• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Hitler Book

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Hitler Book"

Collapse

  • Dow Jones
    replied
    Suggested material for Adof fans

    Maybe something by David Irving or Nick Griffin perhaps??

    Seriously though (apart from the excellent 'Downfall' DVD):
    'Fatherland' by Richard Harris - also 'Archangel' for Josef (Stalin) fans by the same author.
    Both highly recommended.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    It was Keaton.

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by rootsnall View Post
    I would of gone for using a dummy for the frames in which the house is actually falling.
    Keaton was in quite a close shot all the time - and moving slightly so if they used a double then it was an extremely good one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by rootsnall View Post
    I would of gone for using a dummy for the frames in which the house is actually falling.
    Oi!!!

    would've

    Leave a comment:


  • rootsnall
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    The trickery in the house thing being carefully measuring where the window would be...
    I would of gone for using a dummy for the frames in which the house is actually falling.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimberWolf
    replied
    Originally posted by KathyWoolfe View Post
    Trigonometry would help here.
    Being short helps too.

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    The trickery in the house thing being carefully measuring where the window would be...
    Trigonometry would help here.

    All you have to do is ask the nearest trigonom

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by rootsnall View Post
    It was all a myth !

    To be honest I know bog all about it but I suspect the 'do their own stunts' was part of the publicity when selling the film at the time. If you were Keaton or Lloyd and running a business ( a real one ! ) why risk your neck needlessly if you could employ a bit of trickery instead.
    The film mentioned with the clock face that falls away from the wall employed a little trickery, directly underneath the clock face was a platform to catch said actor if anything went wrong. It was the camera angle that made it look spectacular(for those days...).

    Keaton and Lloyd were involved in the early days of motion pictures. They developed many of the techniques used in later films.

    Leave a comment:


  • rootsnall
    replied
    Originally posted by Moose423956 View Post
    I think the most amazing thing was how they used to do their own stunts. Like the Keaton one where the house falls down and he's not hurt because he "goes through" an open window. Or Harold Lloyd hanging from a clockface. No CGI involved there.

    Now someone will tell me it was all a myth.
    It was all a myth !

    To be honest I know bog all about it but I suspect the 'do their own stunts' was part of the publicity when selling the film at the time. If you were Keaton or Lloyd and running a business ( a real one ! ) why risk your neck needlessly if you could employ a bit of trickery instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by Moose423956 View Post
    I think the most amazing thing was how they used to do their own stunts. Like the Keaton one where the house falls down and he's not hurt because he "goes through" an open window. Or Harold Lloyd hanging from a clockface. No CGI involved there.

    Now someone will tell me it was all a myth.
    Some of his more spectacular stunts - IMO - occured in his film "The General" where a lot of the action takes place on moving steam trains. To say that they were remarkable for that time is an understatement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moose423956
    replied
    Originally posted by KathyWoolfe View Post
    I think that Chaplin's films are quite entertaining but for that era in the history of film I prefer watching Buster Keaton. his antics and deadpan expression are priceless.
    I think the most amazing thing was how they used to do their own stunts. Like the Keaton one where the house falls down and he's not hurt because he "goes through" an open window. Or Harold Lloyd hanging from a clockface. No CGI involved there.

    Now someone will tell me it was all a myth.

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by Ruprect View Post
    I find his films about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck and discovering there's a gas bill tied to it.
    I think that Chaplin's films are quite entertaining but for that era in the history of film I prefer watching Buster Keaton. his antics and deadpan expression are priceless.

    Leave a comment:


  • thunderlizard
    replied
    I second The Great Dictator*. There's also a Don Delillo novel about a filmstrip of Hitler in his bunker doing a Charlie Chaplin impression - can't remember which one it is, maybe Mao II or Running Dog


    "Hitler-Stalin: Parallel Lives" is a legendary & readable hatchet-job too.





    *the Chaplin film, not the actual dictator.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    More interesting artist than Churchill at any rate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moose423956
    replied
    Originally posted by Ruprect View Post
    I find his films about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck and discovering there's a gas bill tied to it.
    There's no accounting for taste. I bet you hate the Marx Brothers as well.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X