Like Beauty and the Beast, this is another film that was shot while the Hellstorm Holocaust was being perpetrated. What if it were possible for the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Germans who fought against Germany in the 1940s to see our Woke century thanks, as in the film, to a guardian angel? Just as George Bailey, the central character in It’s a Wonderful Life, after the vision of the nasty alternative world shown to him by the angel decided not to kill himself, would these soldiers of the 1940s decide to fight Hitler?
My father loved a couple of Frank Capra films, including It’s a Wonderful Life. When I saw this film as a teenager, it was easy to grasp this idealised vision of American culture in those days. George Bailey’s Aryan children couldn’t help but make a good impression on the teenage César who, decades ago, was unaware of what the Allies had done to the Germans. Had I known, I wouldn’t have been left with the inspiring impression I was left with when I saw It’s a Wonderful Life.
With the above I have said all that can be said about this 1946 film, but I would like to use this evening to talk about the last film I saw tonight: the last film I will ever see on the big screen, inasmuch as, after tonight’s experience, I will never enter a cinema theatre again.
At this stage of my life it is extremely rare for me to go to cinemas. Before tonight, the last one I saw was The Northman, a film I debunk here despite the fact that many racialists loved it.
Given that Ridley Scott had made films like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, I figured I might be entertained this Sunday with Napoleon (2023 film), that I thought it would be one more of those silly, though highly entertaining, Hollywood movies. What a surprise as soon as the film started!
Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple. —Voltaire [1]
The only memorable scene is the first one. A number of times on The West’s Darkest Hour I have repeated what I read in Pierce and Kemp’s histories of the white race: that the French revolutionaries guillotined a large number of blondes. This is clear in the first scene of Napoleon when the rabid mob, a mob in which I saw no blondes by the way, cut off the head of Empress Marie Antoinette. If Hitler had won the war there would already be several films in which we would see Marie Antoinette and other French blondes as the victims and the mob as canaille!
After Prometheus I hadn’t seen another grotesque disaster filmed by Scott. Unlike Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, Napoleon is filmed in dull colours: a sign of the decadence of recent years when even the vivid technicolour of yesteryear has mutated into the ochre tones of this decadent age. But that’s not the worst of it.
Scott uses Napo’s life to promote typical Woke propaganda, painting Empress Josephine as a character on par with that of her husband Napo. And even worse, Scott throws in a few Negro actors in Republican France here and there—even black children!
As I was saying, I will never enter a cinema again for the rest of my life. The only way for me to do so would be if there was a racial revolution in some Western country, the new government asked me to emigrate there to lend my services to the new state, and a cinematic art emerged that is perfectly antithetical to the merde we see in today’s cinema. As it is highly doubtful that this will happen, I will never see the big screen again.
By the way, although I watched Scott’s Napoleon this evening, and also tonight Sunday 26 November I wrote this review, I will post this entry after midnight.
_________
[1] There is another rabble to whom we sacrifice everything, and this rabble is the people. —Voltaire
17 replies on “It’s a Wonderful Life”
I saw Napoleon on the big screen yesterday and by the gods, it was TERRIBLE. I knew it was bad but I didn’t expect this much. There were hardly any battle scenes in the whole movie. The last battle, Waterloo, was an utter jock too. I could hardly make it to the end. I like a few of Scott’s movies but this was utter garbage. To those who want to see it: don’t watch it. Watch Waterloo (1970) instead. I haven’t seen a movie in the theater since the Northman. But Napoleon will probably be the last.
I did see Waterloo (1970) on the big screen, when I was a kid. I only remember one scene: so many horse legs… It’s curious to see what a child remembers.
I haven’t been to the cinema since 2007. The colour grading insanity is what did it for me. At that point it had only been a trend for a couple of years, but even then, I couldn’t stand the teal/orange insanity any longer. Since then it has shifted more to the soul-crushing desaturated aesthetic. I am resolute in my view that no healthy mind could enjoy films that look like this. I think it has been an insidious social experiment. Perhaps the aim has been to inculcate a kind of depressive passivity in the audience. A restricted colour palette is a form of sensory deprivation, after all.
I saw Wonderful Life almost a decade ago. Even back in those Trump-supporting days, I deeply disliked the ending where James Stewart’s Xmas with family turns into a shower of money.
As for Napo, I am not watching this trash. Starring Phoenix, a filthy kike drug addict. Directed by Scott, a NeoXtian Brit whose movies are mediocre at best. Here’s a movie with too short a running time (2,5 hours) for too wide a chronology (1793-1821), thus, destined to be hollow.
