad fascism are considered far-right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Stop being an ignoramus.
"Nice playing with words to try to win. I never said genocide can't be used for the left."
Don't go pointing fingers at me. I corrected you when you claimed the massacre at Srebrenica was the result of far-right politics, pointing out Milosevic was left-wing. Then you brought up the term genocide, saying it was a far-right concept. If you're contradicting yourself, you are the only one to blame.
"Ethnic cleansing ad fascism are considered far-right."
Click on the links I provided and educate yourself.
I said genocide and ethnic cleansing, so obviously that pertains to one specific type of genocide that is far-right.
Let me explain it again like you're 6 years old:
The far-left/communists do kill and commit atrocities/genocide, but not for the same reasons that far-right do. They kill perceived political opponents. But the very idea of communism is equality, not singling out different groups to eliminate them. That's a far-right phenomenon.
You're clearly right-wing, maybe even white supremacist, so you're defending the despicable Serbian campaign.
"I said genocide and ethnic cleansing, so obviously that pertains to one specific type of genocide that is far-right."
Lol, moving goalposts now, huh? Don't go turn the tables on me. I simply corrected you saying this massacre was the result of left-wing politics. You responded saying genocide and ethnic cleansing are a far-right concept (which my links proved wrong). So the Srebrenica massacre is either not a genocide/ethnic cleansing or it's a left-wing genocide/ethnic cleansing. Which is it???
"They kill perceived political opponents."
Ah, so the Bosnian muslims were political opponents???
"You're clearly right-wing, maybe even white supremacist, so you're defending the despicable Serbian campaign."
You are absolutely disgusting, even worse than the director. I'm not defending ANY kind of mass killing (how the fnck did you miss that family of mine was murdered by Serbs???). You, on the other hand, are trying to put left-wing genocide on a different scale just because it isn't racially motivated. Stop being so ridiculous.
Not sure what's so hard to understand. Ethnic cleansing is far-right. Pol Pot, Mau, Stalin did commit genocide, but not ethnic cleansing. Get it? Ethnic cleansing is genocide but not all genocide is ethnic cleansing.
share"Ethnic cleansing is genocide but not all genocide is ethnic cleansing."
If you click on my links, you'll find out that is incorrect. Ethnic cleansing does not have to include murder. It can also be simply expulsion of certain ethnic groups. You'll find that genocide is an extreme form of ethnic cleansing. Please stop lecturing me on subjects you're ignorant about.
Anyway, so the Srebrenica massacre is not a case of ethnic cleansing???
You know what I mean, but let me rephrase it so you can understand. Mass murder within ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing genocide. Not all genocide is ethnic cleansing. Pol Pot did not commit ethnic cleansing. Hitler did. You're right, ethnic cleansing can include forced relocation. Either way, it's a far-right concept. Srebrenica is a case of ethnic cleansing, unless you believe Serbian propaganda.
shareLol, I'm not the one who has trouble understanding genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"Either way, it's a far-right concept."
Wrong. Click on my link and you'll find many examples of ethnic cleansing that go back to ancient times and beyond far-right politics.
"Srebrenica is a case of ethnic cleansing, unless you believe Serbian propaganda."
Of course it was ethnic cleansing...LEFT-WING ethnic cleansing. Unless you're suggesting Mladic switched to a far-right party without ever telling anybody???
Do you know of any right-wing European regimes? Don't you understand that they all have socialist features? That mostly means socialized healthcare and high taxes. There are no governments in Europe that are right wing in the way Americans and Arabic countries are right wing. It doesn't exist. However, the movement that caused ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was driven by right-wing extremism. That's because what you're calling left-wing in those countries is about universal healthcare and high taxes. It has nothing to do with equality, which are hallmarks of western leftism. The movements within those systems, regardless of economic ideals, are right-wing. OMG.
shareThere are several right-wing governments in Europe. Hungary is one of them.
Lol, why are you you still trying to lecture me when you have no freaking clue??? I'm from Europe AND part Bosnian, I know way better than you who or what is left-wing or right-wing. Let me explain the situation in former Yugoslavia to you: the country had a COMMUNIST regime until it fell apart in the early 90s. Milosevic and Mladic were members of the COMMUNIST party until its demise. Now how can it get more far-left than that? Afterwards Milosevic founded the SOCIALIST party and if you look it up, you'll find his party is still left-wing. By EUROPEAN standards. Please shut up with your nonsense, it's embarrassing.
"However, the movement that caused ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was driven by right-wing extremism."
No, it was not and you have failed to demonstrate your claim.
Okay, you got me on Hungary. But that's just one country. It does nothing for your argument because right-wing governments in Europe are nearly non-existent. What you call left, as in Bosnia's case, is policy on economy. That's left. But ethnic cleansing is right-wing and driven by populism (right-wing populism that is). Milosevic's party was centre-left, but his ideals outside the economy were populist.
sharePoland, Austria, Slovenia. In recent years more European countries have had left-wing governments
"It does nothing for your argument because right-wing governments in Europe are nearly non-existent."
Uhm, what argument is that? I'm not even sure why we're discussing current governments in Europe when the subject is politics in former-Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
"What you call left, as in Bosnia's case, is policy on economy."
Uhm, hello, they were COMMUNISTS. That's as far-left as you can get. Therefore it is absurd for the director to point fingers at right-wing politics, especially outside of Bosnia and Serbia.
"But ethnic cleansing is right-wing and driven by populism (right-wing populism that is)."
WRONG, and my link about ethnic cleansing shows you.
Please look here to see how many ethnicities and nationalities were deported from the SU by Stalin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union
"Milosevic's party was centre-left, but his ideals outside the economy were populist."
Now that's revisionism. In the 1990s his party was a left-wing populist party. Fact.
