Ray did have to die, as much as we like him and sympathize with him and want him to live, in that situation Harry was spot on that he needed to die out of principle and honour.
Harry was my favourite Character even though in the context of the film he was the 'baddy' he had some nuance and was the most honourable of the whole bunch
Was he right?
My understanding was that Ray was acting on Harry's orders. What happened was clearly an accident, so it isn't Ray's fault - outside of performing the hit that goes wrong and causes the accident. If it is Ray's fault, surely Harry, who ordered the hit, is just as much to blame. Yes, if Ray hadn't pulled the trigger... but also, if Harry hadn't ordered the hit.
Furthermore, Ray clearly shows sorrow, regret, and remorse for his actions. He's being a little snot and running around trying to put his mind out of thinking about what he did because he's wounded and full of regret. Is Harry? Harry doesn't like what happened - he's following his twisted moral code - but he's not really sorry, is he? He isn't rethinking his life or his own culpability in the accident. In fact, he's putting all the blame on Ray as a kind of scapegoat.
Now for some symbolism/metaphysics/philosophy: perhaps this is reading too much into the abundant imagery of the churches and cathedrals in the film, but I think Harry is sort of representative of "Law" or "Justice" wherein, as per the Bible, "all have sinned..." and "the wages of sin is death." In that reading, Harry is going to punish Ray while Ray fumbles about looking for the counter-weight to The Law: Mercy, which might only be obtained through repentance.
Or perhaps it's just a cracking great gangster flick filled with oddities, wonderful scenery, and brilliant one-liners.
To sum up: Ray was wrong for an instant, but was seeking atonement or absolution. Harry, on the other hand, is "...a cunt now, and [had] always been a cunt. And the only thing that's going to change is that [he'll] going to be an even bigger cunt."
I don't think Harry is making Ray a scapegoat, i was Ray's fault pure and simply. You could even make a case that a portion of the blame lies with Ken.
Harry ordered the hit of the priest, and assigned Ken and the new novice he has brought in to carry it out. But the way Ray went about it was completely reckless like it was the wild west. Surely he should have been briefed by Ken on how to be quick and clean as to avoid potential collateral damage. The way he was peppering bullets around without regard to his surroundings was not exactly a clean hit .
Harry is the Godfather, he has his men underneath him to carry out orders but it's to be expected that things are carried out in a professional manner, Ken brought in a new kid and let him lose on the Priest and it ended in tears, partly Ray's fault/partly Kens fault but i wouldn't say it was Harry's fault for the death of the child
Even more so in his 'twisted' logic he stated that were that him in Ray's shoes he would have shot himself on the spot, which we see later is not guff
Also as much of a Cunt he is once he has dragged himself over to Brugges to Kill Ken over principle once he hears his reasoning he does actually change his heart and show mercy, just like he showed remorse for calling his wife an inanimate object.
He is a psycho yes and a bit of a Schizo but he isn't insane and he certainly knows right from wrong and has a strong sence of justice, remember he also did Ken that favour back in the day.
This i just made up in my head but part of me like to think the only reason he charged over to Brugges to get them back was because he was getting all nostalgic and jealous hearing about what a wonderful fairy tale city it was and just wanted to go one more time lol
Also on Ray the jury's still out with me about how sorry he really was, i mean obviously he's sorry but if he was that Sorry he could have done the honourable thing. He was more interested in chasing fanny than that poor little note
Now for some symbolism/metaphysics/philosophy: perhaps this is reading too much into the abundant imagery of the churches and cathedrals in the film, but I think Harry is sort of representative of "Law" or "Justice" wherein, as per the Bible, "all have sinned..." and "the wages of sin is death." In that reading, Harry is going to punish Ray while Ray fumbles about looking for the counter-weight to The Law: Mercy, which might only be obtained through repentance.
Or perhaps it's just a cracking great gangster flick filled with oddities, wonderful scenery, and brilliant one-liners.
No that's a decent point there could be something in that i realize it's not that type of film to really over analyse i just wanted to give Harry a bit of attention because i don't think he is just your stock arsehole baddy
Thank you for that thoughtful reply.
You're right about Harry, and I had forgotten some of the more nuanced attributes he had. He does do things like send Ray to Bruges thinking that he is giving Ray a beautiful farewell in a place Harry considers heavenly and wonderful. That is kindness and compassion. And, yes, his own strict adherence to his code is a point in his favour, moving him outside of just being a jerk.
