This has been the subject of a lot of bickering and rage in the last couple of days, since it was revealed that a longtime film project of a biopic of Finland's Marshal Mannerheim was filmed entirely in Kenya with all actors, including the protagonist, being native Kenyans. They also include only one war scene, the rest of the film will apparently be an artsy drama. Lots of accusations of overboard multiculturalism, shaming of Finnish war veterans, etc. I thought it was a perfect Languish topic. :P
English-language article on the subject: http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Mannerheim+played+by+Kenyan+actor+in+YLE+film+sparking+controversy+well+before+premiere+ADDED+158/1329104622855
QuoteMannerheim played by Kenyan actor in YLE film sparking controversy well before premiere (ADDED 15.8.)
print this
By Veli-Pekka Lehtonen and Jaakko Lyytinen
Helsingin Sanomat has learned from sources that the new film about Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was shot in May this year near the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Only one scene, depicting the Winter War, was shot in Finland. All of the actors were also Kenyan.
The newspaper Iltalehti reported on Tuesday that Mannerheim would be played by an "African-born" actor in a film produced by the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE).
The actor in question is a Kenyan, Telley Savalas Otieno
HS contacted Telley Savalas Otieno in Nairobi on Tuesday.
"Yes, I portray Mannerheim in the film Marshal of Finland", the actor says, adding that the film was a magnificent experience for him.
The director and most of the production crew are Kenyans.
Marshal of Finland combines traditions of African storytelling and biographical elements of Mannerheim. The story mixes the African storytelling tradition and Mannerheim's life story. The languages spoken in the film are Swahili and English.
The premiere of the film, which runs for about 50 minutes, is at the Love and Anarchy film festival in Helsinki on September 28th. It will be shown on the YLE Teema television channel later in the autumn.
The film concentrates on Mannerheim's person and his human relations. Savalas Otieno says that Mannerheim was a difficult role to play.
"I didn't want to portray him as stiff, even though I am stiff myself as the result of a traffic accident. But when I got the uniform on, I thought that this is what I was born to be: tall and stiff."
As an actor he was interested in Mannerheim as a conflicted person. The Marshal is unsure about matters of love, for instance. One of the characters in the movie is Mannerheim's beloved Kitti - Catharina Linder.
"I wanted to show how Mannerheim's imperfections. We will never know what it was like when the Marshal was alone."
Actor Telley Savalas Otieno was born in 1977. He has worked as a photo model in Italy. His résumé also includes jobs as a fruit picker, a tour guide, and as a teacher of English in Italy.
Now he lives in Nairobi. In an interview with the Kenyan newspaper The Standard last year he was described as "one of Kenya's best actors".
Savalas Otieno says that the Mannerheim film project is the best film that he has ever been involved with. The role was also one of the biggest that he has had. Previously his roles have mainly been those of extras – in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Besieged by director Bernardo Bertolucci.
Telly Savalas Otieno got the role of Mannerheim through an audition, to which hundreds of people showed up.
"I saw a poster at the Kenyan National Theatre where they were looking for an actor."
"In a scene I was Gustaf and I was proposing to Kitty, a beautiful young girl. Mannerheim had a relationship with a very young girl, didn't he? In the scene Kitty was stand-offish, and rejected the proposal, and Gustaf did not understand why."
Savalas Otieno believes that he got the role because they liked the chemistry between himself and the Kenyan woman who played Kitty.
He says that it was not until after the shooting that producer Erkko Lyytinen let him read a biographical book Mannerheim: the years of preparation by John Screen.
"I had not heard about Mannerheim before the film. Two months ago I read about him on the internet, and from the book, and I was amazed! If I had read the book in advance, I would have been afraid of this film."
Savalas Otieno says that the shooting took five days near Nairobi. The script was written by a working group which included Emma Taulo among others.
"At the time we did not know that this was such a revolutionary project", Savalas Otieno says. "Erkko was very nervous during the shooting, and we Kenyans tried to tell him to calm down – this is just a movie. Erkko said that this is not just a movie – this is a movie about Mannerheim."
"Now the roles have been reversed. I am the one who is afraid. Who am I to talk about Mannerheim?"
Savalas Otieno says that the film project is "crazy".
"Nobody in Africa has heard about Mannerheim. That is another reason why I like this film."
