If you don't eat it, something else will. I thought these people were supposed to be naturalists. This is proof that they're just savage-loving yuppies, selling us a culture they don't even understand...The myth of the noble savage! I hope they didn't fool you. As of this writing, they've fooled 682/1048 people ("fooled" means you ranked the movie 8 or higher). Pfff
shareyes, but if something else is going to eat it, then let that something else kill it. the coyote had been shot with arrows and then just left there to rot. and what do you mean by savage-loving yuppies? arlene's grandmother was full-blooded hopi which means she was at least a full quarter native american herself. yuppies live in santa fe and wear broomstick skirts and eat at expensive resturants and buy 'savage' artwork with which to decorate their expensive homes that are drowned in stucco and kokopelis to prove how 'in touch' they are. they don't barter and grow their own food and live off the sweat of their own brow.
shareRemember - they ate the bear and she gutted it on the spot - would you eat bearmeat or a squirrel for that matter?
"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Squirrel is good; kind of nutty and sweet but bear is quite a different thing. As described to me it's quite pungent.
They were all authentic to my mind. Living in their own skins off the map; not trying to spread their particular "word" or whatever.
I found Young Bo so grating and irritating; so spoiled and run amok. I admire her mother for not interfering too much probably realizing that she was just a kid "acting out' and would probably outgrow it. And it appears she did. But I wasn't a kid like that and I did amount to something quite significant so you don't have to be a cute little A**hole to grow into somebody.
And I did love their very tasteful house built out of recycled everything. But I was always wondering where the "ice" water came from since they were living off the map?
I intend to live forever. So far so good.
Yeah, that's sound NRA philosophy. The logical conclusion of that thought is it's okay to go around blowing away anything you want and leave it rotting on the ground. Spiritualism is lost on these folks, unless it has something to do with shooting things.
shareOkay, i'm not even going to bother to get into an argument about politics with you. Instead I have to question how utterly devoid of brain cells someone would have to be, to say that a movie's artistic and intellectual merit can be called into question just because they disagree with one of the many political, sociological, and philosophical statements the movie makes. So what if you disagree with that statement. Why does that mean these people have been fooled by rating it as an excellent film. It was rated as an excellent film because it was wonderfully written, acted and produced. The movie was visually stunning and spiritually moving. A film that could reach all people regardless of social or political ideology, and if you somehow missed out on experiencing this film for what it was because you were so focused on one statement made in it; then I truly feel sorry for you. I'm sorry your small-mindedness prevented you from being affected by this incredible movie about life, love and coming of age. And I strongely suggest you revisit the film; this time leaving behind your prejudices and properly enjoying a beautiful and worthwhile story.
"Love's boat has smashed against the daily grind"
listen, It's a movie.
Films and written stories are meant to describe the people in them, and the problems they encounter. You should not always assume that the filmmaker is trying to impress their own belief systems upon the audience.
We live in a very complicated and diverse world, and films and stories are ideally nothing more than an attempt to provide a window to look into a small portion of it.
noregbone wrote: (Thu Apr 26 2007 11:32:40)
listen, It's a movie.
HEHE...What a ridiculous statement. If you are going to make a comment...at least apply your own brain power to it...in which you would surely realize that a true naturalist would, in fact, state that it is wrong to kill something that you are not going to eat...and that just because other creatures will eat the carcass...the animal may not have been killed at all by what eats it, therefore it would not be natural. For instance, some small scavengers could eat a deer carcass, that they could never, in a million years, actually kill themselves. A human killing an animal for another animal to eat is not part of what a naturalist would call a natural progression in the food chain. In other words...not natural.
This is why you will see naturalist documentarians not step in and help an animal make a kill in the wild. I recall a nature series where there was a very small pride of lions who were starving...and failing to catch prey. They were near death...and yet the naturalist would not kill something and feed it to the lions...and stated so...as that would be interfering in nature and it's way. If nature was to deal these lions that fate, then that is as it should be. Which states exactly the opposite of your psuedo-naturalist view.
The original post is a moron and a perfect exmple of someone who does not understand the naturalist ways. They think they do...and then being critical of those who do present the actual viewpoint, because it does not match their own erroneous one. Which is why what I just posted will not do anything but make him tell me I am wrong. :-)
The original post is a moron and a perfect exmple of someone who does not understand the naturalist ways.
[deleted]