I still disagree that Ray is entirely to blame, and yes, Ken might have to share a modicum of guilt as well. Really, when it comes down to it, of course, nobody becomes collateral damage if one does not participate in assassinations, so clearly all three are not moral paragons.
I would say Harry is far more to blame than Ken, though. Ken is a driving instructor who gave Ray the training he needed, then gave him the keys and watched him lose control of the vehicle and cause a huge accident. Ken might be mildly culpable (and, again, as a hit-man, he's not "innocent") but he's not as guilty as Ray or Harry.
This is a minor point, and maybe semantic, but if he's schizophrenic and/or psychopathic, he is categorically insane.
I love your theory that Harry went to take care of Ray himself partly because he just wanted to go back. I think that's well within the character and a wonderful bit of insight.
But I do think that Harry bears guilt for what happened. Perhaps this is why he is condemned/condemns himself to track Ray down, too. He knows that he was involved and feels responsible for what happened.
My reading is that Ray was incredibly sorry and somewhere between denial and self-loathing. Him running around after sex and drugs and people "filming midgets!" is him not wanting to think about it. He's deeply remorseful, he just doesn't know how to handle seeking atonement or absolution (ironically, in a town of religious buildings).
There's a theory that Bruges is about purgatory. Normally, I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion because it comes up SO much, but I think there's maybe some truth to that. Maybe the religious symbolism wasn't as wild as my suggestion about "The Law," but I think there is something to the applicability of that idea.
Yes the Purgatory angle did cross my mind when watching it but i don't like to go too into those kinds of interpretations of any films they always take some of it away from it for me.
There are those moments with Ken though where he say's he really likes it here as if it's something of a calling for him and he is at peace, not sure what relevance that has but just something that comes up a few times.
One of my favourite moments is when Harry and Ken sit down for a drink and for five minutes all the bullshit is forgotten about and they just talk normally, and the bit when Harry say's Brugges is amazing it's just a shame its' in Belgium but then again if it were somewhere better it would be spoilt by tourists and wouldn't be as good is such good line, so true
With Ray i think the thing is the way Colin Farrell plays it, it's a black comedy at the end of the day so to have him moping around for an hour and a half wouldn't work
The film is perfect in my opinion one of my favourites i don't watch it that often as to not ruin it but every 3 years or so i revisit it and it's better everytime
Side note i really want to go to Brugges but it's near impossible from the England because they don't have an airport so it's Brussels and a bunch of trains for me to get there
I like it when films get philosophical. Not necessarily allegorical, but where they are speaking to larger themes than what's on the screen literally in front of me. Metaphor can be wonderful. In the case of In Bruges, I do think there is something to the idea that this movie is exploring questions of sin, forgiveness, and atonement. I don't think Ray is meant to be in literal Purgatory, but I also think that McDonnaugh is too clever a writer to have accidentally spent so much time in the script literally in churches while investigating Ray's guilt and potential absolution.
Harry and Ken's conversation is a great part of the film. It's another moment where these are more than stereotypical protagonists, antagonists, heroes, or villains. They feels like real people with real histories together and lives outside of the film. Yet, at the same time, the heightened dialogue and quirky, idiosyncratic characters make the whole effect thrilling and fun. Again, McDonnaugh is a master.
Good point about Farrell's performance and the practical aspects of the film. We can jaw about themes and symbolism and character all we want, but on a practical level, we won't have as much of a good time watching Ray just sulk for 90 minutes.
That's the mark of a great film, in my opinion: when you can watch it again and again and get something new from it every time.
I hope you get to go to Bruges some day. I'd like to go, too, although I hadn't looked into it and didn't know it'd be such a slog. I wonder how many people have made a pilgrimage there because of this film...
'In the case of In Bruges, I do think there is something to the idea that this movie is exploring questions of sin, forgiveness, and atonement'
100 percent and that made me think of the other film Calvary by Mcdonnaugh (His Brother) i only watched it once a few years ago but i liked that also and i am pretty sure it's a lot of the same themes
.