Helsingin Sanomat has learned from its sources that the YLE Mannerheim film cost just slightly over EUR 20,000.
In Finland a film actor is paid about EUR 800 a day, or about 1,000 US dollars. How much was Savalas Otieno paid?
"The budget was very meagre. Erkko explained the situation to me and I thought, maybe next time."
"I was paid, but a thousand dollars a day sounds unbelievable. That is about what I got for the whole film."
Is the Mannerheim film a war movie or a love story?
"A love story. It is a love story during wartime. A soldier falls in love, three times. This is something that has happened to me as well, and it helped me. Actually, someone should make a film like that: Mannerheim and the women."
How do you see Mannerheim now?
"Wow, wow, wow, wow", Savalas Otieno says at first. Then he starts talking about Kenya's colonial history.
"I know that he was an imperialist, an aristocrat, and a monarchist, and that he was interested in military skills."
"But we could not have imagined that there have ever been countries even in the West that have fought for their independence."
The actor even compares Mannerheim with Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, as well as Jomo Kenyatta, the first Prime Minister of an independent Kenya.
"Kenyans are pleased that you Finns never took colonies in Africa. Through the film Kenyans are able to learn about the Finnish story, and their fight for self-determination. Mannerheim was not a Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky. He fought for his country."
"Freedom fighters are different from imperialists – they are like Che Guevara - the ones who are on the side of the downtrodden. When Kenyans learn about Mannerheim they will like him."
There's also a trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upP-QNtrlqU
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ufQCTT1AJL0%2FTSN9ixe9fyI%2FAAAAAAAABf0%2FdX3Lxvb5Phw%2Fs1600%2FLaurence%2BOlivier%2BOthello.jpg&hash=6c2438ceff31b3d809b3c62fd65b15cffa2d4a7b)
Your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs
Can we at least put clown make-up on the guy, at least Larry O was willing to shoe-polish his face for the role.
Meh, not a big deal. Actors and actresses portray people of other nationalities all the time.
Just to give this perspective, this would be something like George Washington and all the founding fathers played by Africans. :P
Again, so what? If Chinese and African troupes can play Shakespeare, then why not this?
The problem is that this was advertised as *the* definitive historical biopic of Mannerheim. Somewhere along the way it turned into an art film with a budget of 20000 euros but this was never revealed until now.
No matter how many times the black people complain about how "we" are stealing "their culture"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.screenrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Ftropic_thunder_RDJ.jpg&hash=3273f1c79f98adcb51dde2504366ec83047ec12e)
but time and again it is we who are willing to surrender ours just to be considerate of them
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fx.annihil.us%2Fu%2Fprod%2Fmarvel%2Fi%2Fmg%2F9%2F60%2F4db8c5f20d069%2Fdetail.jpg&hash=c5da80450e3ab5842f84f707b4e3432de6ba8931)
again
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-X8XmJD9oInU%2FT9v7FtU7YjI%2FAAAAAAAAFBA%2FsjddKmE9-IM%2Fs1600%2Fnorseman.jpg&hash=806e7b148467632c6b876f26439b49264a7fa312)
and again
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.bdbphotos.com%2Fimages%2Forig%2Fr%2Fs%2Frsiyvmuqb7dfqu7y.jpg&hash=a89c01f468337c73888d288e9b7e4e8be39e4e51)
and again...
i got bored... but pretty much every robin hood or viking story has to have a
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSABFFy4A6qrv_qgqbjrFieAy4wFtomGQUjoDa40OHfL8wur8ULjKeRy9iG&hash=b0ddb3c17f807fadbcf9b7be1bf71369698174f6)
yeah, you guys know what slargos would have called them... use that word silently in their head.
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 05:58:52 AM
Again, so what? If Chinese and African troupes can play Shakespeare, then why not this?
Using the local talent to put on Shakespeare in Shangdong - theater
Making a biopic about Mannerheim using black Kenyan actors - politics
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:04:05 AM
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
No, finnish multiculturalists are making a movie about finlands independence hero (who had unfortunate fascist connections) as a biopic set in kenya with kenyan actors.
ah, so they're purposfully being dicks to piss of otthers finns? Oh well, just a movie.
Is it being directed by George Lucas?
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
ah, so they're purposfully being dicks to piss of otthers finns? Oh well, just a movie.
