MovieChat Forums > hitfan > Replies
hitfan's Replies
I just watched it. I didn't know about the age of the actress until after I finished watching it. She was obviously quite lovely, but now it really bothers me that this was a 13 year old actress at the time. And I don't think her being nude was all that necessary for the story. I wouldn't mind seeing a censored version that toned down its excesses.
It's unfortunate really--I really like atmospheric horror films like Lemora, which as you pointed out, was more tactful about sexualizing young women. I'm not a prude--I quite enjoy sensual horror films like those made by Jess Franco and the various adaptations of Carmilla, but this film pushed things much too far for my tastes.
I'm quite surprised that this film was allowed to be made in Eastern Europe during the Communist era. I'm fairly certain that such a rigidly-controlled society would have stopped its production outright if the censors got wind of what it was all about.
Let me tell you an anecdote, since you seem to be coming from the point of view of somebody who lived in a communist country and you like to say how terrible it is like to live under such a system.
A few years ago I lost my job on the same week that my wife passed away. I live in an oil-producing area and oil prices were cratering at the time.
I took a year away from working to grieve and I also had other bad things happen to me in the interim. So I lived on on unemployment benefits and on my severance pay. When I returned to the job market, the oil prices were still depressed and there were zero jobs to be found anywhere. I scrounged and struggled for years doing short term contract and menial jobs, just to remain viable career-wise and to fill the empty gaps in my resume.
During those years, I found the job market to be rather cruel--it was several hours a day of searching for jobs and sending my resume into a black void. I was told by others that it's my fault that I am unemployed or under-employed because I wasn't trying hard enough. I obtained a few technology certifications during these "lost years" (because I had a lot more free time on my hands) and when I finally found a well-paying job, one naysayer who was telling me that I wasn't trying hard enough to find a job was suddenly out of work and told me "OH YOU FOUND A JOB? YOU'RE SO LUCKY. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BAD IT IS LIKE OUT THERE". I wanted to remind that person that they were telling me that I should learn to "sell myself" or "pull myself up by my bootstraps" just a couple of years beforehand. Because in fact, I was actually doing that in retrospect.
During that time, I think I would have found a system that provided you with gainful employment would have been quite attractive. I've suffered through the downside of the so-called free market capitalist system. It's not all bed and roses.
I did have my problems with Trump, but what he did during the 2016 Republican primaries was beautiful. The way he completely destroyed the Chosen One, Jeb! is a memory that I will always cherish. Jeb! was supposed to be the nominee and then lose to Hillary while being a respectful pushover who gallantly argued for conservatard ideals. Trump outright called Dubya a warmonger and a liar who started the Iraq war on false pretenses on that debate stage, and all that Jeb! could do is mutter “well, I can’t believe that you would be so disrespectful as to besmirch my family. Why sir, that is unbecoming behaviour for a Preaidential candidate”. Please, spare me this veneer of respectability. I quite enjoyed seeing these establishment stooges being rudely cast aside.
But yeah, the Republicans telling the voters it’s their fault for not voting hard enough for them is quite cynical. Election after election, the Republicans will say “see how horrible the Democrats are? Please vote for us!” And when they somehow get elected, they do absolutely nothing. They tell their voters to be patient, that politics is all about compromise, that changes can only come incrementally, or even worse: “Trust the plan”.
It’s kind of like say if your house is infested with termites. This is basically a “do or die” situation. And then you pay for an exterminator to come over and get rid of the problem. But instead of actually doing anything, the exterminator says “see how horrible these termites are? Keep paying me so that I can tell you how bad they are!”
The left wing is actually anti-worker. They will sing platitudes about the minimum wage in order to get their votes, so they can push their social agenda.
Now I don’t absolve the establishment right who are also complicit in this opening of the floodgates.
Whenever I hear the term “bi-partisanship”, I know that we are going to get screwed in both directions by the worst elements of the fake two party system.
Our political choices are rather limited and horrible here: you can vote for libtards who supports open borders because immigrants will vote to keep libtards in power, or you can vote for conservatards who happen to also support open borders because they want to please their big business donors.
Whether it is the government or big corporates doing the censorship, the effects are the same.
When the SJW mob scours the internet to doxx somebody who said impolite words that were broadcast on Twitter, only for him to lose his job and being black balled from gainful employment, I think that is very oppressive.
The libtards say “well this is consistent with the First Amendment because the government is not doing this! The first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of free speech” and the conservatards who cling to their “muh free markets” ideology go along with it or they lack the rhetorical tools to counter this.