Going to the cinema as a teenager was an enjoyable experience in the 90’s. Years later, rarely would I leave the theater without bitterness and regret. It’s a dead art in a dying world. It’s entertainment for the stupid masses.
I pray for the day when the theatre shows “Triumph of the Will”.
Only now do I realise that you are the one who commented here under another name (W.R.). Sorry if, in the past, some of your comments didn’t appear on this site (I don’t know). Sometimes the spam filter I put in is very harsh due to the trolls that used to infect the comments section.
And I say the same to other commenters whose identity I may not have recognised at first.
Welcome!
I already found the story’s premise—prayers reaching Heaven, and God sending forth a guardian angel to save George Bailey’s pure soul from hellfire—so utterly repugnant that for years I refused to watch this Hollywood concoction (which, incidentally, was written by a female of the chosen people married to a male of pure English descent). When I finally did (as part of my investigation of cinematic icons) I was hard pressed to sit through it to the end which, as Mauricio already said, is a kind of specifically American apotheosis of materialism (probably via a Judaistic reading of Calvinist salvation panic, see Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”): utterly risible.
In light of all your rather critical reviews up until now, I’d like know if you, C.T., consider cinema—as cinema (similar to rock music)—to be a pernicious influence on the Aryan psyche? Or is it that in hindsight you just find a whole lot of the films that influenced you, let’s say, ‘subpar?’
Interesting, by the way, that others, namely you and Autisticus Spasticus, have also noticed the evident decline of cinematographic quality in recent decades. I’m still undecided if this is indeed a planned outcome (see A.S.’s speculation about an “insidious social experiment”) or merely an unsightly aftereffect of the transition from analog to digital filming. What do you think, C.T.?
I don’t think the use and abuse of filters to dull colours is a conscious psyop. Rather, it reflects the decadence of the human spirit of these times: degenerate art.
As I said in my reviews of the 50 films on the list, they were only films that made an impact on me over the decades. However, I also said recently that I can’t watch them now, and that I had even given my big TV to my nephew. But as I can retrieve my earlier selves–how I felt about those films long ago—it is easy for me to understand the wavelength of normies. It’s like an apostate who understands Christians because he went through it, and then got over it.
Here I’ll put in bold the films on my list that I would recommend for the ethnostate. To date, I recommend none out of the six reviewed (of the list of 50).
Almost every film released in the last two decades has been, to some degree, subjected to teal/orange colour grading, wherein these two colours are unnaturally dominant and obnoxiously vibrant. This subdues and cancels out other colours; greens always have too much yellow in them, vegetation appears to be dying, skin tones appear jaundiced, and a toxic blue hue appears wherever there are shadows or low light. I first noticed the colour grading phenomenon in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in 2004, which is plagued by an abundance of teal and selective desaturation. Since then, things have only gotten worse, with countless muted, tinted, and washed-out movies and TV shows having been produced. The earliest complaints about colour grading first appeared on internet message boards in 2008, yet it has continued to the present and shows no signs of abating. In the late 2000s, the equally awful desaturation trend was unleashed, which has also continued to the present.
And so, after half a century of enjoying luscious colour films without complaint, we suddenly found ourselves limited to teal/orange on the one hand, or a world greyed-out and drained of colour on the other. Unfortunately, there is now a generation who have grown up with this and have become acclimatised to it over the last 20 years. Naturally saturated colours are bizarre to them, because their palette has been artificially restricted for so long. I suspect these dull, desaturated hues are used to inculcate a depressive passivity in the audience, via what is essentially a form of sensory deprivation. It bears all the hallmarks of an insidious social experiment, much like those the Soviets used to conduct. With relentless exposure, the abnormal eventually becomes normal. It is an exercise in psychological abuse. Qualitatively, these trends are unpleasant, yet they have been pushed with a zeal that borders on cultish. When I watch an old film with natural colours, I feel like my retinas have been brought back from the dead. We prefer colours the way they naturally are, because that is the default, and it is not incumbent upon us to justify normality. It is upon those who would deviate from it.