YLE the Production Company is the finnish national TV company that is funded by a general license fee on all TVs. So basically it is not some people being dicks with their own money. They are being dicks with Solmyr's "tax" money.
In a similar vein, btw, there's a rather amusing 70s movie about the Battle of Little Big Horn, filmed on location in central Paris (in and around the pit that would later be the Centre Pompidou).
It's a bit bizarre (all actors use historical costumes), but still very watchable if you get past the weirdness.
Well, I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, we are used, in general, to the cinema being visually faithful. On the other hand, most of the history of theatre (which can be seen as the mother of cinema) was about men playing women or white actors using black face to play Othello.
So even if there is a certain expectation about cinema that this choice makes grating, I am not sure if we should revaluate it or not.
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 06:17:32 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
ah, so they're purposfully being dicks to piss of otthers finns? Oh well, just a movie.
YLE the Production Company is the finnish national TV company that is funded by a general license fee on all TVs. So basically it is not some people being dicks with their own money. They are being dicks with Solmyr's "tax" money.
They are also introducing an "Yle tax" starting from next year that everyone will have to pay (except poor-income people). So no more dodging TV license fees.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2012, 06:21:35 AM
Well, I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, we are used, in general, to the cinema being visually faithful. On the other hand, most of the history of theatre (which can be seen as the mother of cinema) was about men playing women or white actors using black face to play Othello.
So even if there is a certain expectation about cinema that this choice makes grating, I am not sure if we should revaluate it or not.
yes, but that was because
1 - actressess were whores
2 - actors were and still are gays
3 - the few black people in london were musicians
4 - marty still is a man playing a woman
As for the film itself, I don't care for it either way, since I have no interest in artsy love-story dramas regardless of their actors. It's just fun watching the train wreck as all the extreme nationalist nutjobs are coming out of the woodwork while the Yle producer and his crew are desperately trying to offer excuses for their cover-up.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 06:00:36 AM
The problem is that this was advertised as *the* definitive historical biopic of Mannerheim. Somewhere along the way it turned into an art film with a budget of 20000 euros but this was never revealed until now.
I could see the annoyance there if people were expecting a big, 'proper' film but as things stand...meh. Same sort of thing as that version of Richard III that took place in a weird 1930sesque fascist state.
That the far right are showing their true colours though can only be a good thing.
Oh, and the meme generator is in full swing already.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2F195885_10151041233124576_983203474_n.jpg&hash=8796022822e6e68767e006696735a2b2e0532c87)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fschoolgirlmilkycrisis.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2F24947518.jpg&hash=17337157fd962d34ef955b1212f6746d01d1784b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F250x250%2F24957279.jpg&hash=f3b1c6c283568ac88a29a7a68dd49c27efcbf42e)
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 06:57:39 AM
Oh, and the meme generator is in full swing already.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2F195885_10151041233124576_983203474_n.jpg&hash=8796022822e6e68767e006696735a2b2e0532c87)
I would watch that.
I would too. :D
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 06:21:34 AM
In a similar vein, btw, there's a rather amusing 70s movie about the Battle of Little Big Horn, filmed on location in central Paris (in and around the pit that would later be the Centre Pompidou).
It's a bit bizarre (all actors use historical costumes), but still very watchable if you get past the weirdness.
Touche pas à la femme blanche ! a.k.a Non toccare la donna bianca !
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072305/
It was meant as a parody from the beginning though.
Here's one I made earlier
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F25000637.jpg&hash=81b17be4e5b758a0f5aac2d9bfb05d7717755a72)
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 06:17:32 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:10:13 AM
ah, so they're purposfully being dicks to piss of otthers finns? Oh well, just a movie.
YLE the Production Company is the finnish national TV company that is funded by a general license fee on all TVs. So basically it is not some people being dicks with their own money. They are being dicks with Solmyr's "tax" money.
Yeah but state broadcasters exist to make politically-motivated shit that nobody would watch. This is what they're here for.
