MovieChat Forums > BeaSouth
avatar

BeaSouth (105)


Posts


American as Cowboy trope The cash money in the final poker game was real Some really clever bits in this movie Man, they really hated free grazers Button was a terrible nickname for the boy SS Cotopaxi found off Florida East Coast Harry murdered the orderly They didn’t make it 7-minutes into this movie before As soon as I saw her running They looked really old in final scene View all posts >


Replies


A disclaimer is a comment designed to tell the viewer how to interpret or react to what they will see or experience. They are designed to influence viewers on the correct way of thinking as defined by those who author them. Once they become common, disclaimers will evolve to be more and more bold in their reach and persuasiveness. They will not stop at telling the viewer the correct way of interpreting a racial epithet used in the script. Everything that can be interpreted as controversial to some wounded interest group will have to be included lest one be treated differently than another. The number and breadth of disclaimers will serve as a shorthand for societal or cultural value. Actors, directors, and filmmakers will desire to avoid controversial subject matter that might trigger the need for disclaimers and entire ideas and story lines will go unexplored. Disclaimers are the antithesis of the free expression of the art form to which they are applied. This was a really funny exchange from both of you (Einstein and Asafamily). Thanks for the levity I watched only about half the movie but Ben told Herschel they died in a car crash. I didn’t like the movie but, I have to say that was a well acted scene when he revealed the accident The problem is, SJW doesn’t just “bitch and moan.” It tries to control what you see and hear. It tries to manipulate and cancel. And many times, it succeeds. If you don’t say something about it, it consumes more and more Perhaps none of us should comment on a movie comment board since we’ll never be famous like the movie people we’re commenting on “My god...people in the 1950s knew so little about the world around them....” Yes, having five years earlier completed a world war in which 16 million Americans fought in Europe, Northern Africa, and all across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, 1950s Americans knew so little about the world /sarcasm/ I think that scene with the son was meant to explain why Caine’s character would not expose the back channel relationship between the chief of the KGB and the chief of MI5. The scene follows the KGB guy asking the MI5 guy if Caine’s character “will talk” to anyone about his discovery of a direct link between high ranking KGB and MI5 members to prevent violations of the fourth protocol (which also happened to corruptly preserve the power of each intelligence chief). The answer to the question, “Do you think he will talk” is the scene between Caine’s character and his young son: he won’t talk because it would endanger his son. If I’m correct, it’s actually a very dark ending rather than a cheesy ‘everything’s gonna be alright’” ending. It was my favorite scene in the miniseries and was historically accurate according to the many books I’ve read on the war and the founding fathers. I thought the scene extraordinary because it showed the King and the first American ambassador taking a step back after the violent and emotional split, reassessing a damaged relationship, and making a pragmatic decision to start a new relationship with humility and good faith. Nearly 240 years later the U.S. and U.K. remain perhaps the two closest allies in the world. It is quite a remarkable relationship that cannot be alone explained by the relatively limited common ancestry. But your solution would only serve to add yet another child to the vast group of children lacking the safety and well being of stable homes that you describe. Your solution adds another vulnerable child to those “left out of the equation.” Who’s now being offended by the bombing of Pearl Harbor for God’s sake? View all replies >