MovieChat Forums > MovieMadness > Replies
MovieMadness's Replies
Exactly, "we just don't know." Thank you for finally reaching that conclusion on your own. There is "reasonable incentives" for ANYTHING to happen, but you need PROOF. And as I said, the court of law is already set up to make lying rape victims unlikely. It is also set up to prevent incredibly obtuse people like you from causing any damage, such as not having you serve as a juror in a case like this. So continue with your paranoiac thought process that will affect no one but you.
But sometimes the cultural background IS the real situation.
Again, if someone's grievance doesn't involve you, don't feel slighted. And don't make up convoluted logic to dismiss it. Not everything good in this world has to involve you.
You need to understand that when a rape victim is not credible to you, that doesn't necessarily mean she "lied." Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The rape victim has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her attacker is guilty. So lying wouldn't do her much favor, and it could even have her put in jail, as depicted in the show. A weak case with an "unreliable" accuser probably wouldn't even make it to a trial.
You gotta realize that sometimes a disadvantaged group doesn't need protection, and sometimes it DOES. In some professions women outnumber men by 8 to 1, and in the NBA black men outnumber white men by N to 1. Why don't men (and white men in the latter case) complain? That's because even with the discrepancy they DON'T FEEL DISADVANTAGED, and that they feel they have the same opportunities (provided they have the abilities) to succeed in those fields. The point is, do you truly feel "disadvantaged" by someone or a group, or do you simply feel SLIGHTED when someone or a group offer to help others but not you?
But this show does make a great point that people don't really "lie" about being raped, in the sense that when someone makes such an accusation, she or he has been "violated" one way or another.
Similarly, your mind has likely been victimized in one way or another for you to resort to conspiracy theories to explain the motive of this TV show (and other things in your life as well, probably).
When someone's life is spiraling totally out of control, they often don't put on a likeable and affable appearance or demeanor. Marie was angry with the world and everyone, and tried to push everyone away. So the depiction you saw of her was the point. To humanize a person, you don't necessarily make him or her "likable." To humanize them, you show their truly feelings, their psychology, and show where those feelings are coming from.
We are shown many instances of police incompetence throughout the show: a knife not found, a lab test not double-checked, the bureaucracy, the lack of communication, etc., right down to the end where the FBI agent nearly missed the hidden panties. So we are told in no uncertain terms what the filmmakers' "take" about the police is. There is no question this show represents some sort of indictment on the system.
To those who feel like engaging in a little victim-blaming, know that Marie's only "crime" was that she was distraught and vulnerable to the point that she felt lying to the police would end the pressure. Her only "crime" was not having a parent by her side to ease her distraught and vulnerable feelings like a normal teenager would have had. Her only "crime" was being put in system that was supposed to help her but didn't.
Again, Peele's point was to emphasize the lack of black lead roles in film if you read the complete quote. It's not really about excluding white actors per se. He happens to be making films with black specificity, so hiring black leads is simply a requirement. You need to understand the deeper point Peele referred to instead of finding fault on the surface what he said.
The kind of "racist agenda" you are protesting has really only occurred to blacks in Hollywood. In the past, even if a film had black characters, they would often be played by whites in black faces. No one had to actually say "we don't ever hire black actors" in those days; they just didn't do it and no one said a thing. The point is, you and the other posters need to stop looking at what IS SAID. You need to look at the overall climate and the actual meaning of what is said. Sometimes, what is true is NOT said. When someone says he doesn't hire white actors, look deeper into the issues first.
We didn't have any problems with Coppola and Scorsese hiring mostly Italian actors in their films, and we shouldn't have problem with Peele hiring black actors. I would have no problem with him hiring 100% black actors for his next 100 films if he continued to explore unique themes and ideas in creative ways. And that will only benefit all film fans, you and me alike. And both of Peele's films happen to be quite universal in nature, with themes that many people would relate to, albeit with black specificity. We should be saying how inclusive he is as a filmmaker.
Peele's point was really about the lack of films, stories, and roles about blacks. His exact quote was, "I don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don't like white dudes, but I've seen that movie." And he got loud applause for that -- for saying something many people, even whites, agree with. That was why many people went to see Get Out, Black Panther, Us, etc., whereas in the past, these movies probably wouldn't have been made. Many people WANT these movies made, so that unique perspectives and themes will be explored and shown. To express a desire to make these movies like Peele did was not wrong. You people need to realize when you are excluded from something, it may still be for the good. Not everything that is for the good has to include you, please understand this.
This 1990 VHS shows 106 minutes on the back cover: [url]https://i.imgur.com/SyWBoEB.jpg[/url]. So at least we know that from decades ago the run time had been the same. The 113m run time was just passed down from writer to writer over the years with no one bothering to check it. The first person who used 113m may have been the theater exhibiters back in the 60s, and they could've been wrong. And this is a pretty obscure film. Now we can see the run time easily on our devices with just one press. In the old days viewers had no way to see it and so no one told anyone to correct it except the technicians who made the tapes and discs. All the 113m runtime quoted in websites like wiki or even UCLA were obviously written by people who looked up wikis rather than doing real fact-checking.
[quote]Try and keep in mind that Trump actually lost the 2016 election in terms of actual vote cast (the only result that SHOULD matter, but doesn't because the United States' voting system is not truly democratic)[/quote]
Popular votes are good for smaller territories such as a country like the UK or the 50 states, but not a big country like the US as a whole. The electoral system is set up so every smaller regions, i.e. states, has a say. So I support the current system: popular votes determine a state's outcome, while electoral votes determine the nation's.
Even if all colleges were free, this kind of thing would still happen. As long as there is competition, as long as there are things that the haves don't want the have-nots to ever get, this will always happen.
Even if all colleges were free, most people would still be unable to go to college for the simple reason that all the available admissions in all the colleges combined would still not be enough to accommodate all the eligible students. It's expensive to run a college and there aren't enough colleges for everyone in every locality. That's why there is competition. As mentioned earlier, competition with always beget this kind of scandal.
Every year there are high-school graduates who want to go to college but can't for one reason or another.
She can act the way she does because her parents' wealth allows her to act this way, and not having to worry about real problems that beset young people, such as summer jobs, student loans, moving out and paying rent, etc.
And she has apologized for her remarks already.
It was an echo of the opening scene when the lady fell near the pool and nobody cared. Same thing happened at the end.
I didn't really pick up any incestuous vibe in the film, but I did see the younger people seeking solace from one another when all the adults were being so miserable. The most poignant of all was the 15-year-old daughter getting very attached with the young maid.
The ending was ill-conceived and almost cringe-worthy, but thankfully brief, and therefore doesn't detract (much) from the greatness of the rest of the film.
The makeup effect was bad, but I gave the them props for thinking of a creative death scene like that.
Just wish he were better at acting...
Only the child actor who plays Michele (the one seduced by a naked woman early in the film) shows any semblance of good acting throughout. So he would be the most likely one to have an acting career among the three boy actors.
That scene of her seducing a child is mainly to show the "sins" the kids are exposed to. This goes with an earlier moment when the kids go near a whorehouse to check out the prostitutes. It also ties to the later revelation that someone thinks the kids need to be "saved from" these sins.