Does it have hobbits? :hmm:
maybe the plan is to save money on Timoshenko's massive assaults on the mannerheim line by pirating scenes from black hawk down?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 16, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
Does it have hobbits? :hmm:
It's supposed to be about Finns. Aren't they sort of like depressed hobbits? :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 08:41:33 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 16, 2012, 08:35:42 AM
Does it have hobbits? :hmm:
It's supposed to be about Finns. Aren't they sort of like depressed hobbits? :P
Tall blonde alcoholic depressive ski-jumpers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuserserve-ak.last.fm%2Fserve%2F252%2F301076.jpg&hash=d917bbb6bc92a8c9278863ee7debfbb87d65d7dc)
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 08:40:28 AM
maybe the plan is to save money on Timoshenko's massive assaults on the mannerheim line by pirating scenes from black hawk down?
And the Finnish partisans will be portrayed by the rap scene from Men in Tights.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 08:59:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 08:40:28 AM
maybe the plan is to save money on Timoshenko's massive assaults on the mannerheim line by pirating scenes from black hawk down?
And the Finnish partisans will be portrayed by the rap scene from Men in Tights.
I can just see the promos
Iksi Kakse Pärkele Mannerheim
- starring Dave Chapelle
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 05:45:57 AM
Meh, not a big deal. Actors and actresses portray people of other nationalities all the time.
Sure but they are at least resemble the historical character in question. The Swiss dude who played Hitler in Downfall could easily pass for an Austrian German Dictator. If they had had him played by a Japanese Actor it probably would have lacked a certain believability.
Apparently the entire film is 50 minutes long.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 05:55:48 AM
Just to give this perspective, this would be something like George Washington and all the founding fathers played by Africans. :P
That'd be fine as long as the slaves were played by whities.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 16, 2012, 11:04:37 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 05:55:48 AM
Just to give this perspective, this would be something like George Washington and all the founding fathers played by Africans. :P
That'd be fine as long as the slaves were played by whities.
That's already in production, Tarantino and Spike Lee are producing a movie provisionally titled "3/5"
Artsy types does something artsy. I don't see the problem at all.
If you don't think you'll like the film, don't watch it.
The problem is that they are being artsy with taxpayer money and were using false advertising and trying to cover things up.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 11:13:54 AM
The problem is that they are being artsy with taxpayer money and were using false advertising and trying to cover things up.
I still don't see the problem. Taxpayer money is being spent on all kinds of things that not everyone appreciates. Sure, this is probably pretty marginal, but so is the amount of money. Very likely, there are people out there who wouldn't mind their share of tax money that goes to, say, the national hockey and soccer teams to be used on artsy stuff like this instead.
As for false advertising and trying to cover things up... that sounds a bit weird. I mean they're filming in Kenya, how can they cover that up? Sounds to me that those charges are manufactured outrage by people who like to get upset about things like that.
I'd think the people with the most legit gripe about this would be members of the Finnish actor's union who just missed out on a bunch of roles.
Agree with Jake.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2012, 11:20:29 AM
As for false advertising and trying to cover things up... that sounds a bit weird. I mean they're filming in Kenya, how can they cover that up? Sounds to me that those charges are manufactured outrage by people who like to get upset about things like that.
Well, Yle advertised the film as a historical biopic of Mannerheim. They made absolutely no mention that it would be filmed in Kenya with Kenyan actors. In fact, the whole story came out two days ago when a tabloid newspaper found it out.
And yes, the actor union members are complaining about this too.
Btw, the previous film about Mannerheim was an animation where Mannerheim was portrayed as gay. It was made by a female director whose grandfather was a Red and was executed after the civil war, so it's commonly believed that she made it as a sort of "revenge" to Mannerheim. After that film, many people got extra sensitive on the matter, which is part of the reason for the current uproar.
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
well if he wasn't gay and it was a propaganda thing, maybe :P
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2012, 11:12:09 AM
Artsy types does something artsy. I don't see the problem at all.
If you don't think you'll like the film, don't watch it.
Yep. Totally agree with all you've said.
Best Henry V I saw was Andre Braugher in Central Park.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism. Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage.
This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism. Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage.
This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group :bleeding:
:)
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism. Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage.
This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group :bleeding:
No, it just reminds us that 90 years is still a short time in politics. There were alot of conflicts that happened at that time that never really had a re-match that still have deep sores. Ireland, Greece/Turkey and Armenia still fester today. Mannerheim does represent a view of finland held and valued by the winning side in the war. The losing side continued to exist and while none of the decendents of the reds want to be ruled by communist russia today it is easy to find people on the left who try to justify their own enchantment with evil and the tradition behind it by saying the other side was just as bad.