I am not totally sure if he is pro religion or anti because in Three Billboards Frances Mcdormand calls them all pedo's and gives them a lot of shit but in Brugges there is definitely old Testament vibes but then they come from Harry who we know is supposed to be Cunt so god knows i'm confused lol. But it is a spiritual film and Ray's ending monologue is him deciding to accept his fate and take his puishment-
I suppose the main question of the film is what is the fairest punishment for a crime- an eye for an eye (death in this case) or the chance to pay for your sin and try rebuild as a better man- it's the age old question which will never really be agreed as too many emotions are usually involved but this is the point that i do side with Harry on in this instance as brutal as it may be- He did kill a child accidental or not and saying sorry to the parents and doing jail time won't even the score no matter how much he has changed
Yeah the scene between Harry and Ken is sweet because it's that moment when both 'Roles' are dropped for a minute and the humans are allowed to breath, everyone plays a role in life to an extent and in Harry's case he has to be a mean Bastard otherwise people wouldn't respect him
Remember in Pulp Fiction just after talking about Burger King they have to go in and shoot everyone they pause just before going in and say 'lets get into character'
Really looking forward to Banshees of Inisherin that's why i am going back over the others in preperation
I have seen Calvary, and I didn't know that film was made by McDonnaugh's brother! I love that movie. It's very powerful and contemplative. Wonderful, touching film.
I kind of assume McDonnaugh has the same complicated relationship with religion that many Irish people have. Any place where religion is as much a cultural thing as it is a spiritual thing winds up with that kind of baggage. You see the same engagement with pro/anti religion in Scorsese's films. If I was guessing, I'd say that McDonnaugh probably respects a lot of faith, spirituality, and Biblical ideas, but isn't a fan of corruption and harm in the church - particularly the Catholic church, which he would be most familiar with.
Either way, he's a smart enough writer to create "real" people who have differing views on faith and religion, just like in real life. He allows that complexity in. That's what keeps his scripts being engaging and providing viewers with plenty to think on instead of just some PSA about why you should or should not love/hate the Church.
You get a sense of true history in Ken and Harry's relationship in that moment, too. Even on the phone. These are moments that were missing from films like the Star Wars prequels. No sense of relationship between those characters. But in In Bruges, we can feel every piece of their lives, as though they really walked the earth.
Good point about Pulp Fiction. That was such a special thing about that film: seeing the "down time" of gangsters.
I'm looking forward to Banshees of Inisherin, too. I might actually hit a theatre for that one.
I had to double check actually because i always thought it was the same person i forgot they were brothers, but the films definitely fit in the same universe.
I'd say that McDonnaugh probably respects a lot of faith, spirituality, and Biblical ideas, but isn't a fan of corruption and harm in the church -
This is a great point and what i think i definitely identify with the most, i am not religious purse but i have developed a respect for it and definitely think it should be a foundation for every society
Hollywood and all media for that matter i have noticed do tend repeat the same narratives over again towards Christians which is almost always negative and focus on the Culty, pedo not quite all their stereotypes
I could list dozens of films where the baddy's wear a cross or are nuts
Se7en/Shawshank/Carrie/Nurse Ratchet/most of the current A24 films ect there is definitely an agenda to ridicule them
So it's refreshing to see it portrayed in a far more honest way and there is so much more to be taken away from them that you learn from and it's no surprise why there have all been so well received by the public
On Ireland i have definitely noticed a change in the last couple of decades where they seem to be becoming more 'Westernized' and there seem to be a loosening of that strict Catholic values, i think thats a bit sad i like Cultures to remain faithful to what they are for good or bad and when they give it up to be part of the modern world it reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers where they become assimilated and souless lol
I think it's great that you're open-minded enough to grant the religious their worldview, even if you don't share it. I'm your counterpart - a religious person who gives those who disagree the latitude to make up their own minds.
I do find it very interesting that you consider religion a foundation for society without being religious yourself. It reminds me of one of the most interesting things I've seen Christopher Hitchens say. He said, if all religion had been abandoned but by one person, and given the opportunity to "convert" this last believer to atheism, Hitchens said he wouldn't do it. He wasn't 100% sure why he wouldn't, just that he would feel humanity had lost something. He also said that, having expressed this view to Richard Dawkins, Dawkins thought Hitchens was a little crazy.
