The only thing I didn't understand
-
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 09:17 AM)
Somewhere on an exclusive tropical island paradise a retired Milton Bradley executive is laughing at your gullibility.
Snappy comeback, but poor choice of words.
It's not gullible to default to assuming most other people are likely to fall on the simplistic, rather than calculating side. Hubristic, maybe, but not gullible.
Look at business, government, anything you care to mention, really - would you really assume they're all scheming, steely-eyed, missile-men? Or occasionally the stars align, and something works out, and the conspiracy theory nutjobs assume, rather predictably, conspiracy.
Anyway, it's all the work of those lizard people - and may I be the first to welcome our new, lizard, overlords -
thesinik — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 11:49 PM)
"Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay."
Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up.
Made you look! -
njiuma — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 05:55 AM)
"Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay."
- the gay and liberal community likely isn't standing on the sidelines of a movie worried about the perceptions of homosexuals.
However, i believe that there are gay and liberal organizations that are trying to influence the general perception, trying to make gays "normal" in a society that has viewed homosexuality as "abnormal" and heterosexuality as "normal".
Colonel Fitts is clearly a homosexual that tries to cover it up with his sham marriage and outward "macho" posturing to his son, later giving in to his gay propensity and murdering Lester as a part of his conflict.
Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up. - it is in some ways "a cartoon of itself", as it is certainly a bit of a self parody. To try to normalize an aberrant sexual practice in a society that has, on the whole, perceived it to be perverse, seems a bit comical.
"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"
- the gay and liberal community likely isn't standing on the sidelines of a movie worried about the perceptions of homosexuals.
-
thesinik — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 07:05 AM)
There is nothing abnormal about being gay. We even see it in nature. Only repressed/bigoted overly religious people like you can't come to terms with it haha..
Whether we like it or not, homosexuality isn't a fad. It's also not a binary light switch but more of a spectrum. I'm sure you've had curiosity and it burns you up
-
evelienbernaers — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 10:41 AM)
Apart from the other discussion that arose from my comment, which got - in my opinion - a bit beside the question, I'd like to answer to your reaction.
You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.
Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side. -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 11:05 AM)
You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.
Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side.
I'm sorry, but you're really ignoring what was presented in the film.
Go and watch that scene again - look at how Fitts approaches Lester, it's not just the kiss, it's the entire tenderness of it all.
That's not the behaviour of somebody who outwardly "hates" gay people, well apart from the obvious cliche.
Truly - go an watch that scene again a couple of times, and really, are you really contending it wasn't really heatfelt, tentative exploration?
And it's not so much that I've made peace with my "hubristic" side - we just have an understanding, that's all. -
DavidStHubbinsUSA — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 05:21 AM)
This incident was a very obvious and easy to understand chain of events. I don't think the Col's son had anything to do with what happened except for two things. He felt certain his son was gay and that Lester was gay. His life was a constant struggle with himself to repress who he really was.
He wouldn't have done that ever if he was straight. He hated himself so much for his true feelings he abused his son and wife for most of his life. He truly had major inner demons. After finding out that his son was gay (he thought) he had a melt down and seeing a known (to him) homosexual he had to take action on what was eating him up. He would have never approached anyone unsure if they were gay or not and to him this was safe, he never thought for a minute of being rejected. Since he made a mistake and was rebuffed the shear terror of what he did and exposing himself took him over the edge, he couldn't allow anyone to know. He also allowed himself to give into who he was and acted on his greatest fear but was shut down. He broke. Took him over the edge. Had he been in proper frame of mind he wouldn't have committed murder in such a way that he would almost certainly have been caught. With his son involved (he would at the very least say that his father went ballistic and might have shot Lester in rage, they would have checked his guns) Using his own weapon he would have eventually been caught, for murder anyway. No one in the world would know of his desires if Lester was gone. All he cared about in the entire world is that that secret would never get out. He was temporally insane.
If you combine his massive homophobic personality and the scene with the Nazi plate (Why was that even in the movie? There has to be a reason, not a Nazi weapon but a piece of china, something more personal) He was surely hiding his being gay.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 05:37 PM)
This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong.
Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.
the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".
same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 11:07 AM)
This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong.
Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.
the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".
same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Just because there's not further exposition, doesn't mean that the angle has been reversed - that's just daft. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 05:30 PM)
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.
Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].
particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 03:52 AM)
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.
Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].
particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.
"drama teach"?
Way past that, junior.
Pedantry and myopia are misplaced, here.
Just because some scenes were excised, it doesn't mean that's because they retreated from the thrust of that - there may have been countless other reasons. Other scenes were too.
