MovieChat Forums > forlorn_rage > Replies
forlorn_rage's Replies
<blockquote>[–] wildchipmunk 16 years ago
I think the whole point of this was to show the hypocrisy: Fanny had NEVER truly been a faithful wife. Not in the physical sense, but had never loved, cherished or nurtured Job in any way. Or their child either for that matter.
Job slept with other women but still (for God only knows what reason) truly loved Fanny. He was faithful to her in his heart. She was ONLY faithful to him with her body because, as another poster pointed out, she was still childlike and probably never had those physical desires. That's just my take. </blockquote>
Excellent post! I agree completely!
But, Bill Skarsgard did the remake of It and it was massively successful. His Pennywise has even become iconic in its own way (not to take away from Tim Curry's fantastic performance).
<blockquote>It's much easier to say that only white people have nostalgia for those days. Back then, all minorities were treated bad, and that is saying it politely.</blockquote>
Add women/females, women/females of color, LGBTQ population, pacifists, poor, non-capitalists, etc. Pretty much anyone not a cis,, white, hetero, privileged male.
All these people waxing nostalgic for a time that only *they* would've benefitted make me sick.
Esp. the ones who didn't actually EXPERIENCE the time period, so they're literally talking out their asses. I want to slap the shit out of these latter losers in particular!
<blockquote>Crime is out of control, especially in big cities, the result of policies of people with certain political agendas.</blockquote>
And this is based on... What exactly? *Actual* crime, statistics, actual witness accounts from people the so-called "big cities" with "political agendas" you mention? (neither of which you have bothered to specify)...
Or is it purely your "feelings" and personal perceptions?...
Considering the jarring contrast between bold claims and lack of facts and very vague, lazy descriptions, I'm gonna go with the latter and hard pass on your immature, irresponsible <i>trust me bro</i> rhetoric.
<blockquote>[–] repete66211 16 years ago
I was rooting for Anne, but then she's not the domestic type. I mean, she has a job! She is the caricature of the Progressive, Modern Woman, meaning she is not fit to be a wife. Kathy is the caricature of the subservient, meek but kind woman who would make a much better wife and mother. </blockquote>
Actually, it wasn't that unusual for women to work as long as it was either out of necessity (lower class) or purely as a hobby (upper class).
What was unusual about the portrayal of Anne was that she was successful, in charge, and content (emphasis on content).
What are your thoughts and experiences with the show?
<quote>[–] mechajutaro (2560) 7 days ago
"But, when I witnessed Maude, a cis-white, hetero, upper-middle class loudmouth, obnoxious old hag telling an old Chinese man about racism and how to act about it was unbelievable and unbearable!"
Consider yourself fortunate that she never gave in to her urge to tell the audience of picking the scabs, so that pus could drain out and provide ample lubrication, whenever she and a fella decided to hop into bed </quote>
I'm guessing there is a story behind that... I would very much love to hear it.
Here, here! I'd also like to add how dare he lecture the secretary about Antisemetism and how to handle it?! He's just playing Jewish whereas she lives it! Her life isn't a project that she can quit in number of months unlike Phil! It's so ignorant and patronizing!
I stopped watching <i>Maude</i> for that very reason. It's a very outdated, backwards show in many ways. But, when I witnessed Maude, a cis-white, hetero, upper-middle class loudmouth, obnoxious old hag lecturing an old Chinese man about racism and how to cope with it was unbelievable and unbearable!
<quote> [–] asterisgrammatosis-65560 7 years ago
I tend to believe that's not true. She was really the first woman who actually attempted to choose the films she starred in - a true trailblaizer. She took no *beep* that's for sure. But because she was the first woman in hollywood to actually take matters in her hands, the first one to actually rule over men, myths about her spread like the famine. There have been many instances that actresses who were going to work with her were told that she was going to impose her presence and not let them do their job. After working with her, these actresses admitted that she was nothing like that at all. What is true is that she cared too much about the pictures she made and wouldn't let anyone get in the way of her work. She was more of a hard-worker and less a saboteur.</quote>
Oh please, you sound just as bad as Brando's stans. Bette Davis was far from the only actress, much less the first, to fight the studios or do any kind of "trailblazing."
Mae West, Jean Harlow, Ingrid Bergman, Vivien Leigh, Katherine Hepburn, Olivia De Havilland, Hattie McDaniel, Ida Lupino, Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Bancroft, etc. are just a handful of actresses that are just as great, if not greater "trailblazers" and many of them superior performers to La Davis, but a fraction of the colossal ego, bad behaviour, and without distastefully shoving themselves down people's throats (minus Mae West).
Hell, even Katherine Hepburn showed more moments of humility and kindness than Davis did. She was only decent to actresses who she didn't consider a threat to her in any way.
He was a sl*t and a wh*re, plain and simple. No sugarcoated "ladies' man," "player," or "lothario" labels for him!
I'd rather have a so-called metrosexual than a scumbag that serial cheats, forces his mistresses into abortions against their will, threatens them into silence, abandons them, then goes back to wife and risks giving her STD's- all to save his worthless hide.
If that's your definition of a "real man," feel free to take one for the team and keep him away from everyone else.
You keep saying you're not victim-blaming, yet this is precisely what you are doing over and over again. As irritating as your ridiculous victim-blaming post is, your constant denial is that as bad, if not worse.
<blockquote>Sadly, she DID provoke the boy without even knowing it. And before the PC police rape ME, I don't want to hear, "That's no excuse," and all that crap. I'm just stating a point in the context of the movie, not attempting to spark some off-topic rape debate.