I know what you mean about religious portrayal in film and television. If most of these stories were to be believed, every religious person on the planet would be a condescending, hypocritical pervert involved in crimes, scams, schemes, and the spreading of misery. I exaggerate, but you know what I mean. I find it very refreshing when the counter-portrait is presented because it feels less cliche. My theory is that, for ages, religious people were portrayed as paragons of virtue (it was against the Hayes Code to even depict a member of the clergy as corrupt, for instance), and once those taboos were lifted, Hollywood went nuts with presenting the opposite just to get away from the previous cliche/mandate.
Very interesting regarding Ireland. Also interesting that you consider a removal of religion to be akin to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, since there are many who view it as the opposite.
No no just to clarify i think i do share their world view, it's just i wasn't raised as strictly religious apart from singing a few songs in School i would say that England is not really very religious at all so i grew up not really bothered either way.
However it's only in recent years when i am more conscious of what is going on in the world and the way new ideas how we are manipulated into them that i have started to reject it and see things from the other side.
I consider myself old fashioned and principled but the new generation is a lot more selfish and the whole just do what feels good has contributed to that and it's now that i am more conscious of the War on Religion that i can see the angle a lot clearer now so it makes sense to me
Funny you Mention Dawkins and Hitchins i was going to give them as examples of the 'Forward thinking' intellectuals who they stick on a platform to demean people who have old school values and they are very smug and arrogant and always use the same arguments
Stephen Fry is a huge deviant as well btw
'So you believe in an invisible man in the sky? scoff0- Or 'You shouldn't need religion to teach you right from wrong'
Well to that i say have a look at the culture today who are living by your philosophy and tell me straight faced it's an improvement to 50 years ago
My theory is that, for ages, religious people were portrayed as paragons of virtue (it was against the Hayes Code to even depict a member of the clergy as corrupt, for instance), and once those taboos were lifted, Hollywood went nuts with presenting the opposite just to get away from the previous cliche/mandate.
I have a slightly more sinical take on that put simply the media are run by Zionists whom at the least are Athiest but at the worst if you believe some Satanic (i know it seems far fetched but their is evidence)
So with that in mind you could say that their has been an agenda since 40's to undermine the foundation of our good spirit and will and regress us into a state of apathy and not giving a shit about anything which is where we are at today
Once upon a time the Church pushed back hard against immoral and bad taste but that has slowly been chipped away at
Sorry bit dark there lol but on a lighter note to get back to why i have been drawn closer to faith is i look to certain country's Eastern Europe for example where the EU try to impose their politics and new world ideas on them but they can't seem to penetrate them because they are old school and have faith, it's a lesson other Countries could learn from
Ireland were like that but it does seem somewhere along the way they sold out, Northern Ireland though are my heroes they give me hope lol
I can't say as I share that viewpoint. And, I'll be blunt and honest here, talking about Zionists running the media comes off as anti-Semitic. I don't always like what Israel does as a nation (although I don't 100% condemn them, either) but regardless of that political reality, I really cannot get behind anti-Semitism.
I do think it's good when the Church pushes back on immorality and leads the world by light and example, and I definitely like when countries adhere to good values in spite of pressure, so we can agree on that at least.
Oh, I guess I misunderstood the exact relationship you had with religion. Feels clearer now.
I don't think the new generation is that much more selfish than the old one, just that it manifests in different ways. These things do go in waves a bit, but I think for the most part, humanity are the same selfish bastards we've always been.
While I do think that Dawkins and Hitchens got a lot of things wrong, and while I do disagree with them on plenty (religion, notably) I'm not sure I'm comfortable dismissing their arguments as empty. Dawkins is and Hitchens was very intelligent. Neither strike me as being particularly immoral, either, and while your charge of arrogance is certainly on (particularly with Hitchens) I think they were both more complex than all that.
As for Stephen Fry, from what I've seen and heard, he doesn't seem terribly "deviant". Again, I might disagree with him, but he strikes me as a kindly, thoughtful gentleman, and people who know him speak of him with tremendous affection.
To your last statement, I do think that there's a lot to unpack in the religion/atheism morality conversation, but again, I'm not sure it's so simple. While there's a lot that's imploding and exploding simultaneously in the Western zeitgeist at the moment - which might put it behind the morals of 50 years ago - I wouldn't have said the same thing for the '90s/2000s, which I think were an improvement on earlier bits of the 20th century. Despite the propaganda from certain factions, racism has seen a marked drop, for example. Consider the 1950s to the 2000s. Clearly the latter was better for racial injustice. If we lay the crimes of the 20th/21st centuries at the feet of the increasingly anti-theist world, to what do we credit the advances?
