Kate Winslet degrades The Holocaust

British star Kate Winslet’s latest film, in which she plays a former concentration camp guard with an insatiable se-xual appetite, has been panned for using her “nub-ile body” to trivialise the Holocaust.

Winslet bares all in post-war drama The Reader and has said the role pushed her “to the brink”, but the recent criticism could cost her an Oscar nomination next month.

Critics pan Winslet’s Nazi film

At a private screening of the film last week, influential film critic Charlie Finch attacked the film, arguing Winslet’s sexual escapades were out of place, the Sunday Times reports.

“It trivialises the Holocaust,” he said.

“What is repellent is how Daldry uses Kate Winslet’s nubile body to create sympathy for a repellent character. [Director Stephen] Daldry avoided showing the horror of her crimes – instead we have Holocaust chic which is all about sex, not mass murder.”

Winslet plays Hanna Schmitz, a middle-aged tram conductor in post-war Berlin who has an affair with a teenage boy.

The boy is played by German actor David Kross, who had to wait until his 18th birthday before he was allowed to film the sex scenes.

After the film’s release, Jews riot, blow up embassies and burn cars. Sorry, my bad. Wrong religion.
Jews do nothing.

Reality check:
Showing womens’ bodies nu-de has one purpose and one only: To se-xually excite men.

Graphic se-x and violence on television and in movies is intended to excite male lust and to produce an adrenaline rush in you.

The dirty little secret that no wants to really believe is that it makes it impossible to respect women without objectifying their bodies and it desensitizes you not only to the victim’s pain in the film but also to the debasement of the perpetrator.

Not to mention that most films glorify casual se-x, violence and the people who engage in it.

Instead of Kate’s body parts ………..in all her n-ude glory…………..
Perhaps the director could have shown this:

Artificial limbs of Auschwitz concentration camp victims.
Oh sorry, that wouldn’t exactly sell tickets.

Many legitimize viewing se-xual scenes, which should be held with honor between a loving man and woman, or watching horrific. graphic brutality as “entertainment”.

In other words: the celebration of promiscuity and savagery.

Graphic nu-dity or violence has no “artistic” value.

What it does have, however, is the abiltity to sell mass quantities of tickets to of 16-35 year old males, the demographic group, who will most likely purchase the tickets now that they know a star will be nu-de.

It is quite possible for a film to show fighting, war, injury and even death without pints of blood splattering everywhere and unending gore.
It is more possible to demonstrate undying love by not showing s-ex, but by actually showing acts of Love.

Anyone who can justify nu-dity in a film about the Holocaust is not honestly trying to advance the message of the film, or perhaps the message is meant to be lost entirely – while people can measure the size and shape of the actress’s body parts afterwards.

What’s that you say? It was a crucial part of the story line?
Right. Then it’s high time producers and writers use their creativity to find other ways to “enhance” the plot or teach the same lessons.

A Holocaust film.
Perhaps a slightly higher order thinking which actually explores the complexity of human behavior should be undertaken.

They have such a dire need to “display bodies” eh?
THIS is the Holocaust:

You want graphic violence.
Look no farther than the Nazis:

Thrilling the male audience with glimpses of s-ex is hardly the way to exhibit the revulsion and horror known as: The Holocaust.

But don’t fret Ms. Winslet.
You’re safe as long as no pets were harmed and no Muslims were “offended” during the making of the “film.”

Sharing the disgrace with my friends at Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

28 Responses to “Kate Winslet degrades The Holocaust”

  1. Katie says:

    That is one movie I will not go see and one Hollywood bimbo (aka whore) that I will never go see again!

  2. z says:

    I won’t be buying a ticket. The sexiest films are movies like THE QUIET MAN..everybody keeps their clothes on and MAN, is it SEXY!

    I read THE READER a few years back and don’t remember even registering that the woman protagonist was an ex camp guard; I remember it as a love story between an older woman and a younger man, which gave me the creeps, but…..

  3. KarL M says:

    Oh, sorry was i being a bit to obvious.
    Trivializing Jewish horrors and exploiting women’s bodies on film, now there is a novel idea??
    Hollywood strikes again, never go for the essense of the story (if there ever is one!!) but always remember ticket sales.
    Remember the OSCAR is made of GOLD.