Sadder still, she looks around to make sure no one is watching. The directions she looks -- upstairs behind her and out the window! She doesn't even look through the railing of the stairs where the poor provoked boy is walking.
And Saddest of all, the rapist tries to stop Dadier by throwing a handful of books at him. He then tries to jump through a closed window to escape. No wonder he was in a trade school. I think his IQ may have been lower than Santini's.</blockquote>
The fact that you equate any potental verbal chastisement to your ignorant remarks are "rape" shows how truly pathetic you are. I realize this is an old post and really hope you've matured and become more educated in how you present yourself. Otherwise, before commenting on anyone's "IQ," take a good look at your own.
Actually Louis Calhern's character was reprimanded for slapping one of his students. It was very brief and quick, just before Dadier got called him for his "racist" remarks. But it happened. The man grumbled about the verbal backlash, but he's lucky that that's *all* that happened to him.
<blockquote>[–] WildHamster235 13 years ago
Dude. I think I cried (or almost did) watching that scene, and I'm only 21. One of the films most painful moments in a movie filled with painful moments.
But oh, well, what else could he have done? This is a man who is so passionate about his career as a teacher that he would sacrifice anything, anything, just to give those kids an education. That's basically what's happening through the whole movie. These teachers are doing everything, no matter how awful or painful it is, just to get those poor kids to learn. This movie sure makes you feel so bad for teachers everywhere, doesn't it?</blockquote>
Beautifully written post! I hate the other posts saying that Josh was "asking for it."
I don't think Josh was unaware that record playing could backfire with the delinquent students. He was hesitant, but he wanted so much to reach his students through the music he loved and was passionate about that he ultimately took that chance.
While I think his records being destroyed got to him, I think the above is what ultimately broke Josh and drove him to quit. No matter how many times I watch the film, this scene is so hard to watch.
<blockquote>[–] hobnob53 7 years ago
I like to think I would have stuck it out. Once over the very heavy early bumps I can understand why Dadier decided to stay. Even the cynical teacher played by Louis Calhern told him near the end that if he quit this school he'd quit the next one and the next one and eventually stop teaching altogether. I think I'd stay out of self-respect and precisely because it is a challenge.
On the other hand, after a few years, particularly once he had a family, I can see Dadier leaving for a better school, and I might do the same. By then you'd have a sense of fulfillment and be able to legitimately (and without guilt) think of taking a better job.
Frankly, I don't know why he applied for a job at North Manual in the first place. If his old professor could get him a job at the "nice school" midway through the semester he certainly could have gotten him a job beforehand.</blockquote>
I'd like to think I would've stuck it out as well... If I was a male teacher. Teaching is a noble profession. But, as a female teacher who becomes targeted for sexual assault, having your very own students condone the act, and retaliate... That's enough to not only give up on teaching, but humanity in general. Even the other teachers objectified Lois and made inappropriate comments toward her.
However badly the male teachers had it in the school within the film (and real life), female teachers had it a lot worse. The military is the same way, sadly. That's what ultimately kept me out of it.
<blockquote>[–] MsELLERYqueen2 7 years ago
Not only "routine and uninspiring", but also unrealistic. Unfortunately, too many people are convinced that this is how it is in the real world, and they expect teachers to really be like this.
~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = </blockquote>
I realize this is several years later. I was curious as to whether you had seen <i>Up the Down Staircase</i>(1967)? It's a much darker, unaffected depiction of the teaching profession starring Sandy Dennis, stripped of any frills or whitewashing you see in ""teacher transforms the kids in a matter of weeks" theme." If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend it!
<blockquote>[–] prettynoose69 10 years ago
Always breaks my heart to see him.</blockquote>
It's a shame... I don't understand how Sal Mineo went from a lead roles to bit parts, some without even a word of dialogue for him! He probably would've made a comeback if not for his awful, untimely death.
Or, at the very least, he could've continued to live a happy life with his family, friends, continuing to make strides in bringing LGBTQ stories to life in film and theatre. Man is definitely an underrated pioneer.
<blockquote>[–] SilentNightDeadlyNight2807 7 years ago
I always thought he said "I bet your hundreds bucks on you!" meaning that $100 Rocky gave him on the street a bit earlier.</blockquote>
He did! That was the beauty of it! The $100 Rocky gave Romolo was his last chance to make something of his life. Rather than putting it toward a "bookie joint," Romolo invested right back in Rocky and his quest toward a life of legitimacy and respectability. And it worked!
I love that about this movie! Not only was it based off a true story, it's so inspiring to watch a man dig himself out of a dead-end life of crime and inspire his family, friends, and neightborhood to rise up with him!
<blockquote>[–] Godfrey2 8 years ago
They are indeed kind people. When they decide to let her go, it definitely makes me teary-eyed - just like when Toots dies, or when lassie is limping home in the rain, or when Joe finally sees her and then his dad tries to hide her from the Duke. Hard not to get teary.
So many nice pieces come together to make this a genuinely wonderful movie.</blockquote>
Yes, so many wonderful elements! Rowlie's teasing affection toward Lassie and Toots, Rowlie and the elderly couple's intuitive understanding of Lassie, Lassie possessing a generousity and humanity equal to, if not greater, than any human character's in the film, Joe and Priscilla being so darling and mature beyond their years (Roddy and Elizabeth were such amazing child actors!), the silent understanding between the Carracloughs, the Duke about the situation toward the end, Priscilla precociously picking up what her grandfather was putting down, etc.
As painful as this movie is to watch, I cannot turn away from it whenever it comes on TCM! Even it it does mean the feels and heartbreak all over again! Ultimately, it does the soul a lot of good. T_T