As you said, the market is already regulated. The purpose of giving labor unions power is to limit the supply of labor so that wages can go up for workers. The merchant marines have a de facto monopoly on shipping by sea just so that “Salty Pete” can afford to make a living.
For starters, I think it would be “fair” if the government wasn’t flooding the labor market with Third World immigrants to depress wages. The Chamber of Commerce always whines and complains that they can’t find enough cheap slaves to work for them.
You presume that I am an idiot liberal. Culturally I’m actually on the right, but on economics I’m pro-worker.
You can keep clinging to your free market ideology (“But muh capitalism!”) as the libtard corporations import people from the Third World who will in turn vote 90% Democrat. Do you think that’s fair? When Texas turns blue, what will you RINOs do?
PS: I see from your posting history that you’re not American, but my argument comes from the fact that a job is a necessity for most people. So if not having a job means that one becomes destitute (especially in the case of a family man who needs to support his family), then I would argue that people have the right to have a job.
I think that people have basic needs. When someone feels depressed and downtrodden about being out of work, telling them that:
“You’re not entitled to a job.”
“Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bucko!”
While at the same time, the elites are opening the floodgates of immigration to depress wages and preventing the native-born from having a chance at a viable means of making an honest living.
…Is pretty stupid, if not downright malicious.
The political and economic system that we live under is very crappy. It’s sold as “freedom” when the choices that are given, are rather terrible.
So I suppose that you support Facebook and Twitter deplatforming conservatives because it is private companies doing it and not the government.
If you believe in the free market then surely you support the free market banning Donald Trump, right?
No one is forcing you to use Twitter or Facebook. You can always build your own internet. So what is stopping you? ;)
The outcome of capitalism and freedom means that there will be inequality—the talented and gifted will make more money than those who are not.
And financial speculators who know how things work on the inside will profit handsomely. 40% of the economy is based on the financial aspect.
I’m not a communist, but there should be fairness in the system. I believe that everyone who wants a job should have one. And yea, I don’t want freeloaders to abuse the system while they get paid to do nothing. But understand that our economic system counts on an army of unemployed people who are desperate for work.
Uber might be a great and convenient technology, but it’s not all that great for the workers who barely make above minimum wage when you factor cost of fuel, insurance, and depreciation on the car.
“Liberty” and “free market” are just buzzwords pushed by the business lobby to get the commoners onboard with the current capitalist system. I’d rather see quality of life being the focus of engineering our economic system.
Which is better—unlimited choices that are terrible, or fewer choices that are good?
Having to scrounge up a living working for Uber is not really freedom. It’s actually a form of oppression.
And yes—the Starbucks worker shouldn’t own the business because the owner has put in a lot of risk and hard work into making the business successful. That being said, the worker should be compensated fairly.
I had a dream about this incident last night, so I feel like it is my duty to -bump- this thread.
I hope Tia reads these forums. I really do want to clear the air with her about the entire situation!
I think there are worse things than having a fixation on women's feet if that is the case with him. Many artsts like to showcase what they find beautiful in the female form.
I think even if that is the case with him, its fairly benign and not all that interesting ,probably because I don't tend to notice women's feet.
I never noticed that he sexualizes women's feet before. Nor do I care.
But it gives a strong reason as to why Han left Leia.
Leia gets an out because there is implied coercion.
You should let them live in your house and give them a hug if you love them so much ;)
A mental institution for these people provides more dignity, quality of life, and freedom than they being out there to fend for themselves, scared and confused.
I’m sorry, but sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.
Ronald Reagan started the trend of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill and now we have a major social problem with homelessness.
Most homeless people are mentally ill or are drug addicts. They used to have mental institutions for people like these, but the bleeding hearts said that it is against their human rights to lock them and force them to take medication against their will. They found common cause with fiscal conservatives who wanted to save money on government spending. This is an example of so-called bipartisanship where everybody gets screwed from both directions except for the super rich.
So thanks to short sighted policies like these, the homeless are making our urban centers unlivable. In reality, it is more cruel to give these people freedom and let them become a nuisance instead of giving them nice place to sleep and stay where they can be taken care of. Sure, it costs money to run these mental institutions, but there are long term savings. If you want a functional society, this is the cost of doing business.
I disagree. David Lynch is more like Salvador Dali—his work, while surreal, still has structure and dream-like logic.
A film maker who is like Jackson Pollock would just randomly shoot film all over the place and it would be an indecipherable mess.
The Old Couple represents her conscience. They are a composite of all the people who believed in Diane as she tried to make it in Hollywood.
They’re put there for the sake of comic relief.
David Lynch may be weird, but his movies do not suffer the sin of being boring.