MovieChat Forums > FootOfDavros > Replies
FootOfDavros's Replies
R Kelly - Ignition
Sorry but I've TWICE tried to explain the difference between what you keep saying and what I am meaning, then you turn around and accuse ME of stupidity π I clearly literally cannot discuss this any further with you... Thanks anyway π
I understand both when the film was made and the time period it was set. I also understand that it's language / standards were applicable to it's time.
I think the crucial difference is that it isn't about using / expecting today's sentiments "for the film", it's about whether these sentiments are acceptable to be shown as "entertainment" in today's society. Yes, we can view these artifacts in a safe academic environment perhaps, but watch women being put down as "entertainment"? I think not.
I think your Roots example is a particularly poor one as that is a piece specifically about racism, not just featuring acceptable racism as a side effect of it's time as per the discussion here. As I said before I think if you replaced "women" with "black" this film would no longer be available in wide circulation. In a similar manner to how many 60s/70s shows are no longer shown for similar reasons.
Well I was thinking it was alluding to
his hallucinations beginning to incorporate the white walls inside the fridge as he reached the end π€
Interesting π So maybe this was one of these hybrids. Will need to watch carefully the next time I watch!
Yeah but that wasn't a new 80s fridge they'd been out buying. As I said it was a big old style latched fridge. Nuke the Fridge style.
I understand that. But, whilst we can appreciate such a time period existed and what that society was like, should it still be acceptable for such themes to be available in what is presented as "entertainment" today?
e.g. In this film if you replaced the word "woman" with "black" would this film still be available for distribution? And if accepting no, it wouldn't, why is it ok for a film featuring such historical sexism to continue on with present day's cultural acceptance whilst one featuring racism would not?
I don't have the answer by the way, I just find it an interesting question.
I wouldn't say it's my "thing". Rather this is now the second entry in an unintended exploration of historical cinema not being fit for today's standards / viewers.
No. I was talking about the cinematography.
Just that.
If I looked at the Mona Lisa - or any other picture for that matter - and thought it was a beautiful picture, and decided to get my paint set out and make as authentic a copy as I could. Well, just maybe I could make a fantastic copy that I would be happy with, but I wouldn't be expecting any big slaps on the back or universal acclaim for my efforts.
It probably will get a best cinematography nomination but it shouldn't really. If made a pretty decent copy of the Mona Lisa, it may well be a pretty decent copy but I shouldn't really then be expecting to get nominated as Artist of the Year.
... because Martha had already given birth to "mad" Arthur - whom they kept locked up in attic - years before Penny started working for them. They then pinned Bruce v1.0 on her as her adopted child, leaving them free to have another child. This explains why Arthur is clearly older than 30.
I agree. I didn't see any discussion about this which was why I looked that article above up.
The problem is that the whole film is too ambiguous to call anything with much certainty. However, given we later see Joker scrunching up that photo of his mum with Thomas Wayne's particularly personal comments on the back, I'm not sure we can put too much belief in what he said either. I think the suggestion with that was that their relationship was real, something Wayne denied.
Dearie me π The irony... Quality post!
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/joker-actor-explains-thomas-wayne-twist-hidden-backstory-1245261
[quote]"The backstory was that Arthurβs mother had worked for Thomas in his home, and she was a beautiful woman who Thomas was attracted to and it led to a physical relationship," Cullen says of his conversations with Phillips. "Later in life, sheβs in and out of mental institutions. And in my mind, Thomas Wayne put her there."[/quote]
I'm quite happy with my understanding of the meaning of disparagement. I'm just not particularly convinced of your understanding of the meaning of oblique.
I'm not going to continue to re-say the same thing over and over again but for a final time I wasn't mocking Scorsese per se, I was laughing at the irony of his comment. He cast what he obviously considers to be his superior opinion on something which is subjective, despite doing crowd pleasing of his own with casting choices in his own movies.
Sorry if you cannot see that but then your opinion as a DiCaprio fan is as far from being subjective as the opinion of MCU fan's might be with regard to Scorsese's comments.
You never saw me obliquely disparaging him at all - I literally put quotes around him being an "actor" and questioned him being cast for his acting abilities. And the purpose was to draw out a drooling DiCarpio fan as it inevitably would to make the point stand out - a point you were always going to be too triggered to see.
The point was already there but I'll restate it - It is IRONIC that Scorsese would mock comic book films as not "real" movies whilst having so heavily cast an "actor" many people would consider something of a joke. Now obviously you and others may not think that (and I'm not going to further elaborate on the merits or otherwise of DiCaprio, that's not the point) but I personally find it amusing that he would feel himself in a position to disparage other directors / actors efforts through his own subjective opinion on what makes a "movie", whilst being a professional in the industry using cash grabbing tactics himself.
I think perhaps you missed the point...
Love the irony of Martin Scorsese making holier than thou statements like that whilst casting real "actor" Leonardo DiCrapio in particularly every film he makes for, erm, I guess, his acting abilities π
Commander #1 : We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have the Death Star jump to lightspeed?
Governor Tarkin : Jump to lightspeed? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances... Although, now you mention it, maybe we could just jump through Yavin IV RIGHT NOW to destroy it rather than wait for that rather redundant lazer to get in range...