After googling Rasputin’s Penis this came up on Wikipedia
Grigori Rasputin (1869–1916) was a Russian mystic believed by some to be a psychic and faith healer having supernatural powers.1 He was seen as having greatly influenced the later days of Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his wife the Tsaritsa Alexandra.
When Rasputin was murdered by a group of noblemen in 1916, some accounts say he was also sexually mutilated and his penis was severed.23 Since then, a number of people claiming to be in possession of his severed penis have come forth, although none of them have been able to prove it definitively.4
Reputed characteristics
Some histories of the Russian Revolution comment on Rasputin’s sexual skills and on the reputed size or other unusual characteristics of his penis. Orlando Figes writes:5
One woman confessed that the first time she made love to him her orgasm was so violent that she fainted. Perhaps his potency as a lover also had a physical explanation. Rasputin’s assassin and alleged homosexual lover, Felix Yusopov, claimed that his prowess was explained by a large wart strategically situated on his penis, which was of exceptional size.
In another recounting of Rasputin’s assassination, his member is described as “notorious in Petrograd”, but “disappointingly, the conspirators apparently found [the dead] Rasputin’s penis of ordinary size and character.”6
History of the alleged remains
1900s
Russian noblemen feared Rasputin’s significant and increasing influence on the tsar’s wife, and so, on December 29, 1916, he was murdered.7 Some accounts say that his killers also sexually mutilated him, severing his penis.23 The official report of his autopsy disappeared during the Stalin era, as did several research assistants who had seen it.8
According to some, a maid discovered the severed organ at Rasputin’s murder site, keeping it until it was somehow acquired in the 1920s by a group of female Russian expatriates living in Paris.4 The women worshipped the organ as a fertility charm, storing it inside a wooden casket.4 Upon learning of the women, Rasputin’s daughter, Marie, demanded that the item be returned to her.4 She maintained custody of the object until her death in California in 1977.4
A man named Michael Augustine purchased the object, along with a number of Marie Rasputin’s other personal items, at a Santa Cruz storage-locker sale following Marie Rasputin’s death. Augustine consigned the artifact to Bonhams auction house, but officials quickly realized that the item was not a penis, but was in fact a sea cucumber.4 It is unclear if the sea creature was the same item worshiped by the Russian women in the 1920s. Augustine accepted the conclusion of the expert from Bonham’s. The auction house later auctioned the manuscripts, letters, photographs and the strange looking ‘penis cucumber’ from Marie Rasputin’s estate.
2000s
In 2004, Igor Knyazkin, the chief of the prostate research center of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, announced that he was opening a Russian museum of erotica in St. Petersburg, Russia. Among the exhibits, Knyazkin claims, is the 30 cm (12 inch) long “preserved penis” of Grigori Rasputin,9 along with several of Rasputin’s letters.4 He stated that he purchased the items from a French collector of antiquities and artifacts for €6,600 (US $8,000). Knyazkin had said that merely viewing the alleged penis will cure males of impotency.10 It is not known if the penis is indeed that of Rasputin.
that’s a good question, ben. i have noticed that a lot of older reviewers, whose reviews of films from the 60s, 70s, and sometimes 80s, started to really disagree with what i was seeing and enjoying from the 90s, the things that made an impact on me growing up. which is why i got interested in talking about films – defending what my generation has made.
i meant to write, “whose reviews from the 60s, 70s, and sometimes 80s i really agreed with or appreciated.” sorry.
Ben, that’s a good point, an honest reviewer cannot be stuck in one ideal or another, a good reviewer will be open to changes in cinema.
I think there are extremes, some of the reviewers today, younger reviewers, don’t know film history, nor really filmmaking, where some of the older critics are holding too tight to what filmmaking was and refuse to accept anything but the 3 act format and cushy, explained ending.
I agree with the fact that nostalgia can often bias one into really giving “newer” movements less consideration and often dismissing them entirely. I’m not saying the OP is guilty of that (I don’t know), but it is a characteristic of older as well as younger reviewers (or in short, everyone, heh). Nostalgia is a wonderful thing because it’s something that is so unique to us all, but it can also blind us as to the relevance of “newer” movements/ways of thinking/etc.
For example, I fully recognize that I’m extremely biased toward John Carpenter films, I simply love 90% of his filmography, but this fact only makes me more wary when discussing a Carpenter topic because it may blind me as to the fairness of the discussion.
Anybody who knows anything about film knows that D.W. Griffith came up with the original concept for the transformers movie. michael bay picked it up to carry the torch. bay only came up with the second one by himself.
Look. Being a 17 year old, this thread (at least the original question that was asked) really interests me. I don’t think that bad taste can be attributed to a certain age group. It’s true, I haven’t been around as long as some of you seasoned lovers of cinema, but that doesn’t mean that I’m too silly to respect and understand great movies. The Twilight series and Transformers are not only targeted towards young adults. I can’t stand Twilight, and although I know other kids who love it I also know a group of older moms and teachers who think its a great series. Parents aren’t pushing their kids towards the Twilight series or Transformers or whatever: teenagers are deciding that they like these films on their own (referring to your comment that parents should give their kids a “film education” and stop pushing them towards bad movies).
I also know tons of kids my age who are well-versed in great cinema. In fact, it was another 17 year old who introduced me to Kubrick; not to sound like a prick, but I, in turn, told her about Godard. So back off of teenagers. AND, shit movies have been around since the beginning of film history. CGI and all of that just make it easier to sub in effects for actual quality, and trust me, these movies aren’t making katrillions of dollars based solely on a teenage audience.