Try as much as you like garbon is perfectly happy to falsely call somebody gay, that is wrong. It may not meet the legal standard for slander in your legal system, but it is immoral, especially since he almost certainly was a homophobe. In my mind it is just as immoral as claiming death bed conversions for darwin or hitchens or claiming that Billy Graham was a muslim or the last pope was a hindu.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.
but you aren't the only person in the world :contract:
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.
but you aren't the only person in the world :contract:
But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive. ;)
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.
but you aren't the only person in the world :contract:
But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive. ;)
Because it is public money that's being used.
The queen mother was into S&M and routinely sodomized the help... Actually that would be kind of cool of true :lol:
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Isn't the problem with slander that it ruins someone's reputation? Wouldn't ruin one's reputation in my eyes.
but you aren't the only person in the world :contract:
But the point was I don't see why people should be sensitive. ;)
Because it is public money that's being used.
That doesn't actually answer the question / Jacob already spoke to the public money.
So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
Being portrayed by a Kenyan in a movie 23 people will watch seems like the least of his worries for posterity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
This sort of stuff makes Finland seem like the Balkan-Paradox group :bleeding:
Finland has its share of balkantards. We call them winterwartards here. They are the ones who think Finland won the Winter War.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism. Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage.
Whether it would be defamation or not depends on Finnish law, so I wouldn't be so sure about the legalities.
Even under US law, I'm not sure that it's impossible to defame a deceased person. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's possible, and the Mannerheim family would have standing to sue. Whether an allegation of homosexuality does or doesn't harm the reputation of a heterosexual might, at this point, make an interesting test case, but I think that it would probably be found to at least be potentially harmful, but there would be a burden of proof to should any actual harm. (This isn't really discriminatory--in theory an untrue allegation of heterosexuality made against an acknowledged homosexual could be equally defamatory--but again, there would be a burden of proof to demonstrate actual harm.) The film could be defended against charges of defamation by claiming that it is satire, and therefore protected speech. (I don't think that the film is "an artistic representation with no claims to literalism" in-and-of itself, would be a valid defense--if it presents statements that are false and cause harm, it's actionable. It would probably make claims that it caused actual harm harder to prove.) And any suit against the filmmakers would have to demonstrate that there was actual malice involved, since Mannerheim was undoubtedly a public figure.
But again, this is if there were a suit under US law. I have no idea about Finnish law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
Being portrayed by a Kenyan in a movie 23 people will watch seems like the least of his worries for posterity.
:yes:
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.
If Napoleon was portrayed as liking carrot juice whereas in fact he didn't, that would not be slander, would it?
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 01:44:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 12:30:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism. Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage.
Whether it would be defamation or not depends on Finnish law, so I wouldn't be so sure about the legalities.
Even under US law, I'm not sure that it's impossible to defame a deceased person. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's possible, and the Mannerheim family would have standing to sue. Whether an allegation of homosexuality does or doesn't harm the reputation of a heterosexual might, at this point, make an interesting test case, but I think that it would probably be found to at least be potentially harmful, but there would be a burden of proof to should any actual harm. (This isn't really discriminatory--in theory an untrue allegation of heterosexuality made against an acknowledged homosexual could be equally defamatory--but again, there would be a burden of proof to demonstrate actual harm.) The film could be defended against charges of defamation by claiming that it is satire, and therefore protected speech. (I don't think that the film is "an artistic representation with no claims to literalism" in-and-of itself, would be a valid defense--if it presents statements that are false and cause harm, it's actionable. It would probably make claims that it caused actual harm harder to prove.) And any suit against the filmmakers would have to demonstrate that there was actual malice involved, since Mannerheim was undoubtedly a public figure.
But again, this is if there were a suit under US law. I have no idea about Finnish law.
I think the more interesting question than that is to what extent the right to defend a deceased person from defamation should apply to distant relatives. For example, currently there are hundreds of thousands of people descended from Genghis Khan - surely noone in their right mind would argue though that everyone of these people has a valid case in defamation cases against depicting Genghis Khan in a negative light, no?
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2012, 02:28:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 12:25:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:35:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay. :angry:
Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?