I know talking about Jewish people is a very dangerous tightrope because Anti-Semitism is a touchy thing and people are very conscious of offending people or appearing racist but their are certain things that are just obvious and hard to ignore and i don't think criticising certain aspects of a group of people should be off limits just because people may get offended, thats an easy way out and nothing would ever change if everything was avoided all the time.
Stephen Fry does come off as a lovely witty charming fellow but in my personal opinion i don't buy a lot of his act i think he has a bitter and spiteful side to him underneath and he is a tool for the establishment because he can argue against our fundamental belief system and undermine it in a very compelling way and change a lot of minds and steer them over to the dark side.
And i call him a deviant because he is 65 and his gay partner is about 22 but looks 15! to me that is a creep i don't care if he is of age- I am not suprised he has suffered his life with depression and hates himself it's not rocket science he knows he's a bad person deep down.
Hitchens was gay also i am not judging them on that alone, but it would explain why perhaps they chose to be so Anti Church, they may feel like they broke cardinal rule and so weren't welcome anyway so chose to spend their time convincing everyone it's a load of crap like a child kicked out of his friends clubhouse
I like Hitchins btw as a person i find him very engaging and intelligent i like his brother as well.
'While I do think that Dawkins and Hitchens got a lot of things wrong, and while I do disagree with them on plenty (religion, notably) I'm not sure I'm comfortable dismissing their arguments as empty'
This is the big point though which is important, if you disagree with most of what they say it's because they Don't really have a point at least that is practical and for the betterment of people, however they are very good at talking and can win people over in debates by the way in which they use their words
By Dawkins focusing on the God Delusion aspect he is steering the focus away from the more meaningful points and giving snobby intellectual types a feeling of superiority
It's like the white coat theory-because these people come from high class and have the very best education they speak in that way which easily impresses people and we subconsciously think that these people are better and more important than us so their opinion counts for more
I do really like Hitchins i feel i must state again but i hate everything he stands for lol so there is an example of how effective they are if a sceptical person like me can be won over a little it's not hard to see how so many others on the fence can be easily swayed
This is another risk of being too open minded, you can be pulled into many different directions, i think you need to have a line and boundary's and stick to your guns otherwise you can be manipulated and in the end you don't know if you're coming or going
Yes, I see what you mean. I was trying to say that I understand why Dawkins and Hitchens arrived at the conclusions they did, and I don't consider them unintelligent, and they're reasoning makes sense from a certain point of view. Under those considerations, I don't judge them as bad, and I would be poor in reason if I did not allow myself to contemplate their arguments and take a pause. Put it this way: when asked about the most convincing argument for a deity in the universe, Hitchens admitted that the "fine-tuning" argument was the most convincing and certainly gave every scientific atheist pause. If Hitchens can admit that much, should I not also give careful consideration to his arguments?
Perhaps this difference is attitudinal, but when I see militant atheists making a case for their "side," I think they're attempting to do good, and I respect that at least.
We definitely agree with being too open-minded. I think that, for me, the idea is to be open-minded, but not just easily swayed or pliable. An independent thinker, open to new ideas, who is thoughtful and reasonably intelligent at least will turn over ideas, give them consideration, and allow himself to be persuaded. A thoughtless person either stubbornly refuses to listen to any reason at all, or else just goes along to be congenial and because they haven't thought their own arguments through in the first place.
I would agree that groups shouldn't be above criticism, but besides disagreeing that Hollywood is working an agenda to strip decency from the populace (in my observation they're more money-driven than (im)morality-driven), I can't agree that this is a "Zionist" problem or that Jewish people are inherently attempting to degenerate concepts of decency. Saying, "Hollywood is corrupt," is very different from, "Hollywood are corrupt Zionists," and that is even still different from, "Hollywood is corrupt because they are Zionists". Accusations of this nature against the Jewish community definitely seem anti-Semitic, tinged with conspiracy theory.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying this is off-limits, I don't want to shut you up or anything, but I don't think it's accurate, and in that inaccuracy rests a lot of ideas that I personally dislike.
