MovieChat Forums > MovieMadness > Replies
MovieMadness's Replies
Again, Peele's point was to emphasize the lack of black lead roles in film if you read the complete quote. It's not really about excluding white actors per se. He happens to be making films with black specificity, so hiring black leads is simply a requirement. You need to understand the deeper point Peele referred to instead of finding fault on the surface what he said.
The kind of "racist agenda" you are protesting has really only occurred to blacks in Hollywood. In the past, even if a film had black characters, they would often be played by whites in black faces. No one had to actually say "we don't ever hire black actors" in those days; they just didn't do it and no one said a thing. The point is, you and the other posters need to stop looking at what IS SAID. You need to look at the overall climate and the actual meaning of what is said. Sometimes, what is true is NOT said. When someone says he doesn't hire white actors, look deeper into the issues first.
We didn't have any problems with Coppola and Scorsese hiring mostly Italian actors in their films, and we shouldn't have problem with Peele hiring black actors. I would have no problem with him hiring 100% black actors for his next 100 films if he continued to explore unique themes and ideas in creative ways. And that will only benefit all film fans, you and me alike. And both of Peele's films happen to be quite universal in nature, with themes that many people would relate to, albeit with black specificity. We should be saying how inclusive he is as a filmmaker.
Peele's point was really about the lack of films, stories, and roles about blacks. His exact quote was, "I don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don't like white dudes, but I've seen that movie." And he got loud applause for that -- for saying something many people, even whites, agree with. That was why many people went to see Get Out, Black Panther, Us, etc., whereas in the past, these movies probably wouldn't have been made. Many people WANT these movies made, so that unique perspectives and themes will be explored and shown. To express a desire to make these movies like Peele did was not wrong. You people need to realize when you are excluded from something, it may still be for the good. Not everything that is for the good has to include you, please understand this.
This 1990 VHS shows 106 minutes on the back cover: [url]https://i.imgur.com/SyWBoEB.jpg[/url]. So at least we know that from decades ago the run time had been the same. The 113m run time was just passed down from writer to writer over the years with no one bothering to check it. The first person who used 113m may have been the theater exhibiters back in the 60s, and they could've been wrong. And this is a pretty obscure film. Now we can see the run time easily on our devices with just one press. In the old days viewers had no way to see it and so no one told anyone to correct it except the technicians who made the tapes and discs. All the 113m runtime quoted in websites like wiki or even UCLA were obviously written by people who looked up wikis rather than doing real fact-checking.
[quote]Try and keep in mind that Trump actually lost the 2016 election in terms of actual vote cast (the only result that SHOULD matter, but doesn't because the United States' voting system is not truly democratic)[/quote]
Popular votes are good for smaller territories such as a country like the UK or the 50 states, but not a big country like the US as a whole. The electoral system is set up so every smaller regions, i.e. states, has a say. So I support the current system: popular votes determine a state's outcome, while electoral votes determine the nation's.
Even if all colleges were free, this kind of thing would still happen. As long as there is competition, as long as there are things that the haves don't want the have-nots to ever get, this will always happen.
Even if all colleges were free, most people would still be unable to go to college for the simple reason that all the available admissions in all the colleges combined would still not be enough to accommodate all the eligible students. It's expensive to run a college and there aren't enough colleges for everyone in every locality. That's why there is competition. As mentioned earlier, competition with always beget this kind of scandal.
Every year there are high-school graduates who want to go to college but can't for one reason or another.
She can act the way she does because her parents' wealth allows her to act this way, and not having to worry about real problems that beset young people, such as summer jobs, student loans, moving out and paying rent, etc.
And she has apologized for her remarks already.
It was an echo of the opening scene when the lady fell near the pool and nobody cared. Same thing happened at the end.
I didn't really pick up any incestuous vibe in the film, but I did see the younger people seeking solace from one another when all the adults were being so miserable. The most poignant of all was the 15-year-old daughter getting very attached with the young maid.
The ending was ill-conceived and almost cringe-worthy, but thankfully brief, and therefore doesn't detract (much) from the greatness of the rest of the film.