No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.
So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.
In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.
If Napoleon was portrayed as liking carrot juice whereas in fact he didn't, that would not be slander, would it?
It might be if it somehow causes harm. I can't see how Napoleon being inaccurately portrayed as liking carrot juice could cause harm, but I can see how having one's sexual proclivitites and practices inaccurately portrayed could.
Quote
I think the more interesting question than that is to what extent the right to defend a deceased person from defamation should apply to distant relatives. For example, currently there are hundreds of thousands of people descended from Genghis Khan - surely noone in their right mind would argue though that everyone of these people has a valid case in defamation cases against depicting Genghis Khan in a negative light, no?
Probably not, because as with the Napoleon/carrot juice example, I don't see how they could demonstrate harm.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2012, 02:28:00 PM
In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.
Yeah, in England it needs to be damaging to their reputation and could cause them to be 'shunned or avoided' and it's based on the opinion of the reasonable man. I doubt that calling someone gay would be covered by that now.
QuoteSo bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech. Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.
The Satanic Verses is a great book, but implying in a claymation film, featuring his somewhat spiritual journeys to Central Asia were he meets his Kyrghz lover 'butterfly', that Mannerheim was gay or bisexual is TOO MUCH. The same goes for defaming the crown of St. Stephen, or insulting Mary the Queen of Poland.
I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable :blink:
After all the historical research by Harryhausen to make sure the skeleton assault on the Argonauts precisely reflected ancient Greek archival records and the lastest archaeological findings, the standards are just higher than in live action, where anything goes.
I do agree that the film in many ways is simply an unusual or 'artsy' take on history - nothing particularly unusual about that, and I'd like to watch it myself. Sounds interesting to me.
That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 16, 2012, 05:39:54 PM
That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.
Simple solution to that problem:
Grow up.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2012, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on August 16, 2012, 05:39:54 PM
That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.
Simple solution to that problem:
Grow up.
But that would undermine the main goal of this type of art - namely to annoy or "challenge". :P
This outrage is just as silly as the outrage that came about long ago when Eddie Murphy played an Egyptian pharaoh in a Michael Jackson video.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech. Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.
I was not aware free speech meant everything that is said is correct and moral. Rather I thought it was supposed to protect those who say things others think are wrong and immoral from persecution and violence. So what is your point?
QuoteI still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable
REally? All sorts of films based on historical topics I find objectionable for various reasons of accuracy.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2012, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech. Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.
I was not aware free speech meant everything that is said is correct and moral. Rather I thought it was supposed to protect those who say things others think are wrong and immoral from persecution and violence. So what is your point?
I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.
Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2012, 08:30:55 PM
REally? All sorts of films based on historical topics I find objectionable for various reasons of accuracy.
Objectionable to what degree? I mean the Elizabeth films with Cate Blanchett certainly had their share of inaccuracies but I wouldn't say that made them offensive or awful films.
Or perhaps, as Joan mentioned it, Shakespeare's plays that use historical figures. Are those objectionable?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 08:42:31 PM
I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.
Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.
Yeah ok I support people's right to be puerile without persecution so I guess I am a racist?
QuoteObjectionable to what degree? I mean the Elizabeth films with Cate Blanchett certainly had their share of inaccuracies but I wouldn't say that made them offensive or awful films.
Or perhaps, as Joan mentioned it, Shakespeare's plays that use historical figures. Are those objectionable?
I found 'Birth of a Nation' rather objectionable in its portrayal of Reconstruction. Is that so hard to get ones head around?
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2012, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 08:42:31 PM
I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.
Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.
Yeah ok I support people's right to be puerile without persecution so I guess I am a racist?
So you're just going to ignore the comparison where it isn't okay to malign a European figure but it is okay to malign a Muslim one?
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2012, 08:47:30 PM
I found 'Birth of a Nation' rather objectionable in its portrayal of Reconstruction. Is that so hard to get ones head around?
I feel like I'm about to repeat myself in the same post. So you're just going to ignore my examples?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
The Fins hardly had much choice given the circumstances.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 16, 2012, 11:13:54 AM
The problem is that they are being artsy with taxpayer money and were using false advertising and trying to cover things up.
So? Finland can't afford a bomber force, so you might as well do something fun.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2012, 09:54:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
The Fins hardly had much choice given the circumstances.