I had to run a search for Fry's husband because I didn't know anything about him. My search engine seems to think he's about 35, and while that's still a considerable age gap (30 years or so) Elliott Spencer is a fully-grown adult and it doesn't seem like this could be a non-consensual relationship. Generally-speaking, I tend to distrust vast age gaps in relationships, but when relationships last for some time, even with those age gaps, at a certain point I must recognize that people become infatuated across all sorts of gaps.
As a factual correction, Hitchens was married to women twice, had children, and while I think he did state that he had homosexual experiences, he was at most bisexual, and not gay.
Oh i did not know he was married i stand corrected their, but a gay experience in most eyes does make you a little gay,
i'm just saying their tends to be a corelation between Ultra left wing liberals and homosexuals
Stephen Fry's husband may be 34 now but they met in 2013 and believe me when the initial photo's of them went around everyone was a little shocked but nobody dare say anything because he's lord Steven Fry, it's questionable in eyes.
Dawkins i don't know anything about his personal life but South Park had him having sex with Mr/Mrs Garison so who know what they were getting at lol
The Hollywood/Zion thing i honestly hope to god you are right because the thought is disturbing but everyone can see the types of films coming out in the last 10 years and they are all politically infused so somebody is allowing this to happen and it just so happens that the heads of the major studio's are Jewish so you can see why people put two and two together,
but it's a touchy subject i know and i don't know anything for certain but someone needs to be held accountable and we need to see some sort of shift back the other way or people are going to get very nasty.
Hitchens admitted he was blasphemes, a divider and loved to quote Marx and Lenin, hated Mother Teresa for saying abortion was murder.
Huge Red flags in my mind as you rightly say you should be open minded enough to listen to another point of view and extract some useful knowledge but i have heard enough from him to see what he is passionate about 'Questioning' or changing peoples minds on is everything that care about but you will notice the Fry's and the Hitchens of the world get a huge platform and are categorized as Super intellectuals whilst there counterparts are taken down a notch and labelled old fashioned or worse
You can listen to Ed Kemper interviews or similar Psychopaths and they can be very engaging and intelligent but would you really want to listen to them for that long knowing what they are
To be fair, I think the right wing spending a few decades trying to kill and/or imprison homosexuals probably drove that community to the left. It's taken years for the right wing to draw a distinction between morality and legality, recognizing that even when they find homosexuality to be immoral, that doesn't mean they get to legislate against it.
So, if you're talking about how public persons who are gay tend not to get the same flak in the media, then yeah, I can see where Fry's age gap in his relationship wouldn't be treated the same way as - for example - Henry Cavill's. However, I also feel obliged to note that homosexual actors often get unfair hurt in different ways. Rock Hudson had to hide his homosexuality, many actors who came out in "safer" eras saw their roles and opportunities dwindle, for instance. But, yes, I see the point that the media covers homosexual stories differently.
Specifically to Stephen Fry, I also must point out that he's a celebrity, but he's not "A-list," so a lack of response might have been equally related to a lack of public interest.
I think South Park was just being South Park. I feel like if Dawkins was gay, he'd probably just talk frankly about it.
Studios might green-light films that are politically-infused, but every other hero is a metaphor for Christ (Neo, Superman, even Robocop...) Should we assume that this Hollywood conspiracy is Christian, then? Hollywood follows money. Yes, they are very left-wing, but the dollar says more than anything else, and if ideas lose money long enough, they'll make different movies. I don't think there's a Jewish conspiracy, and I can't condone anti-Semitic conspiracy theories either.
Yes, Hitchens admitted to blasphemy, but keep in mind that he didn't think that was a problem. Just like when a person eats beef and defies all Hindu gods and taboos. And, yes, I agree that Hitchens was wrong on Marx and Lenin and wrong on Mother Theresa.
It's also important to remember that he promoted scientific thought, freedom of speech, and independent thinking. He called out political BS when he saw it, too, including a lot of rhetoric the left didn't like. He wasn't a box-checker, and those are valuable people to have around to point to and say, "See? Just because you're pro-abortion doesn't mean you can't call out Islamic fundamentalism." Plus, Hitchens had a superb mind, even if it did hit some wrong conclusions, and at the very minimum, he should be listened to as a metre-stick against which argument could be measured.
I don't know what Country you are from but here in England he is definitely A list he iseven considered a national treasure.
