As a white American, I was not offended
Eric Schweig was great
Graham Green is always good he played a very convincing drunk.
I cried in the hospital room scene along with Schweig.
I like that he honored his brother by the defacement.

I also feel like it was out of character. Rudy was always against Mogie's idea. Maybe it was symbolic. Like he was free of being Mogie's caretaker. Maybe he was apologizing to Mogie. Because he felt guilty for having a better life than him. It was still a little out of character.
It was Rudy's way of doing something for his big brother Perhaps even as a proper send off and/or last goodbye.

I felt proud for him. I'm a White American, and I'm aware that America took the Black Hills from the Lakota. The only problem I have is that in real life Rudy would be caught and go to jail. I also feel like it was out of character. Rudy was always against Mogie's idea. Maybe it was symbolic. Like he was free of being Mogie's caretaker. Maybe he was apologizing to Mogie. Because he felt guilty for having a better life than him. It was still a little out of character.

This message has been deleted.

though its been some time since this post , are you serious? could you be any more clueless? or were you just baiting folks into an argument? its easy to be so flippant when you dont understand what the films ending meant

No, the defacement of those rocks being carved to represent the land stealers ain't cool.
More red paint would have been nice .. cover the whole mess.
<")
( ~/

Vandalism ain't cool (although I realize that some view the sculpture itself as vandalism), but I found the idea of George Washington crying a tear of blood metaphorically intriguing.
Just not acceptable as far as the defacement aspect goes.

It wasn't offensive to me, although I'm White & I like George Washington. I'm able to see the Indians' side in it, especially since the Black Hills have such significance. I'm glad it was in the film, because people who go there to see the monument rarely think about what it really symbolizes to the Indians shut off from their sacred land. Besides, I bet George Washington would think it was ridiculous he was on a mountain anywaymaybe he'd have a laugh with the Sioux about it.

I just saw this movie for the first time today. Given the context and historical background of the movie, I didn't found it offensive at all. Matter of fact, I'd probably do the same thing!

What I find offensive that the faces of white boys are carved onto the rocks of Mother Earth.
It's the worst kind of graffitti.
Bambi
<")
( ~/

To answer the original question, no, I didn't find the ending offensive. However, I found the movie to be boring and poorly written. The brothers weren't very likeable and the dialogue was laughable. What about the flashback from the football game? Cut to night time and the brothers are still wearing their shoulder pads hours later? Haha. I was laughing out loud. The only offense this movie committed was weakness.

"Did anyone else find the ending to be the least bit offensive?"
No.

Well, arrowtop, I guess it's easier to call someone an idiot than to admit the truth.

Why's that?

You are an idiot.

Well put, indiegurl. I was as offended as you are by the original post in this thread; the depth of its indifference to the near cultural genocide perpetrated on this people is astounding.
I found the ending of "Skins" to be not only touching, but very metaphorical: the red tear trailing down Washington's cheek for all the crap that's occurred in the past 150 years.
FWIW, I'm White but I'm not a bleeding heart liberal. I don't need to be a liberal to acknowledge the reality of what one race did to another on this land. Anyone who tries to deny it is, quite frankly, an imbecile.

I find it offensive to choose to see the attempted genocide of an entire race in this country as some little mistaken blurb in a history class and instead see it as "helping" or something like that. I think it's offensive to sign a treaty promising the Black Hills (a sacred place) to the ndns there and then completely break it and carve into it the faces of people who may have helped along this discrimination. To carve up and blast away in those Hills is the equivalent of burning a church.
Yeah, we all know the old stories of the evil white-man, but give me a break.
It's that type of indifference and ignorance that helped facilitate so many atrocities. No, you are not responsible, but as long as your type of attitude prevails, they are NOT just "old stories". And what I mean by that is that your type of attitude minimizes all that has happened and looks at it as no big deal. Literally millions and millions were killed here through the advantage of firepower, killing the the vulnerable, very old and very young, diseases brought over from the filthy conditions the Europeans were immune to (fyi, they were immune because they were conditioned to literally live in sh*!ty and poor conditions (and not all transmitted diseases were through sex; there are very early examples of the first uses of germ warfare in the form of "gifts" like blankets given to the native that were from the smallpox infirmary of the nearby Army. And while we are at it, even if it was sexually transmitted, rape was very, very common). So who were really the "savages"????
The OP's entire original post is what is most offensive to me.

Loved the ending!

I loved the movie, and the massage of the movie was right on. I jumped up and screamed "yea!" when the red paint came down!!!!

Whoa . . . I grew up with people like you. So clueless about the ways you offend others as a group. The Rushmore 'monument' is to celebrate the eviction of our native people from their land. Nothing more. I would love to see the faces converted to Sitting Bull, several other leaders, and at least one Native woman. You need to realize that the Native Americans have not ever been allowed to achieve justice. No one has done similar harm to your group: count your blessings, and ask some respectful questions or try to help.

correction: When it is designed to offend them.
Also, I meant to say progressive non-Natives for that matter!

Blast that monument! That monument was a middle finger to Native Americans. These folks defaced a hill Native Americans found sacred to show who was in charge. Why the hell should some Native Americans or progressive non-natives give a good damn about offending the sensibilities of Americans who extol that monument. Native Americans were the first ones here-they do not have to necessarily respect what outsiders hold sacred when it DESIGNED offends them. If anything, everybody who is not Native and don't like this can go back to where they came from because no matter how long you stay in a country-if you are not indigenous-especially if you are a settler or benefit from the act- then you are a freaking guest!As for holding on to the past, folks wronged have as much a right to hold on to the past-if they so choose- as long as the oppressor treats them the more oppressed- as second-class. One more thing, natives have often been portrayed as so-called violent savages as much as they have been portrayed as noble savages so this goes both ways; and, pacifist or not, which is besides the point- Native Americans did not conquer the European homeland. The Europeans conquered the homelands of Native Americans!

Pshh deyy tellin uss to ruhspect I don't tink they know thaa first thing to respect
and besides YEAH you might not feel connected,
but hey
WE DO.
so derr
how come durs so much fightin goin on

"By the way, don't respond to me, because you know what, i really don't care."
Hypocrite.