Best movie of the year if you know any history about this period

Best movie of the year if you know any history about this period.

Fun fact: Johnny Cash was the first Westerner to know about Stalin's death when he was the first to intercept the message while serving as an Airman in Germany.

>Jeffrey Tambor
Dropped

where the hell was I supposed to see this film?

The trailer for this made it look so unfunny.

was in UK everywhere few weeks ago. fair enough limited release.

American movies or shows about complex foreign historical subjects are always dishonest propaganda full of inaccuracies. I don't trust anything they make about nazis or commies, just like I wouldn't trust a Russian biopic about Lincoln or a Chinese TV show about Mussolini, there's no legitimacy to this shit. Stick to westerns and superheroes.

>American
It's British-French you colossal nonce.

>propaganda
Oh right never mind, it's bait.

t. buttblasted russian that can’t make decent movies

looks why to american to be good

Where's my stream? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

shit wasn't even released in America.

>American movies
I believe it's actually British

It's not an American film you knob.

To be fair, it is propaganda, it does put a spin on history. But so does every movie depicting historic events, so fair enough.

>supporting a movie with Jeffrey Tambor

ummm.... someone is out of the loop

>I don't understand what propaganda means

It is not very good on its own terms, and – like so many modern comedians – uses the f-word repeatedly to jolt the semblance of laughter from its audience, much as you might make a corpse twitch with seeming life by plugging it into the national grid.

The Death Of Stalin makes a farce out of that wholly grim and squalid event. As the monster himself lies dying, a gang of slave-drivers, secret police monsters and gruesome toadies, plus a murderous paedophile, are portrayed as a kind of Carry On farce or a Monty Python sketch. Ha ha.

Well, the only question you need to ask is whether anyone would think the final days of Hitler, the other great European mass-killer, torturer and tyrant, would make a good comedy, with Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi elite played for laughs. No, of course not.

But fashionable showbiz persons still can’t grasp that Stalin (Left-wing) was just as evil as Hitler (Right-wing). So they can’t see that either.’

I might have added, had there been space., that Hitler’s crimes have been repeatedly explored in mass-market TV series, and major fictional films without number. But the equivalent documentaries and dramas about Stalin have yet to be made. I suppose a farce about Stalin’s death might be excusable, if there had been serious films and documentaries about his life. But there haven’t been, at least nothing like as prominent, promoted and widely viewed as those about Hitler's crimes..

Here’s what I’ve been told by my critics, apart from the fact that I am stupid and have no sense of humour and even, amazing;y, that I am some sort of apologist for Stalin. I ask you. I have been told that Mel Brooks made jokes about Hitler in his cult film ‘The Producers’. I know. The film, as I understood it (I saw it about 40 years ago and had no wish to see it again) was about the cynicism of Broadway and the bad taste of the theatre-going public. It was not an attempt to turn Hitler’s *death* into a farce.

>Well, the only question you need to ask is whether anyone would think the final days of Hitler, the other great European mass-killer, torturer and tyrant, would make a good comedy, with Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi elite played for laughs. No, of course not.
Actually that would be a pretty funny idea.

I have been told that people *did* make films which joke about the death of Hitler. As evidence of this, I‘ve been told that Charlie Chaplin made a comedy about Hitler, ‘The Great Dictator’. Indeed he did, and later wished he hadn’t. I've seen it. The film, rarely shown is embarrassing to watch in the light of what we now know about the Nazi camps. But it's not a joke about Hitler’s death.

I’ve been directed to privately made parodies of Hitler’s enraged fury as portrayed (brilliantly) in the film Downfall by Bruno Ganz.

Well, so what? ‘Downfall’ is in fact a deeply serious film. These parodies, which grow more tiresome all the time, just stick subtitles on Hitler’s rage, making jokes about Al ‘Boris’ Johnson, or some other irrelevant event. These parodies were not made commercially, are not the film, and offer no equivalent to ‘The Death of Stalin’. Nor are they about Hitler’s death. I do not think a film in which those who incinerate Hitler’s corpse behave as Ianucci shows the Politburo behaving and speaking as they clumsily manhandle Stalin‘s body, would be commissioned, made shown or praised.