The makeup effect was bad, but I gave the them props for thinking of a creative death scene like that.
Just wish he were better at acting...
Only the child actor who plays Michele (the one seduced by a naked woman early in the film) shows any semblance of good acting throughout. So he would be the most likely one to have an acting career among the three boy actors.
That scene of her seducing a child is mainly to show the "sins" the kids are exposed to. This goes with an earlier moment when the kids go near a whorehouse to check out the prostitutes. It also ties to the later revelation that someone thinks the kids need to be "saved from" these sins.
In real life, sex murders often involve mutilation of the female sex organs. The killer, in his fear and hatred of women, tries to "de-sex" or neuter his victim by destroying her sexual organs. If the victim's gender identity is destroyed, she is no longer a woman in the killer's mind, thus no longer to be feared. American films usually don't show this, of course, due to the threat of the NC-17 rating and public outcry. Interestingly we see plenty of such depiction in Italian giallo films of the 70s.
The reverse (female killer mutilating male sex organs) could happen too. There was a famous American case in recent times in which an abused wife cut off his husband's penis. And there has been depiction of such acts in films too.
I remember S&E were interviewed by Bob Costas in the 90s and they admitted that what they did was "not high-level film criticism." But they said their reviews did delve into aspects of film art such as visual styles, themes, etc. My guess was and is that they were fairly erudite in film knowledge but had to review in a manner accessible to general readers and viewers.
Sadly, the best-written reviews from Ebert were the ones he did a few years before his death.
If you are not embarrassed that's because you are too STOOPID to realize you are getting OWNED in epic fashion by someone who knows waaay more than you.
Whether or not a film is released to the public, it STILL needs to be preserved and restored. There are TONS of films being restored without getting released on DVD, BD, streaming, etc. The purpose is to rescue damaged films as SOON as we can. If you wait till release for the public it will probably be too late.
A film as important as the original SW deserves the best restoration it can get. It isn't just about images. The prints may need repair, like any physical item does. Any furniture in your home needs periodic maintenance and repair, so you think a fragile reel of film is any different??
And you will die a total moron too busy getting owned like you are now if you keep up this attitude.
The transfer process is not perfect because the technology is always improving so you always need the original film prints and negatives. Look at the DVD/Youtube videos from 10 years ago; they look like CRAP now. That's why you always need the original film. See the tremendous ease with which I destroy your arguments and school you? This is what happens someone who actually knows the subject meets someone who only THINKS he knows. Instead of educating yourself in private, you clearly prefer getting educated by way of get EMBARRASSED on the Internet for all to see.
You are killing me with comments like "there are copies on laserdisc and DVD and therefore we don't need preservation." LOL. You don't have a clue what preservation and restoration are and what they do, do you? Again, a copy at LOC doesn't mean anything if no one restores it. Preservation is only the first step. A film also needs to be repaired and restored, and occasionally we need to look for additional copies. If there isn't a good restored copy to use, you don't even get to see it on laserdisc, DVD, BD, Youtube, anywhere. AFAIK, the last official restoration for the original SW films was done DECADES ago.
Just because you don't like the film doesn't make it any less deserving for restorations. There are cheesy old B-grade horror movies that got beautiful restorations. It's about the history of film which all films have a part in writing.
My schooling can only do so much. Before trying to sound knowledgeable on the Internet, try studying up on the subjects first.
What many copies?? I'm really talking to MORON here. The ONLY copies that exist are the original negatives and "video masters" for home videos, all of which have only ONE copy. Without that original copy, there would be no Youtube clips, dummy. These early films were shot on PHYSICAL films, not like today's digital video stored on hard drives where you can make copies. So there is only ONE physical copy of each, and that makes film restoration very important. Again, you don't seem to have the very basic expertise about anything except the penchant of giving me the pleasure of schooling you over and over.
That is a FAN-MADE project which just proves my point that Lucas arrogantly doesn't get involved in its restoration and leaves it to others. YOU are the one who comes off as moronic and don't know a thing about the importance of film restoration.