  4. Greywolfe says:

    I love to see someone write about something other than the depressing state of our government. That said…

    Is it even possible to be surprised by the debased nature of anything that comes out of hollywood? Come on! We’re talking about the people that gave us boogie nights and pulp fiction.

    Here’s the way to look at it, Hollywood is the largest sinkhole of moral and political debauchery, aside from Louisianna and Illinoise, on the planet. Is it any wonder that they would try to first downplay and then rewrite the holocaust? I mean, right now Islam is the “in” thing! And most of the Islamic world denies that the holocaust even happened.

    To be honest, it pleases me to no end that the only cities that can currently be reached by China’s nuclear arsinal are on the left coast. I keep thinking that if I keep making prank calls to the Chinese government they might make nevada ocean front property, alas no success yet.

  5. Gayle says:

    LOL, Greywolf! But California is beautiful – it’s just the far left that need to go. Now if somehow that could be arranged…

    GADS Angel! Thank you so much for the warning. I won’t be watching that movie and I hope it does horrible at the box office! Ms. Winslet is obviously one of those bimbos who will do anything for money. Disgusting!

  6. JMK says:

    Hollyweird types love to think of themselves as “edgy” and “having the courage to challenge conventional beliefs.”

    All that is utter nonsense!

    They’ve consistently ONLY challenged those conventions they can easily and safely get away with challenging.

    That’s why you NEVER see them challenging radical Islam….”People actually get killed doing that.”

    Better to leave that stuff to the likes of Theo van Gogh and Geert Wilders.

  7. LomaAlta says:

    Important post Angel, thanks.

    Wish you could review all Hollywood movies.

  8. Joe Gringo says:

    what a narcissistic hag.

    Man does my heart ache when I see those photo’s., thanks for posting because we can never forget.

  9. Dapoppins says:

    I never had much respect for Hollywierd…

    I am a tad surprised critics don’t LOVE this film. It is just right up their alley.

  10. Debbie says:

    I had not heard about this Angel. Nothing sexy about the holocaust.

  11. Amboy says:

    Powerful post Angel. There are just too many people who need to salt that wound.

  12. Tim says:

    Leave it to a British film however, to use rampant sex in a story about the Holocaust.

  13. OMMAG says:

    The fault lies with the producers of the movie.

    Blaming Kate for taking a role is like criticizing children for eating candy that is offered to them.

    An interesting exercise might be to compile a list of those film producers who are found most often to be behind some cinematic low point.

    A good place to start IMO is by going to the IMDB site.

  14. cube says:

    Spot on analysis. Any bodies shown in a Holocaust movie should be the bodies you showed. Period. I didn’t watch Winslet’s Titanic movie, and I won’t be watching this one either.

  15. sayitlikeitis says:

    I think the Jews should riot, burn some bras and panties and scream bloody loud. Maybe when the passivity phase is over, the world will take the Jews seriously.

  16. PhantomMan says:

    it just keeps going on and on.
    Hollywood at it’s worst!

  17. trespassers william says:

    Hmmm, doesn’t Winslet have some way of screening what roles she plays? Anyone with a modicum of common sense would have known to stay away from this role. So she plays someone older that has se-x with someone younger…Hollyweirds next fantasy? They are already trying to shove the “legitimacy” of homosexual/lesbian relationships and marriage down everyone’s throats-haven’t heard of the black listing of those in Hollyweird that supported Measure8?;


    I love this quote;

    “Obama, stated for the record that ” my religious beliefs say that a marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman”. So why not picket and threaten the President Elect?” (Oh well what’s another Obama lie if it helps him steal the White House)

    Shucks, it was the Hollyweird types, homosexuals and lesbians that worked so hard to help him steal the election. Remember Babs and the $28,000.00 a plate dinner? Do you think it was us common Joe’s that were there? Forget boycotting this movie,,,boycott them all. The only reason Hollyweird wields so much “power” is because people support them with there money by going to see the movies. Lets also not forget that some of those “Big Brother” plans on meeting without pre-conditions don’t even believe in the Holocaust.

    Anyways, just a little preview of things to come, after all, it wasn’t to long ago (when I was growing up) that homosexuality and lesbianism were not viewed as “just another life style.” So who’s next on their list of those that have “unequal rights”? If you think Hollweird is going to stop with homosexual/lesbian relationships, you’re kidding yourself. I believe Michael Medved said something very wise when he responded to the idiotic statement that homosexuals and lesbians don’t have the same rights as everyone else (they were trying to make a comparison between the civil rights movement and the homosexual agenda of today). He stated;
    “Yes they do, they can marry any man or any woman they want.” Forgive my digressions…just don’t support them with your money.