As Matthew Norman notes above, final illness and death are often an undignified business. Many of us have seen beloved person reduced to awful indignity by this, and many of us may expect to be so. There is, of course, a grim levelling effect, when great tyrants are laid this low. But is it a running gag, to be played for laughs? Adolescents, of all ages, like jokes about urine and excrement, but the fact that Stalin lay for hours in a pool of his own urine is made into a long-running joke. It is, as Matthew Norman rightly notes, milked for cheap laughs. I found this, and much of the jokey sweary banter of the dialogue, actively repellent, given the subject matter. These men were mass-murderers. To turn them into a Carry-On film or a slapstick farce is to trivialise them and *to trivialise the deaths of the millions they murdered*

No, you don't. Literally google the definition of propaganda.
>information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view
And if you believe Iannucci didn't want to promote a certain point of view, listen to his interviews where he says that he did want to promote a certain point of view. Doesn't necessarily have to be a bad point of view, but a spin is a spin and you can't tell me it's a documentary.

you sound like an inane person

I don't pity you

>Well, the only question you need to ask is whether anyone would think the final days of Hitler, the other great European mass-killer, torturer and tyrant, would make a good comedy, with Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi elite played for laughs. No, of course not.
Isn't this literally what 'Springtime for Hitler' was?

>It's British
So it's american. Good to know.

>how can anyone dislike my propaganda, it's the good one
Ask yourself, would you trust a Russian comedy about the death of Churchill to be unbiased? I wouldn't. Why would I trust a British comedy about the death of Stalin to be unbiased then? And before you say "it's just a comedy", imagine Colbert using that line to get away with his bullshit and realize you're doing the same.

i wonder (((why)))

Well yes, if you purposefully completely ignore the first half of the definition then absolutely anything with a 'point of view' becomes propaganda.

for what purpose is this permitted

As a Brit I'd fucking love to see a Russian satire of the life of Churchill. You're an irredeemable moron if you think this film was in any way designed to seem 'informative' or present an accurate account of historical events. It's satire. Grow up.

Are you implying this movie doesn't provide "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature"? What? What the hell are you saying?

see

The scene where Vasily and the Soviet guard were fighting over that pistol whilst everyone else is just standing around had me in hysterics, otherwise it was so-so. Probably a 5/10 overall

Zhukov absolutely steals it

Yes, and so is Colbert. Just because it's comedy doesn't mean it can't be harmful. And by they way, I'm sure it's a good movie, I will watch it and I'll probably enjoy it. But I do know that it's propaganda just like you will know that the Russian movie about Churchill would be biased as hell. You would know that wouldn't you. You say that you'd love to see it, but you would still know that it's propaganda, right?

>if you know any history about this period.
ah, a fellow history buff!

Actors with best agents from left to right.

Top billing.

Propaganda is designed to mislead. As I said before, Iannucci didn't make this for any aspect of it to be believed. Would you go to see King Lear or Macbeth for an account of British history? No, that would be insanity. This is no different.

>we will never get a prequel rape comedy

;_;

>Propaganda is designed to mislead.
Not necessarily.

By your definition, every satire is propaganda. The movie is a comedy. The only bias it has is to try to make you laugh. Stop being such an autist.

It's a dark slapstick comedy you absolute mong

>Armand Iannuci

yea alright I'll give it a try

>King Lear and Macbeth are works of propaganda

There's a difference between smart and evil and being uncaring and stupid

>reading comprehension

>Zhukov's voice
Best thing about the movie desu, can't wait for the torrents to come out so I can watch it over and over again

Shakespeare is full of propaganda.

>tfw release in estats unis is march next year

god damn it

You are relating propaganda to historical innacuracies for the sake of entertainment. There is a big difference between those terms.

Technically yes, some aspects of Macbeth and other historical plays were written to flatter James I so the scripts would make it past the censors. But beyond a few select instances there's no intent to mislead in his plays, and in fact no real 'information' to speak of. Why do you think everyone in pre-Enlightenment literature prays to pagan Gods? To avoid exactly this kind of thing.

I'll take your word for it. Was mostly the hatchet job on Richard III I was thinking of.

What country would you then trust to make an 'honest' film on communists? I know it's not Russia because all they make is self-aggrandising propaganda.

>Rupert Friend finally allowed another good movie
Based