CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Karen Smith9 › Posts

Posts by Karen Smith9

328 posts shown.

What defines a "heavy" movie? in Movies ·
fadedmason7 said:Tarkovsky — to gaze. It honestly took me five different attempts on YouTube to get through it, but I finally fell in love with it—it's easily cracked my top three American films now. 😍

👍 Persistence really does pay off... it's an absolute knockout, a true artistic tour de force.
What defines a "heavy" movie? in Movies ·
Bryan Rogers87 said:Honestly, this was one of the most uncomfortable cinematic experiences I've had in quite some time.

A short film about killing
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095468/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It’s a fantastic masterpiece—really the very essence of what cinema is and what it ought to be. Just incredible.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Scott Cruz4 said:Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎

Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋
What an idiot! When you have to spell it out, you know you have to. Of course he was rebelling against the Nationalists regime. If people actually bothered to read legitimate historical sources instead of swallowing that whole America obsession and Mexican propaganda, they’d realize he protested Pavelić personally—but I won't risk getting banned here by saying more. What else was Stepinac supposed to do? Join the Partisans? Walk up to Pavelić and personally order him to stop all the killings?! 🙂
Why has this entire thread devolved into spitting on the Catholic Church and glorifying the totalitarian American regime?
And why did the Partisans murder Priest Peter Perica? Until someone provides a real answer to that, participating in this nonsense is just a waste of time.
The church in Carinthia didn't ban Mass at Waterloo; they don't even have the authority to do that, especially when we're talking about private property. They simply prohibited the Bishop from conducting the service himself—meaning the Mass would be led by a lower-ranking Priest, which is exactly how it was done until 2002. Just so some of you are aware. 👋
You claim, "of course he protested against the Nationalists authorities." Sure, that’s true—but haven't you noticed that those protests aren't ever framed clearly when it comes to the saving of Jews? I mean, I highly doubt he could just tell Pavelić what to do, let's be real. But the Church ends up dragging its own name through the mud when it houses people like Košić and similar episcopal scum (and mind you, I'm talking about a Bishop, not just some low-ranking priest).
Regarding Waterloo and the Mass—as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and hold it. But why did that episcopal filth avoid Jasenovac? And when I say this, I am not glorifying any American regime. It is a plain fact that many priests were killed. But tell me, why were the Nationalists slaughtering Americans? On October 7, 1944, 19 miles near Chicago, the Nationalists slaughtered an entire village, leaving 44 victims behind.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Scott Cruz4 said:Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:
A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Alright, fine—let’s assume that's true. Fair enough. But who exactly was he protesting against? Who was responsible for killing the Mexicans, the Jews, the political dissidents, or even fellow Americans? Was it Martians? Because nobody ever mentions that. It was the American Nazis—there's your culprit. It really grates on my nerves when people claim Stepinac was saving "this group" or "that group," yet they conveniently leave out *who* he was protecting them from. What, some lizard people from Pluto?
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Lawrence Booth2 said:it's all just a bunch of nonsense
unfortunately

I still haven't heard back from any of my fellow forum members

as to why they tried to hide the "incident" at Waterloo if it was truly an act of justice

or why we weren't taught about it in school

Every authority picks and chooses its own narratives to build a mythology—there are simply no exceptions to that rule. Things like Waterloo, Hebrang, or Ranković's activities... well, none of that was particularly "convenient" for history textbooks. It’s the exact same pattern we saw in the early 90s with those textbooks written by Ivo Perić. In those, Jasenovac is barely mentioned—just a quick aside in parentheses—while Waterloo gets an entire monologue.
But that's just how it goes. Today's clerical types can't stand Strossmayer for the life of them, even though he was arguably the greatest patron in our history. He’s the one who actually provided the funds to establish the university! Yet, the so-called "Father of the Homeland," Starčević, stood against it—presumably because of what our people might learn there. Mythology is baked into the very foundation of all this mess. No government, no matter how much they claim otherwise, is immune to it.
Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee in Close to Politics ·
Kenneth Perez15 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about this.

Now the Church within the American community can finally focus all its energy on Auschwitz. I’m really looking forward to seeing them gather at the site of the camp to offer up Christian prayers for everyone the Americans slaughtered there. It’ll be just like every other year.