  18. Brooke says:

    How utterly repulsive.

    Not only is this sexualizing, of all frickin’ things, THE HOLOCAUST, but it glamorizes pedophilia, too.

    Sick, sick, sick!

  19. trespassers william says:

    Response to Brooke;

    Oddly, enough, Orwell’s protagonist in his novel “1984″ was a history revisionist. Now we are seeing Orwell’s novel become reality and no longer fiction. So, welcome to the Obamanation. The land of O where Israel is to blame for the Islamo-Nazi attacks in/on their territory (as well as Mumbai, The Twin Towers, London, Spain….and the rest of the world). Where Hollyweird and their “messiah” (Big Brother) wants to protect the terrorists in Gitmo and put the Marines that keep them safe from the terrorists on trial. Where history is being revised so the terrorists can justify their longstanding hatred for, and desire to annihalate the Jews and yes, where Hollyweird and their “messiah” slowly work toward erroding morals and ethics-calling it constitutional rights.

  20. MK says:

    “Artificial limbs of Auschwitz concentration camp victims. Oh sorry, that wouldn’t exactly sell tickets.”

    Besides, it might trigger some of the ignorant in the audience to wonder why exactly muslims who have so many of their own countries are so upset at the Jews having a little space and peace of their own. It might just portray Jews as the real victims. I’m sure those in the arts & movies industry would want that sort of truth, would they.

  21. Otto - American Interests says:

    How thoroughly Abhorrent! Hollywood used to entertain, long ago…

  22. fidothedog says:

    I guess a hour plus flick of people choking to death in gas chambers and being thrown into cattle trucks would not really appeal to the uber-liberal lovies of the cinema world.

    However Kate “gets them out” to use a tabloid phrase and well instant hit.

    I thought that steaming pile Pearl Harbour was bad enough turning WW2 into a chic love flick, but Kate had to dumb down cinema even further.

  23. Mikael says:

    “Sophie’s Choise” with Merryl Streep is also a lovestory with a background in the Holocaust.

    Or “Life is Beuatyful” where Roberto Benigni uses comedy to describe the horror.

    These are artistic attempts to describe the undescribable. I haven’t seen “The Reader” but perhaps people here should give a chance. You never know, perhaps it’s not that bad.

  24. Krystal says:

    Schindler’s List.

    That was artistic AND truthful.

  25. Julie Raven says:

    Once again Gentiles try to sexify the Shoah – after The Night Porter surely we shouldn’t be shocked – while not even reprinting the mildest of offenses to Islam. By making it a PERSONAL thing, they can evade the political mass movement that created genocide. Whereas a film about the numerous female victims of Muslim ‘honour’ killings – 2 a week in Britain – is conspicuous by its absence.

  26. amanda says:

    i learned so much about the holocaust i think about the kids my age and what they went through

  27. Jools says:

    Think some of you are missing the point. I visited Wahnsee Villa and the concentration camps and went expecting to find inhumane monsters, what i found however was ordinary humans who were capable of acts of brutality beyond imagination. In The Reader we get to see a woman trying to rebuild her life after being involved in those acts of brutality, when the truth is revealed to us it is all the more shocking because by then we care about the central character someone for whom we should have nothing but revulsion. It thus challenges our perceptions -very clever.

    The fact is the Holocaust is not exclusively a Jewish story but also a German story however hard that is for some to understand

  28. Victoria- reply to Jools says:

    what i found however was ordinary humans who were capable of acts of brutality beyond imagination.

    The fact is the Holocaust is not exclusively a Jewish story but also a German story however hard that is for some to understand

    What nonsense!
    First of all why is it that the supposed “humanity” of the perpetrators is somehow a give, while the victims’ humanity is at worst ignored, or conveniently dismissed?
    These types were obviously at best beasts in human form, at worst just inhuman monsters. Is Jools somehow too ready to see them as humans by the fact that they just happen to be white, German, blue-eyed and blonde?

    Secondly, to state that Holocaust is in some way a German story is simply absurd and shameful. If a Holocaust is a story, it is a story of victims the perpetrators, where the role of the latter is willingly played by the Germans.
    There can never be any such thing as balance.