MovieChat Forums > forlorn_rage
forlorn_rage (139)
Posts
Replies
<blockquote>[–] repete66211 16 years ago
I was rooting for Anne, but then she's not the domestic type. I mean, she has a job! She is the caricature of the Progressive, Modern Woman, meaning she is not fit to be a wife. Kathy is the caricature of the subservient, meek but kind woman who would make a much better wife and mother. </blockquote>
Actually, it wasn't that unusual for women to work as long as it was either out of necessity (lower class) or purely as a hobby (upper class).
What was unusual about the portrayal of Anne was that she was successful, in charge, and content (emphasis on content).
What are your thoughts and experiences with the show?
<quote>[–] mechajutaro (2560) 7 days ago
"But, when I witnessed Maude, a cis-white, hetero, upper-middle class loudmouth, obnoxious old hag telling an old Chinese man about racism and how to act about it was unbelievable and unbearable!"
Consider yourself fortunate that she never gave in to her urge to tell the audience of picking the scabs, so that pus could drain out and provide ample lubrication, whenever she and a fella decided to hop into bed </quote>
I'm guessing there is a story behind that... I would very much love to hear it.
Here, here! I'd also like to add how dare he lecture the secretary about Antisemetism and how to handle it?! He's just playing Jewish whereas she lives it! Her life isn't a project that she can quit in number of months unlike Phil! It's so ignorant and patronizing!
I stopped watching <i>Maude</i> for that very reason. It's a very outdated, backwards show in many ways. But, when I witnessed Maude, a cis-white, hetero, upper-middle class loudmouth, obnoxious old hag lecturing an old Chinese man about racism and how to cope with it was unbelievable and unbearable!
<quote> [–] asterisgrammatosis-65560 7 years ago
I tend to believe that's not true. She was really the first woman who actually attempted to choose the films she starred in - a true trailblaizer. She took no *beep* that's for sure. But because she was the first woman in hollywood to actually take matters in her hands, the first one to actually rule over men, myths about her spread like the famine. There have been many instances that actresses who were going to work with her were told that she was going to impose her presence and not let them do their job. After working with her, these actresses admitted that she was nothing like that at all. What is true is that she cared too much about the pictures she made and wouldn't let anyone get in the way of her work. She was more of a hard-worker and less a saboteur.</quote>
Oh please, you sound just as bad as Brando's stans. Bette Davis was far from the only actress, much less the first, to fight the studios or do any kind of "trailblazing."
Mae West, Jean Harlow, Ingrid Bergman, Vivien Leigh, Katherine Hepburn, Olivia De Havilland, Hattie McDaniel, Ida Lupino, Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Bancroft, etc. are just a handful of actresses that are just as great, if not greater "trailblazers" and many of them superior performers to La Davis, but a fraction of the colossal ego, bad behaviour, and without distastefully shoving themselves down people's throats (minus Mae West).
Hell, even Katherine Hepburn showed more moments of humility and kindness than Davis did. She was only decent to actresses who she didn't consider a threat to her in any way.
He was a sl*t and a wh*re, plain and simple. No sugarcoated "ladies' man," "player," or "lothario" labels for him!
I'd rather have a so-called metrosexual than a scumbag that serial cheats, forces his mistresses into abortions against their will, threatens them into silence, abandons them, then goes back to wife and risks giving her STD's- all to save his worthless hide.
If that's your definition of a "real man," feel free to take one for the team and keep him away from everyone else.
You keep saying you're not victim-blaming, yet this is precisely what you are doing over and over again. As irritating as your ridiculous victim-blaming post is, your constant denial is that as bad, if not worse.
<blockquote>Sadly, she DID provoke the boy without even knowing it. And before the PC police rape ME, I don't want to hear, "That's no excuse," and all that crap. I'm just stating a point in the context of the movie, not attempting to spark some off-topic rape debate.
Sadder still, she looks around to make sure no one is watching. The directions she looks -- upstairs behind her and out the window! She doesn't even look through the railing of the stairs where the poor provoked boy is walking.
And Saddest of all, the rapist tries to stop Dadier by throwing a handful of books at him. He then tries to jump through a closed window to escape. No wonder he was in a trade school. I think his IQ may have been lower than Santini's.</blockquote>
The fact that you equate any potental verbal chastisement to your ignorant remarks are "rape" shows how truly pathetic you are. I realize this is an old post and really hope you've matured and become more educated in how you present yourself. Otherwise, before commenting on anyone's "IQ," take a good look at your own.
Actually Louis Calhern's character was reprimanded for slapping one of his students. It was very brief and quick, just before Dadier got called him for his "racist" remarks. But it happened. The man grumbled about the verbal backlash, but he's lucky that that's *all* that happened to him.
View all replies >