MovieChat Forums > Man Facing Southeast (1986) Discussion > Interesting movie.. tho there are some f...

Interesting movie.. tho there are some flaws.

Why explain yourself being a species from outer space to a man who cannot comprehend it while you could just move an object telephaticly to prove it?
If he was an intelligent lifeform then letting yourself get killed for this doesn't seem a very smart thing to do.
The intelligent approach would be keeping it a secret because you KNOW people wouldn't be able to comprehend it anyway.

He says nobody from his planet can "feel" tho he can enjoy Beethoven's ninth symphony as if he composed it himself and Beatriz can cry when she's rejected.

The whole ninth symphony orchestra seemed so fake. The conductor does not equal the composer. A happening out of the blue like that is illogical and surreal.

The point in the movie where "the alien" was telepathically moving the steak plates to the poor woman and children felt like I was watching a comedy.
The way the fat man stabs the table with his fork while reading. lol no man eats like that.
And nobody would notice the plates move but them? And wouldn't "the alien" be smart enough that if they would find the plates near the woman they would think she stole it?
Allmost as if he's trying to frame her.

Need some harmonic brainwaves for your diligent mind? click & relax!


What if he is NOT a ET?

I'm convinced that Rantés was human. A very special one, but human, with an alcoholic father, that possibly put him everyday, on a corner, for hours facing southeast.

Beatriz is either his sister or close friend, whom Rantes considered "santa" (saint)because she shared with him her candies.

By the way, he helped people because it was the "rational" thing to do, even if it seems "crazy" to the "sane" people. When he moved the plates (or thought he did), he also moved the glasses, so they could "escape".


This is quite pointless, as the movie itself is quite pointless and dull, but here goes.

If Rantes was a human, why would the woman claim to be another agent? Was she crazy, had Rantes hypnotized/brainwashed her, or what?

If he was human, why could he move things telekinetically?

On what do you base your conclusions that the movie doesn't support?

"By the way, he helped people because it was the "rational" thing to do, even if it seems "crazy" to the "sane" people. When he moved the plates (or thought he did), he also moved the glasses, so they could "escape". "

You can't help people purely by 'rationality'. He never explained HOW it was rational - he never proved it's rationality. He just CLAIMED it was rational. It's not. It's rational to do anything so you can survive. Once you survive, it's rational to store things that help you survive in a longer term. It's not rational to share. You need actual, genuine empathy/sympathy/caring/feeling/pity for that.

Yes, he performed ONE crime first (stole people's food and donated them to illogical and idiotic ape-hags (like those girls weren't old enough to use UTENSILS by themselves already? And why take food from the rightmost (leftmost visually) plate, only to give it to the girl on the left, when the girl on the left had a PLATE OF FOOD RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER?? What a moron!), then damaged other property and fled the crime scene).

He was a criminal that didn't seem to understand consequences. Some GENIUS, if he can't figure out that you can't STEAL other people's food (it's not right, and it's unlawful) that they have PAID for, and you can't give them to someone without getting caught very quickly - or without THEM getting in trouble.

So he gets them in trouble by doing crimes, and then liberates them from the trouble by damaging other people's property.

What would a POOR family be doing in a friggin' CAFETERIA anyway? Wouldn't it be like 80 times cheaper to just use the same money to buy groceries and make your own meals? Some pasta and tuna in 1986 would probably have been dirt cheap. No, they had to come to an expensive restaurant and .. aargh.

The illogicality of this movie pisses me off more every second that passes with me thinking about it.


"Why explain yourself being a species from outer space to a man who cannot comprehend it while you could just move an object telephaticly to prove it? "

You have several errors in your question.

1.) It's written "telepathically", not "telepathicly".

2.) You can't move anything 'telepathically', because 'telepathy' only allows COMMUNICATION or information streams/consciousnesses to be transferred, flowed, joined or/and such. The word you would need to use to make any sense is "telekinetically".

(I have heard the term 'psychokinesis', but that's slightly more limiting, because 'tele' can mean anything, even mechanical apparatuses, but 'psycho' is limited to the PSYCHE - what if you move with your soul, and not your psyche? Or your emotions? Or some kind of astral-etheric force that has nothing to do with psyche? Or .. well, you get the idea. Also, it reminds one of the movie "Psycho", and the insult "psycho", and also brings to mind the word "psychopath", so I don't think it has as neutral connotations. I mean, it's "telephone", not a "psychophone", although you usually need some kind of a psyche to use the apparatus.)

Otherwise, it's an excellent point, and the same thing I wondered.

I would also add, "Why come to a mental hospital and EXPECT NOT TO BE MEDICATED?" (or not expect to be medicated). Especially if you are completely aware of all human protocols and procedures, as he claimed?

Doesn't sound like a genius, to me.

Btw, did anyone notice how Rantes is almost 'Ramses' - you just take both N and T and change both to the previous letters. N becomes an M (it's right before N in the alphabet), and S becomes a T (S also right before T in the alphabet).

Ramses is an ancient name of pharaohs, and according to wikipedia, the meaning of the name is: ""Ra [is] the one who gave birth [to] him"."

Geez, we have another sun-worshipper. As if this world wasn't masonic enough already. Son of Sun? Sheesh.


Your list of flaws made me realize some other flaws as well.

I mean, he said that the best way to PROTECT their mission (from what?) was to speak honestly about it (WHAT??), because no one would believe them, and they would be locked up in a mental hospital, medicated to madness and then killed.

Ok, I added the last part, but isn't that what he is ESSENTIALLY saying?

Wouldn't the BEST WAY to protect the mission to just 'blend in', and appear to be 'normal' to everyone else, and never mention the mission? That way, no one would know the mission (how is explaining the mission honestly even protecting it? I mean, what about 'explaining the mission honestly' actually creates any kind of protection? How does that work?), and no one would know to attack them or whatever.

Just keep it secret, don't mention it to anyone, and behold; you need NOT be in a mental hospital! Wow, what freedom, just by that simple thing.

So his logic certainly wasn't logical, or his delusion "perfect" by any means.

Also, it's not 'rational' to help others, it's 'sympathetic', and you need to feel to do have motivation to do it. Of course technically you can help others without feeling anything, but that whole thing was quite odd anyway.

From all the UFO books I have ever read, the visiting E.T.s have always been shown to have lots of compassion, love and caring for the fellow man, even if the fellow man is an odd Terran half-animal that creates only war, pollution, destruction, murder, chaos and ignorance (the point about stupidity is quite good, though, because against it, even the gods are said to be powerless).

In any case, it's just another dull, depressing, grey and lifeless movie that shows the limitations of the terran denizens. They can't even grasp who or what they are, and yet they try to depict stories of visitors from other planets, who supposedly understand a lot more. It's very clichéic, and not very imaginative.

I have read better stories in comic books. There exists a plethora of good stories in sci-fi books, and the reality descriptions in UFO books is fascinating, no matter what your stance of their truth might be. If you read the texts that have allegedly been 'channeled' from E.T.s, you can find deeper wisdom and better understanding of the human nature, the human soul, and all the philosophy that was touched in this movie than the movie itself ever even knew what to do with.

My point is, that there are so many better E.T. visitor-stories out there, that there's no point in wasting time with this depressing and imaginationless, dull and mundane crap.