Austria and Poland both have universal healthcare and independent presidents. I guess for Europe that's right, but Trump and his Republicans would laugh in their face. There's no true capitalist country in Europe. Putin is left-wing, however not when it comes to human rights. He's right-wing in that department, as was Milosevic and the populist movements of the era.
I guess this comes down to your opinion. Because you don't believe the massacres in Bosnia were caused by right wing ideology, you feel this film is revisionist. That's your opinion. It's not the absolute truth.
And???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
Your point is still not clear since Milosevic and Mladic were both communists and the Socialist Party of Serbia was left-wing populist, so it makes no sense to point fingers at right-wing politics.Â
I take it that OP is from the country that did the massacre. You know, like how Turkish people deny the Armenian genocide.
shareI take it you're an idiot troll as always? My father is an ethnic muslim from Bosnia and I've lost family members during the war. And a genocide most definitely took place at Srebrenica, just not the way it happened in this movie. Now go back to the sewer you came from, D-feet.
sharePot calling the kettle black.
These kind of political dramas always bring up the deniers. Have you ever read the comments on Schindler's List youtube videos?
"Pot calling the kettle black."
Uhm no, I don't go around under different sock puppet accounts calling everyone I disagree with a racist or white supremacist like you do.
No denying going on on my part, so your point is irrelevant.
You say you're Bosniak, yet you call this "leftist revisionist lies"? Let's unpack it.
First I don't get how it's "leftist". All I can think of is to a rightwinger everything they don't like they call leftist.
Revisionist because the character is fictionalized? You do know that it's based on fact, and Aida is a composite character, which is very common in films depicting real life events.
"Lies"? I happen to know a lot about the war, and it looked pretty accurate to me. If you say it's lies give specifics.
Anyway I thought it was very well done and I've seen lot's of films about the war. It's one of the best and was rightly nominated for an Oscar; it should have won!
I already had an entire discussion about ALL of that with the other poster. Just read the links.
"All I can think of is to a rightwinger everything they don't like they call leftist."
Then you need to think a little harder. That comment seems like something a leftwinger would say about everything they don't like...
And don't generalize, just because my father is Bozniak, doesn't mean *I* am.
Don't wish to gloat, but I do believe I caught you out on something. You call the director a leftist because she says lack of action and ignorance of events in Srebrenica and Bosnia allowed the recent rise in far-right extremism.
Here's my issue with your argument: you call her a leftist, yet you also say in comments that Milosevic is a leftist. So was the war left vs. left? You seem to put everything into left and right slots. However if you were honest you'd admit it's much more complex. Because Milosevic was originally a Communist you surmise the war was a leftist war. However the war began when he and the other Serb leaders had an ultranationalist break with the party (nationalism being against Tito's whole principle).
Was Hitler a socialist? Definitely. However extreme nationalism, a rightwing concept far outweighs that. But no leader can be strictly defined as right or left because those concepts are really meaningless anyway.
A more useful category would be good vs. evil. I think we agree that Milosevic, Mladic, Karadzic, and the other leaders were evil.
Probably where we differ is I see leaders like Trump, Putin, Lukashenko, etc. to be evil as well. I.e. I and the director do make that connection that you deny.
"So was the war left vs. left?"
Uhm, no. If you read back, you'll see I said other issues played a role as well.
"Because Milosevic was originally a Communist you surmise the war was a leftist war."
I surmised no such thing. It was the other poster who claimed the massacre at Srebrenica was the result of far right politics. Milosevic and Mladic were communists, so you can't blame right extremism.
"Probably where we differ is I see leaders like Trump, Putin, Lukashenko, etc. to be evil as well. I.e. I and the director do make that connection that you deny."
Uhm yeah, I definitely deny Srebrenica has any connection to those guys...
I mean I think the director was referring specifically to the ultraright movements like BNP in Britain, National Democratic Party of Germany, etc. Again, I see the continuum with the nationalism of the present with the past, while others deny it. I'm the one who adds the US version: Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and the Trump wing of Republican party which is now the dominant wing. And of course a war in 20th century Europe which has concentration camps and ethnic cleansing extends back to WW2.
Anyway, you also said that the depiction of the UN peacekeepers was inaccurate, because they were shown as being unsympathetic. Maybe you know info I don't on that, because I gathered that they were just happy to get out alive, and in real life video you do see Franken being pretty chummy with Mladic. I.e. they put their own well being above that of the people under their protection. I get that it's not their fault; it's the fault of the wishy-washy west, including Clinton, who did nothing until it was way too late. But that doesn't exonerate the UN for putting themselves first.
"I mean I think the director was referring specifically to the ultraright movements like BNP in Britain, National Democratic Party of Germany, etc."
And that's utter BS. This massacre and others have shown that "ethnic pride" is just as much a problem on the left side of the political spectrum.
Not merely portraying them as unsympethatic, but purposely leaving out any action they undertook to protect people, like dying...
"I.e. they put their own well being above that of the people under their protection."
The actual Blue Helmets??? Uhm no, they were between a rock and a hard place where they didn't get requested air strikes by the UN (which includes more than only the West) to protect the locals, but also had be careful to not to risk the lives of the soldiers taken hostage by Mladic.
But I just read your thread here and some of your other posts ranting about "evil" Republicans. You seem to be a loonie who blames everything on the right, and specifically Trump. Not much use discussing this with you...
Somehow these boards were taken over by the Trumpian Right. As a proud Progressive of course I'll disregard the rantings of an obvious slave of the Right.
shareDude, you repeatedly brought up Trump on a board about the civil war in former Yugoslavia. You're doing the exact same thing as the director. If anyone is enslaved, it's you. You don't know how happy I am my mind has not been poisoned by an ideology of any kind.
share