I think it depends on the reviewer. I’ve known parents who are big cinema fans who exposed their children to fantastic films and directors.
The same goes in my household and it goes even further as along with my collection of cinema, I also have a collection of books from Sarris, Kael, Brownlow, Rosenbaum, Godard, etc., my collection of photos and my young 7-year-old is being exposed to films at a young age (granted it’s limited for now) but as much as he knows his “Spongebob Squarepants”, he also knows some work from Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Murnau, Renoir, Chaplin. I don’t force it down his throat either.
Last night, I was watching my Blu-ray copy of “Avatar” and he watched it with me. A few weeks ago, he was watching “Metropolis” and “For All Mankind” with me. In fact, he was watching a few Gaumont classics from the early 1900’s with me. They’ll ask questions but for me, that’s fine. I feel it’s important to at least have him exposed to the films. So, it’s good to start them out young.
And as for the young reviewers, I don’t mind as much as long as they build upon their films they watch. They also have the ability to widen their horizon and watch films from different countries. Also, to learn about the director themselves. I enjoy learning about the director’s state of mind of their films and many times it enhances my appreciation for film.
So, I often worry about those who watch the films on netflix or bittorrent them because if they get to the point where they are watching and downloading too much, are they really learning anything? If they are blogging a several films per day, are they going out to learn about the film, learn about the director?
I can go on and on about this but the thing is there are a few people, especially people on TheAuteurs who have amazed me for being into cinema but are quite young and are spending money to purchase the films, the books and are passionate about wanting to know more about the film and the director behind them. And if those are the younger people who are reviewing, then all power to them.
Age has nothing to do with it. Intelligence, appropriate background knowledge, and good taste is what makes a good film critic. I’m 17 now and I can tell you that by the time I’m 24 I will know probably more about great film than your average film critic.
Does that mean I would necessarily be a good film critic? No, but there’s no reason that any knowledgeable and perceptive young viewer shouldn’t be able to review and/or make films.
“Age has nothing to do with it. Intelligence, appropriate background knowledge, and good taste is what makes a good film critic.”
There’s nothing more to say than that.
“Intelligence, appropriate background knowledge, and good taste”
tho good taste is pretty subjective these are things u gain thru experience and age
dp
Of course “good taste” is subjective. I’m not talking about for instance someone who prefers one auteur over another. But my point is you can’t have a good film critic who thinks Disaster Movie is the best picture of the last 10 years.
Joseph, I would suggest that if a critic can soundly justify why he believes a film is good, he is at least worth some level of respect. We may not agree, but there’s definite validity in someone being able to explain their position articulately, without condescension and name-calling.
Now that some of the name-calling has stopped, maybe we can get back to the original question.
I guess I understand the gist of it but as it’s worded it suggests that there should be some way to STOP 17-24-year-olds from blogging or writing film reviews. Should we pass a federal LAW to prohibit them from spreading their opinions, whether they’re educated in film history/technique or not?
I’d be against that.
However, I just don’t pay much attention to people (whatever the age) who display little or no understanding of what makes a good film or bad film. I suppose that as long as mainstream cinema chases the 17-24 demographic, “critics” of that age group will comment on those pre-packaged and focus-grouped movies — since they were consciously made with them in mind. That demographic age group has been the primary target audience for Hollywood films for at least three decades now, so the so-called “classics” like STAR WARS and JAWS were just as consciously designed for the “youth market” as today’s films. Even THE GRADUATE, BONNIE AND CLYDE, and other 1960s youth rebellion films were aimed at the disposable income of the burgeoning youth market and the large Baby Boomer crowd.
If there’s a “solution” to this “problem,” I’d suggest attending ONLY adult-themed movies and IGNORING dumb critics and bloggers. (Of course, I once asked a class in TV Criticism to stop watching television for 2 straight days as an experiment and NONE of them could do it.)
Dequinx:
I agree with you about an adequate critic being one who can justify his opinions. And if a 17-24 year old can do this, then there’s no reason his opinion should be considered less worthy than the one of some older person.
Oh yeah, and Joseph:
I don’t think intelligence, appropriate background knowledge, and good taste make a good film critic. You don’t have to be an educated person, or even a particularly smart one, to recognize greatness in a film. And you don’t have to know a film’s background to have a fair opinion of it. And Den already said that good taste is subjective.
All a film critic needs is the ability to understand a film’s effectiveness in its own context. But yeah, this has nothing to do with age.
I wasn’t refering to background knowledge of a particular film, but some understanding of the medium in general. And I agree that you don’t have to be a genius by any means, but you can’t be a complete idiot and still write a good review. I meant that you just need at least some intelligence, especially if you are going to try to take on complex films as a critic.
This may be the time to mention a matter of semantics. Many make a distinction between a REVIEWER and a CRITIC. The reviewer advises you on which movies to see or not see. The critic points out the thematic and stylistic aspects of the film to his/her audience, while also explaining why he/she liked or disliked the movie in question.
The reviewer doesn’t necessarily need to justify his/her choices, but the critic is. thus, a knowledge of the medium is more useful for the critic.
All of this is regardless of age, of course.
Okay, so I agree with you Joseph. Some intelligence is definitely necessary for the film critic. And if a critic has to point out the thematic/stylistic aspects of a film, then background knowledge , meaning “some understanding of the medium”, would be helpful to the critic’s opinion.
Ben Hackworth
I would ask : should old retirees be allowed to be film critics (such as David Stratton) who give Wendy and Lucy Gomorrah and Dancer in the Dark all 1 star because they don’t appreciate a) modern structures or b) postmodernism.