:yes:
They were just following orders.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 10:31:49 PM
:yes:
They were just following orders.
They were attacked by the evil empire we allied with rather than the one we fought against.
Tim, I think instead of undertaking the Continuation War, they could have not undertaken the Continuation War.
Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
Tim, I think instead of undertaking the Continuation War, they could have not undertaken the Continuation War.
Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.
They were just attacked without provocation and had a significant amount of territory unjustly stolen from them. It was completely within their right to launch the Continuation War.
That's a different argument.
I just think both sides of the argument are being stupid. Obviously, the nationalist types are once again getting offended over almost nothing (I say almost, because the filmmakers couldn't have been so oblivious that they didn't foresee some sort of response - and in fact the producer admitted that he expected a reaction, he just claimed to be surprised by the vehemence of it). On the other hand, the producer said that "Mannerheim is now a myth rather than a real person and he wanted to show the real person behind it" (apparently with the help of a Kenyan team who knew nothing at all about Finland or Mannerheim). This is a bullshit excuse because Mannerheim is probably the most written-about person in Finnish history (with the possible exception of President Kekkonen) and there's no shortage of information about him as a person.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2012, 10:47:00 PM
Also, deeps' lawsuit gets thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion.
If you mean my statement that Mannerheim being dead wouldn't necessarily prevent his family from suing, you're probably right, because I don't see how they would show that there was any harm. I was just saying that in theory they could successfully sue if somehow they could demonstrate harm was done.
Depends on your jurisdiction. Some places permit suit against the defamer of a dead man. However, Mannerheim is a public figure, so actual malice would have to be alleged in addition to the ordinary elements of defamation--since you forgot to do this it's definitely out. :P
Also, in my answer I'd point out that Mannerheim has no reputation to damage, insofar as he was Nazi-loving, Ally-fighting monster, beloved only by Finns and Tim. But that's definitely a question of fact.
More seriously, yeah, I don't think alleging some guy who died forty years ago wanted to suck some dick, even as a statement of fact, could possibly cause any actual damage. What I'm less than clear on is to whether saying a historical figure was gay is a statement of fact or opinion. Opinion is not defamatory. This is a question of law, and I would lean more toward "opinion." I'm almost certain there is some actual case law on this question, but honestly I should've been in bed 4 hours ago. :(
There are also severe First Amendment issues in potentially permitting for-real scholarship to be subject to lawsuits; even if they go nowhere, the nuisance value alone would create a dangerous chilling effect on the priceless investigations our nation's higher educators do into whether or not our most distinguished dead people did, in fact, fuck guys.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 03:07:41 PM
It might be if it somehow causes harm. I can't see how Napoleon being inaccurately portrayed as liking carrot juice could cause harm, but I can see how having one's sexual proclivitites and practices inaccurately portrayed could.
I think we are going in circles here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 16, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2012, 02:28:00 PM
In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.
Yeah, in England it needs to be damaging to their reputation and could cause them to be 'shunned or avoided' and it's based on the opinion of the reasonable man. I doubt that calling someone gay would be covered by that now.
QuoteSo bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech. Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.
The Satanic Verses is a great book, but implying in a claymation film, featuring his somewhat spiritual journeys to Central Asia were he meets his Kyrghz lover 'butterfly', that Mannerheim was gay or bisexual is TOO MUCH. The same goes for defaming the crown of St. Stephen, or insulting Mary the Queen of Poland.
I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable :blink:
Well, probably a lot of people in the crowd who like the Mannerheim movie think that the guy who drew the Mohammed cartoons deserves the flak he gets and that you shouldn't say "gay" - hypocrisy and totalitarian tendencies cut both ways so I don't really see how they make for a compelling argument against one side only. We had this discussion recently in the gaming forum, of all places (the thread about lesbians).
I personally do not think either making a movie about Mohammed sodomizing Jesus in a bathtub full of pig blood, or saying that gays go to hell or showing some dead Finnish dude as a black gay rapist should fall in any way under the jurisdiction of courts and law enforcement, but milleage of many people may vary.
At the same time I do not also think that, in terms of pure esthetic experience and enjoyment from experiencing art, it must work like "If you liked the Mohammed cartoons, you will also like a movie about a black gay Mannerheim." People's personal sensibilities vary and are irrational to a large degree, so as long as noone is trying to legislate them in any way, people should be free to pick and choose what they like and they dislike.