None of that changes what we're presented with - a guy who made he career in the army, from a time and conditioned to the view that homosexuality is a deviance and something to be shamed of / repressed, but actually is, himself.
Go and watch the scene where he goes to Lester. If you can see something other than a guy with a lifetime entrenched in a certain polarised opinion, repressing his true feelings, then decided to take a chance and expose a degree of vulnerability in the process. That wasn't some odd experiment - look at how he approaches Lester, look at how he behaves, acts.
As I've said several times, now - the mental games of twister people are prepared to play about that, and about what was going on, say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 05:01 PM)
Lester approached HIM to take off his wet clothes, and he mistook that as an invite and head butted him.
say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented
It's the other way around, Mendes set up a lot of tropes Carefully Taught by drama teachers and stood back to see the result - and caught a huge lot of fish
eg Lester was NOT chasing Angela - she was chasing him but that don't fit small f feminist dogma
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 05:15 PM)
Lester approached HIM to take off his wet clothes, and he mistook that as an invite and head butted him.
I'm not sure you and I are watching the same film
say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented
It's the other way around, Mendes set up a lot of tropes Carefully Taught by drama teachers and stood back to see the result - and caught a huge lot of fish
eg Lester was NOT chasing Angela - she was chasing him but that don't fit small f feminist dogma
Lester was most certainly chasing Angela - he acted like an infatuated teenager around her - consider the scene where he's listening at Janey's bedroom door, or sneaks in whilst she's showering, to ring Angela's number.
I'm not saying it doesn't become reciprocated, but it most certainly starts with his infatuation over her, at first, she appears rather ambivalent, if not a little humoured about Lester and Carolyn.
Look at him deciding to get fit and lift weights - that was all because of a throwaway comment Angela made, whilst Lester was listening through Janey's bedroom door. Now I'm not saying that didn't take on a life of it's own - the smoking weed, the Firebird, the whole "getting his groove back" - but all the same, there were big chunks of the story that were initiated by Lester's infatuation over Angela. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 08:48 PM)
are you a married man?
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 02:20 AM)
are you a married man?
Easy, tiger - you haven't even bought me dinner.
Not really buying the thrust, though. In just the same way as some would say this film only works if you're a middle-aged, married but unhappy, disenfranchised man, in America, looking to reboot their life, I roundly reject the notion that it's only with the same experiences can people possibly understand.
Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 02:48 AM)
Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer.
because I AM Lester RISEN
nuthin bogus or foolish, just that your comments say you are a babe in the woods as to life's harrowing exigencies
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 03:05 AM)
Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer.
because I AM Lester RISEN
nuthin bogus or foolish, just that your comments say you are a babe in the woods as to life's harrowing exigencies
Then you're 0 for 3, then - and it is bogus and foolish.
Because you're completely wrong about that, and I was correct to ascribe it so.
You make too many assumptions, and try and assert relevance where there is none.
It's idiocy like that, that makes people reticent to answer such questions, when people such as you invent stupid preconceptions to start with, then continue to argue with them as if they're true and relevant. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 03:29 AM)
It's idiocy like that, that makes people reticent to answer such questions, when people such as you invent stupid preconceptions to start with, then continue to argue with them as if they're true and relevant.
OK so I REPEAT, ARE you married dude?
it's a simple question and your Freudian Slip is showing via your reticence to answer a simple question
ie you are obviously NEVER married but a SNAG sympathizer [commonly termed a femi-man].
that is what this movie is about ie the small f feminist TAKEOVER of the nuclear family in 1970, giving us the full-on AB by 1999.
welcome to the Beauty dude
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 05:16 AM)
ie you are obviously NEVER married but a SNAG sympathizer [commonly termed a femi-man]
Wrong.
There you go - one more bogus assumption, in a long line of them.
Kudos - I've not encountered that many willing to continue blathering on, in total ignorance, still convinced in the validity of their rhetoric - despite it being misfiring and demonstrably wrong.
The point you miss, though, is that it's irrelevant. The notion that we can only see things couched in the terms of our personal circumstances and experience, well that's the issue with people who are so restricted - as opposed to that which you'd like to assert.
Here's my tip - if you're going to really try and pursue this notion of pseudo-social-psychological profiling based on what you perceive in people, relevance to the topic, and being controlled by it, it really is beholden on you to actually be competent at it. And that's the problem - beyond a bit of bluff and bluster, your own hubris, and liberal sprinkling of some choice terms - you're just not good enough at that to make it work - so do yourself a favour, leave that sort of "insight" to the people who are sufficiently knowledgable and clever to be able to make it work, because it's most certainly not working for you.