When I investigated the supposed “science” behind the teal/orange colour theory, I was shocked by how poorly reasoned it was. It begins with the claim that because teal and orange are on opposite sides of the colour wheel, they are complimentary. While they do create contrast, being cool and warm respectively, I cannot say they look good together, especially not when applied to people and their surrounding environment. Garish and nauseating, it evokes the fluorescent lighting of a dingy bar or nightclub. Why would anyone want to reduce the colour palette of our visual experience to two colours? In reality, humans are not orange. In reality, shadows and highlights are not teal. We don’t see the world in monochrome, and thank heavens we don’t. It would be incredibly depressing if we did. So why has the Heinz aesthetic, as I call it, set the standard for colourists around the world? It is claimed that it helps characters stand out from their surroundings, but who in their right mind believes we need people and their surroundings to be colour coded so we can tell them apart? Another absurd claim is that colour grading creates atmosphere and enhances the story. This is patently false. The careers of Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, and innumerable others predate colour grading, and they never needed it to create their masterpieces. Colour grading is a gimmick used by talentless hacks to compensate for bad screenwriting, bad directing, and bad acting. It did not exist before the mid-2000s, yet its advocates talk about it as if it were a staff of life. I would be willing to listen to the so-called experts, but seeing as they have so thoroughly bought into the colour grading lunacy, I have no respect for them. It is very much an “emperor’s new clothes” phenomenon. I have avoided going to the movies since 2007, when I couldn’t stand the ugly colours any longer. 16 years later, it *still* hasn’t run out of steam. It is clear to me that we are dealing with ideologues. Anyone who desires to see everything in two-tone can indulge this mania in their own home with an interior decorator. It should not be forced upon the rest of us, which it has been, since we were never consulted. It has been accomplished in a clandestine fashion, and the perpetrators are utterly unaccountable.
Harry Potter is a prime example of the ruin wrought by teal/orange and desaturation. Only the first two films look normal, but even they have since been retroactively given a desaturated grade on the 4K blu-rays to match the drab palette of the later films. Apparently it’s not enough for Hollywood that every new movie looks awful. They’re going back and desecrating the past, trying to erase any evidence that there was once a time of normality. Those who have been made aware of the colour grading phenomenon confess that something about the newer films they were watching didn’t seem right, but they weren’t sure what it was. Initially shocked by their own obliviousness to such an obvious visual aberration, they inevitably come to regret their newfound awareness, because they now notice it everywhere. While it can vary in the intensity of its application, the effect is always the same. It’s an assault on the senses that has been waged relentlessly. I dread the philosophical discussions that this subject inevitably stirs up, since it cannot be empirically verified that certain colours look good together and others do not. It can only be reasoned, because we’re talking about metaphysics. Common sense is at a disadvantage in this scenario, and these social engineers relish it. Should we be forced to eat shit just because we can’t *prove* it tastes vile? These insufferable postmodern “intellectuals” seem to think so.
Agreed, but it seems to me that it was not until the sixth film of that series that the outrage they did with colour was evident.
Thanks for the clarification, C.T.! Then I’ll regularly check in on your list to find the “bold” films of the future. It’ll be interesting to see which ones you choose!
Why they insist on using dull colours?
I personally finding it annoying and unpleasant.
Is this a way to hide the Aryan features of the actors?
I’m not watching any film or movie at all, especially from western directors. They are all in the same anti white bandwagon.
One film slightly worth mentioning this year, in my opinion, is probably… the super Mario movie.
Italic protagonist, with light brown hair and blue eyes (even the voice actor is norwegian), goes to save a nordic princess. No hidden anti white narrative at all (although they tried somehow). And that’s possible only because the Japanese creators are not as sick (yet) as whites themselves. How bizarre.
Indeed: the Japanese constantly make animated films with white characters. I recommend Howl’s Moving Castle.
“I have repeated what I read in Pierce and Kemp’s histories of the white race: that the French revolutionaries guillotined a large number of blondes.”
The process of denordization by raising a low life swarthy mob to rebel against the aristocratic nordic elements of the population.
This is what Christianity did in Rome and the reason why they preach the survival of the lowest so they can be used as weapons of revolution out of their sheer numbers.
It also happened in Russian with communism, and America with the civil war and the deaths of thousands of white men for the sake of equalizing negroes.
Denordization comes along with Christianity.
Also, I just saw your answer about the use of dull colors as another way of progression for degenerate art. Apologies for not seeing it before making my previous question.
I still think that dull colors also contribute to hide the Aryan features of the actors in a film.
At least it was very clear in the aforementioned Napoleon scene that Marie Antoinette was extremely, extremely blonde; and that the scoundrels who cut her head off weren’t.
“The Magnificent Ambersons” is a good 1940’s (Orson Wells) movie I liked, it is kind of slow but then has some great pathos later on.
I remember seeing it a long time ago on television. I liked the title they gave to that film in Spanish better (when marketing them they sometimes change the titles): Soberbia.