I like gay porn, I dislike straight porn, but that does not make me a heterophobe. Wanting to put all breeders in concentration camps does.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2012, 02:41:45 AM
Also, in my answer I'd point out that Mannerheim has no reputation to damage, insofar as he was Nazi-loving, Ally-fighting monster, beloved only by Finns and Tim. But that's definitely a question of fact.
Actually Mannerheim hated the Germans. Unsurprisingly, given his background as an officer of the Imperial Russian army. It's doubly hilarious that the Finnish jägers (German-trained volunteers who fought Russia in WW1) idolized him, when he almost ended up fighting against them.
The Finnish Jägers were trained, btw, near my old hometown. It used to be called Lockstedter Lager and was a major training site during WW1 (up to 10,000 soldiers at one time); these days it's called Hohenlockstedt. Taking the bus to the next best shopping town always led through the town and past the "Jääkärimuistomerkki" signpost that pointed the way to a small memorial where every year a small ceremony is held in memory of the Jägers.
I' heading into work so haven't much time but there's no contradiction between information and myth. There's lots written about Washington, Napoleon and Churchill, but they're all in many ways mainly mythic figures now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.
All righting-thinking people hated fags back then, and if you were living in Eastern Europe, then fighting alongside the Nazis was the only moral choice.
They could fight with British help...until we betray them to the Soviets :(
I'm not saying the Continuation War can't be justified.
I'm just saying "Fought with Axis Powers in WW2" isn't something I would highlight on my resume. Just ask the Pope.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
I'm not saying the Continuation War can't be justified.
I'm just saying "Fought with Axis Powers in WW2" isn't something I would highlight on my resume. Just ask the Pope.
Just depends on how you spin it. "Fighting the Soviets" looks pretty damned good to me.
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2012, 10:25:10 AM
Just depends on how you spin it. "Fighting the Soviets" looks pretty damned good to me.
That's what Goering's PR agent said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 17, 2012, 10:51:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2012, 10:25:10 AM
Just depends on how you spin it. "Fighting the Soviets" looks pretty damned good to me.
That's what Goering's PR agent said.
But Mannerheim can't highlight obesity and morphine addiction in the "Interests" section of his resume, so he has to work with what he's got. :(
Quote from: Syt on August 17, 2012, 03:03:33 AM
The Finnish Jägers were trained, btw, near my old hometown. It used to be called Lockstedter Lager and was a major training site during WW1 (up to 10,000 soldiers at one time); these days it's called Hohenlockstedt. Taking the bus to the next best shopping town always led through the town and past the "Jääkärimuistomerkki" signpost that pointed the way to a small memorial where every year a small ceremony is held in memory of the Jägers.
:)
Mannerheim is one of the greatest and most successful figures of the 20th century. :wub:
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:04:05 AM
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
Why like, EVERYBODY, makes films about Moses, David, etc, etc???
Quote from: Siege on August 20, 2012, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:04:05 AM
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
Why like, EVERYBODY, makes films about Moses, David, etc, etc???
Because the Hebrews don't exist anymore, so they belong to all of us.
Quote from: Siege on August 20, 2012, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:04:05 AM
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
Why like, EVERYBODY, makes films about Moses, David, etc, etc???
Not everybody, Americans do.
Bible-Thumper Americans have some weird fetish for the Old Testament, because the God in it is an angry, PMS God. They can quote obscure Ancient references from the Old Testament more than from even the Evangiles themselves. You'd think that for Jesus-worshippers, they'd actually quote the Messiah himself more than Leviticus or the Book of Daniel.
Quote from: Drakken on August 21, 2012, 09:05:35 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 20, 2012, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 06:04:05 AM
why are kenyans making a film about a finish dude?
Why like, EVERYBODY, makes films about Moses, David, etc, etc???
Not everybody, Americans do.
Bible-Thumper Americans have some weird fetish for the Old Testament, because the God in it is an angry, PMS God. They can quote obscure Ancient references from the Old Testament more than from even the Evangiles themselves. You'd think that for Jesus-worshippers, they'd actually quote the Messiah himself more than Leviticus or the Book of Daniel.
John 3:16