My point wasn't that Celebs get overlooked for being gay or their relationships it's that Fry specifically received almost zero media interest or criticism or anything of any kind because he is an Asset and has done what would be considered good work in their eyes (selling their ideology's)
He is also Jewish but we'll ignore that for now.
You seem like an intelligent person and i am enjoying the back and fourth so i don't want to insult you but if you are suggesting that Hollywood doesn't wilfully engage in propaganda and it being at least a hair width close second to $$ and at worse their primary purpose then that is a little bit naive sorry.
The fact is they have been losing money for the past few years now and almost every major release if you go to a forum or talk to anyone absolutely savage the film as 'more woke shit' and yet they still keep pumping them out because it seems they don't care anymore and are just ploughing ahead in their movement and if you disagree tough shit until everyone either gets worn down by it or the next gen coming up know no different and they will have their perfect brainwashed cattle.
Silence of the Lambs came to my mind of an example of a win win for the studios, that film is full of anti men feminist stuff but the film is so good you don't notice or care, but it works on a subliminal level, the agendas have always been there (Heat of the Night) Cat on the Hot tin roof ect but the films were excellent so no one gave a shit
The films now have gotten so formulaic and lazy that all people can see is the message so it's not conspiracy the evidence is in the pudding
Why are Hollywood having a pop at Jordan Peterson all of a sudden? what the hell did he do to anybody
He's obviously hit a nerve with that crowd and is a bit of a threat to their narrative because he argues with honesty and common sense and that is hard to beat
What did you make of the Nickleodeon scandal, did you notice any common themes?
Epstein,Weinstein, Spielberg's adoptive daughter going into porn, Todd Salonz, this is just the top of my head
Do you find it odd that a lot of pop stars are introduced to children as wholesome people and after a couple of years turn into Sluts? do you think 16 year old girls are sluts anyway so the industry is just 'going where the money is'
Last thing on the J 'Conspiracy'
Bobby Fischer believed it and spent most of his life speaking out against it, he eventually moved to Iceland out of fear and was labelled crazy, which is an effective tactic but he was considered an absolute genius and he was Jewish himself so make of it what you will, its interesting at the least
Kubrick is another one we could get into and there are others, what do any of them have to gain from talking about this stuff, if there is a secret club they were both in it and living well so had absolutely no motivation for it, yet it's the same similar story again and again
This might be me being naive now but i honestly don't think people are generally racist or homophobic at all, at least in my experience most people aren't bothered and judge people on a case by case, they might not agree with it but it never affects having a friendly relationship with them. But if you are having gay pride thrown in your face and men kissing each other more and more regularly on TV and it being brought up every 5 minutes even Transexual education being introduced to children then that crosses a line and can be seen as antagonistic and that's out order
Likewise there are elements of black culture, gang culture mainly that have clearly been a massive issue and needs to be addressed but again it seems like they would rather focus on their struggles with Racism to kill that conversation and make people feel bad for bringing it up and if you do you are labelled a right wing fascist, it's a disingenuous insult used to manipulate
I was sorta going off of international celebrity status. Some people are internationally recognized, others are national heroes. Stephen Fry certainly has a lot of love - even globally - I won't dispute that. To me, "A-list" just means people like Robert Downey Jr., Merryl Streep, and Tom Cruise.
I'd need to ponder carefully before deciding if Hollywood or broader culture people are more accommodating to homosexuals. There's a lot to consider. For example, Kevin Spacey got obliterated for his actions, while Bryan Singer is largely ignored. However, it took decades for a lot of heterosexual predators (Weinstein, Cosby) to get hauled in. It's a multi-factored problem.
I'd say the same thing for Hollywood's agendas. I agree that there are messages that filmmakers want to make, but some of those messages come from creatives and I don't think the executives care. Disney, for instance, ignored "woke" ideas until they thought there was money in it. Now, you say they're losing money, but Disney+ is extremely popular and Marvel and Star Wars are still largely profitable. When they release Frozen, Moana, Encanto, the sequel trilogy, and most Disney+ shows, they are rewarded. They're also too big to fail, really. Again, it's multi-factored.
As to conspiracies, I think a shared set of cultural values means it wouldn't be a conspiracy, just confirmation bias.
