 |
Hello:
Saw the movie 42 yesterday... Jackie Robinson was my hero when I was a kid. Now, he's even MORE heroic in my mind... Not for his athletics, but for his humanity.
For those of you who don't like civil rights, is HE a hero to you, or just an uppity n*****?
excon
Robinson was a hero, but did you have to poison the well right off the bat?
Not sure who you have in mind regarding "those of you who don't like civil rights." But I will say this - movies tend to glorify "heroes," and through the necessity of having to edt for length and simplicity of message often skip over important nuances. So whenever watching a "historical" movie like "42," or "Lincoln," or "The Help" or any other movie about injustice or civil rights keep in mind that the main purpose of the movie is to instill a certain emotion in you. "42" does that very well.
One area where I think Hollywood does a disservice in movies about civil rights is that they make most of us white people think "if I had been alive at that time I would have been on the right side of the controversy - I'm not a racist and I would have never acted like the bad guys in the movie." We forget just how pervasive such behavior was, and how it was the norm. The reality is: for most of us if we had been alive at that time we would have behaved exactly as the majority of white people of the time did, which in hindsight was not good. We forget how easy and natural it is to behave like the crowd. Standing up and behavng differently, and calling attention to yourself in the process, is not easy. Only time will tell, but I suspect that 50 years from now when someone does a movie about the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) movie-goers will walk out feeling like you did after watching "42."
Hello:
My disagreement ISN'T with how people FELT then. It's how they FEEL today.Quote:
we would have behaved exactly as the majority of white people of the time did,
I recently asked you about some specific provisions in the law. You UNEQUIVOCALY said that you didn't LIKE the mandates the Civil Rights Act forced upon the nation. What conclusion am I to draw from that?Quote:
but did you have to poison the well right off the bat?
Excon
You'd have to quote me for me to respond, you interpret my words much differently than I do.
P.S. Have you never noticed my signature or do you even have a clue as to what it means?
Hello again, Steve:
Actually, I don't think you fully understand what your words mean.Quote:
you interpret my words much differently than I do.
I'm not going to quote, but I asked a series of questions the other day. I included a few about whether businessmen should be able to fire anybody they wanted to. You thought businessmen SHOULD be able to do that..
Am I WRONG about that? How SHOULD a statement like that be interpreted? Now, if you MEANT something different, I'll listen.
Let me throw this in for what it's worth... Last night on O'Reilly, he was talking with Stossel about the gun violence in Chicago.. O'Reilly had some figures which showed that BLACK people are the VICTIM and the PERPETRATORS of most of the violence...
Now, when O'Reilly looked around, in HIS mind black people were the ONLY constant. He saw NOTHING else. His conclusion, of course, is that black people are somehow inexplicably violent. Neither he, nor Stossel, nor YOU, I presume think poverty has ANYTHING to do with it. Whereas, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
But, back to O'Reilly. If you BELIEVED that the only difference between the races is the color of our skin, then you could NOT come up with that conclusion.. It would be an IMPOSSIBILITY.
But, O'Reilly does. That's because he's a racist, and he doesn't even know it. Now, your thinking that employers should be able to FIRE anybody they want, is equally racist. And, like O'Reilly, you may not even know it.
Excon
Gimme a break, after all these years you haven't figured out yet that when you start yammering about racism and such my first instinct is to yank your chain a little? I both know exactly what I'm saying and take responsibility for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
.Quote:
I'm not going to quote, but I asked a series of questions the other day. I included a few about whether businessmen should be able to fire anybody they wanted to. You thought businessmen SHOULD be able to do that.
I don't see why not, that's how it works in Texas, unlike in say NY where you can't fire bad teachers so you pay them to do nothing.
I can't comment on O'Reilly and Stossel, I did not watch. I can say poverty IS an issue but the BIGGER issue I addressed many times, that liberal policies and culture are the ROOT of this problem. It was your side that said women don't need men, kids don't need a mom and dad, sex is more important then relationships, removed prayer and discipline from schools, made blacks dependent on government handouts for a permanent constituency and fed these poor young black women to Planned Parenthood and the Gosnells of this world.Quote:
Let me throw this in for what it's worth... Last night on O'Reilly, he was talking with Stossel about the gun violence in Chicago.. O'Reilly had some figures which showed that BLACK people are the VICTIM and the PERPETRATORS of most of the violence...
Now, when O'Reilly looked around, in HIS mind black people were the ONLY constant. He saw NOTHING else. His conclusion, of course, is that black people are somehow inexplicably violent. Neither he, nor Stossel, nor YOU, I presume think poverty has ANYTHING to do with it. Whereas, I think it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Right, the radical right-winger that consistently turns his chair over to a black liberal as a fill-in host is a racist. Do you guys really not see how absurd you appear sometimes?Quote:
But, O'Reilly does. That's because he's a racist, and he doesn't even know it. Now, your thinking that employers should be able to FIRE anybody they want, is equally racist. And, like O'Reilly, you may not even know it.
As for being able to fire anyone I want, if it's my damn business it's my choice.
Again, do you get my signature? It's been there ever since the last time one of you inexplicably tried to paint me as a racist.
Does anyone know if the movie is very historically accurate? I love movies based on true stories, but I don't like it when the facts are distorted. Movies like Hurricane, Mississippi Burning, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Serpico, JFK and many others had a lot of omissions and outright lies which ruined what could have been great movies.
Hello earl:
It said "based on a true story". I'm sure there was editorial license taken, but I don't think any of the major facts are wrong.
The real hero of the movie was Branch Rickey.
excon
Hey Ex I understand your hero worship we once had a guy here who if they made a film about him it would be call 100, that;s his average score but we don't make many films about our sporting heroes because it is so every day
Was this in bowling? Or golf? With an average score of 100 no wonder no one wants to make a movie about him! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The best sports movies are not about sports, per se. I don't know what an average of 100 means, but assuming we're supposed to be impressed - the mere fact that the guy is good doesn't mean you could make a good movie about him. You need a compelling story to make a compelling movie.
Best guess is that it was a batsman scored 100 runs without an out .
Yes Tom but that was his career average, basically, every time he played he scored a century which takes some effort because he has to face many balls you don't get a run with every ball. It's the equivalent of a batter in baseball hitting a home run in every inningsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The guy was famous and a national hero something on a par with Ruth, His name was Don Bradman "the Don" he stopped playing in 1948 and no one has beaten his record yet
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 PM. |