So, I'm open to the idea that there are conspiracies and I certainly see political movements adding pressure, but I don't think this is specifically Jewish, and I'm really wary about attributing this to a race of people, particularly in light of a lot of anti-Jewish conspiracies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which caused an immense amount of suffering and evil.
In quick summation, I think careful analysis would be needed to call "conspiracy," I don't think it's a Jewish conspiracy, and I'm not sure it's a conspiracy so much as just cultural forces which are always
I don't think people are generally racist, or bigoted, either. The flip side to the coin, though, are people who want to use gang activity to say, "black people are violent," and use that as an excuse for racism (because while people aren't generally racist, there are fomentors who whip up fears in people) and for real evil behaviour. It's not wise to ignore gang activity by crying "racism," but it's also not wise to ignore racism in society by pointing at gangs.
The real quick version of everything I'd typed is that, basically, I don't think conspiracies are helpful because I think the actual world is very nuanced and in some ways conspiracies are too "neat," and often lead to simple black-and-white thinking.
PS
I'm grateful for your willingness to talk and listen, and I'm also enjoying a back-and-forth with who I assume is an intelligent person as well, even if I do disagree with you on certain cultural forces and aspects of the world.
The Spacey thing was weird because everyone knew the rumours for years so he must of been protected for a while but then suddenly he was out, could have been because he was legitimately up for 3 counts against 3 different people and was going to trial so they had no choice, extremely chilling though that all three accuser's wound up dead and one of them on the day he released that cryptic xmas video
I though Singer was finished? could be wrong but that Salva was allowed to carry on as well
I don't count Kids films for examples off profit because that markets a guarantee i am talking about mainstream adult films the likes of Ghostbusters. Terminator Reboot any film thats comparable to a predecessor they have all flopped.
With regard to the messages in films being down to the Writers i would argue that the studio's only pick from the writers who have scripts containing the types of messages they want to send out and the writers knowing that if they want to stay in the game this is the type of content they need to write about so it's understood if they want any kind of career they must play ball.
Have you seen Barton Fink or Hail Cesar? two great films by the Cohen's satirizing Hollywood, in the first one the new hot shot writer from New York gets called to Hollywood and is obsessed with writing the perfect script and changing the world but arrives to find out they are all hacks and no one cares about the quality just bang it out
In hail Cesar Clooney's character is Biggest movie star who gets kidnapped by a political group and brainwashed into promoting what they want.
I am not sure how many truly original Writer/Director's their really are certainly in America there aren't many
Do you know the Story of Under the Silver Lake? So the Director of It Follows is suddenly the most coveted man and they gave him a blank cheque and complete creative control, he turns out his passion project Under the Silver Lake and the studio didn't know what to do with it so delayed release for two years and put it straight to streaming with zero promotion
It's become a bit of a cult film and and some consider it a masterpiece, and it's about a Hollywood Conspiracy lol
There are some very interesting things brought up in the film but it is again interesting how a film that slipped through the net not in tone and even criticizing them is buried
The age old question has been does society reflect art or vice versa
First of all i think you can start by taking the 'Art' out of it but i do think people are guided and shaped by media whether they admit it or not and they know this
Me personally- Back to our friend Kevin Spacy for some reason i remember seeing American Beauty when i was 14 and the part where he quits his job to work in a Burger place has always stayed with me, if ever i found myself in a position where my dignity was in jeopardy i will do as he did and just walk away and say no thanks
You could probably say a lot of my persona is made up of little parts from hundreds of Films over the years that i don't even realize
My point is that Films are powerful they are not just entertainment and a reason it's the Biggest industry in the World so they should have a social responsibility and if they don't then it's amount to Treason
Of all the themes and topics that you could build a story around it seems to be the same two or three things time and time again hidden under the guise of something else, and we the viewer spot it and think FFS not another lecture on this and what could have otherwise been an interesting film with a great premise is ruined
One final thing i had to add i can't help it but i literally just saw this an hour ago but i just found out Christopher Hitchens was Very good friends with and publicly defended,,,David Iring!!!WTF thoughts on that one
I agree. Harry was right. I really like that Harry was a principled man. Also, Ray fired way too many shots. It was two through the cubicle, and then the last one should've been pointed at the head. Instead, he was a rookie and made rookie a mistake by firing too much. I believe in second chances, but kids are off-limits, mistake or not. That's why you prepare beforehand, to limit the mistakes.
share