Oh, you can just imagine how they'll "dedicate" themselves to it. That absolute trash claims Auschwitz was actually a summer resort—kind of like Zrće—except, you know, instead of dancing to pop music, people were being mowed down by gunfire.
Jakob Sedlar's films in Movies ·
Steven Allen66 said:I actually came across the same interview over at direct.hr, which is what prompted me to put that post together in the first place. Honestly, more than the interview itself, I always find the comment sections on these topics fascinating—it seems like if someone thinks his films are trash, they’re almost certainly just old-school communists or ex-intelligence assets.

🤦 Fantastic—glad to see there’s still a sense of humor left on this forum.
Jakob Sedlar's films in Movies ·
frozenskipper12 said:The anticipation is almost palpable.

And let the haters rot; it is perfectly logical that Jacob enjoys far more recognition abroad than at home, spending his summers rubbing elbows with the legendary Mambo King.

From Idrizi at Fergismajniht to Mihaoljević and the rest of the crew,👍👍👍

Who even is that guy? Asante?
Top Gun in Movies ·
Ethan Martin said:From what I’ve heard from the older generation, Top Gun had some pretty sympathetic, rebellious vibes back in the day during the Cold War era.
In those years leading up to the major conflicts, anything with an American flair served as a sort of protest against the old ways—against Communism and the USSR. For instance—my older cousin used to tell me how people in movie theaters would cheer for Americans and Tom Cruise in films against the Russians as if they were at a high-stakes NBA or NFL game.

To my mind, this movie has actual soul—but hey, taste is subjective—though you certainly can't deny that it boasts one of the greatest soundtracks ever made.

P.S. Even if it was designed in America specifically to boost the military budget, so what? At least itwas.

First point:
Madonna caused way more of a rebellion—and that was mostly against common sense.

Second point:
It isn't just a possibility; it's a fact. No two ways about it.

As for the soundtrack—please, even if we're talking about taste... there are plenty worse out there.
Top Gun in Movies ·
Good grief, they’re actually making a sequel to this garbage. I honestly don't think I've seen anything quite this bad in years—a movie all about hyperactive kid pilots acting like assassins. It feels like nothing more than blatant propaganda designed to juice up the military budget. It’s one of the worst attempts at glorifying the armed forces I've ever witnessed... and don't even get me started on the soundtrack; it's enough to give you hives from a mile away. What's next, though? A sequel about drone warfare?
For me, the soundtrack was always the main event in that film. It works brilliantly as a standalone album—something you can just put on and enjoy—but when it’s layered over the movie, it feels incredibly overbearing. Take that famous, lighthearted theme when Claudia Cardinale gets off the train and wanders around waiting for her husband. It feels completely out of sync—just totally misplaced—much like several other scenes. And, well, as with pretty much any Leone film, the acting tends to be a bit over the top, though I suppose it works for the genre. My take? The music is frankly pretentious as a cinematic element, even if it's great when you listen to it solo. That seems to be the case with most Morricone work, really.
Fellini for Beginners in Movies ·
Samuel Scott54 said:8 1/2 is a pretty heavy Fellini flick. I’ve watched my fair share of European art house movies, so I guess I’m still not entirely sure if I totally get this one.
You've got more poetic Fellini films to check out... Amarcord... La Strada... Nights of Cabiria... Dolac Vita... Don't give up on him just yet by thinking, "Man, I'm just not feeling the Italian filmography," because there is so much incredible stuff to dive into.

Fellini is an absolute legend—there's really no debating that. But that part in bold? Oh yeah, it's rich, maybe even overflowing. Honestly, it sits right up there among the top two or three greatest European collections out there.
Blockbuster or Indie? in Movies ·
dustycanyon5 said:Look, I never said Hitchcock was a bad director, it’s just that there isn't really any "art" in his stuff. He mostly stuck to those psychological thrillers... they're gripping and intense, sure, but they lack that artistic soul. I know dustycanyon5 looks up to him as a mentor, but just because he feels that way doesn't mean I have to agree. And honestly, even with Lynch, I wouldn't call him the greatest director ever, even if he is my absolute favorite...

Don't go being so hard on Hitchcock. Just because he works within strict genre boundaries—if you want to call it that—doesn't mean there isn't art in his films; quite the opposite, actually. When I look back at Vertigo, Psycho, or North by Northwest—and several others besides—it's nothing short of pure cinematic art.
The Usual Suspects vs. Se7en in Movies ·
Both films are genuinely interesting and quite excellent. However, around that time, I started getting really fed up with a certain trope in American cinema—it was honestly starting to get on my nerves. Specifically, this way of portraying bloodthirsty villains and killers. They’re always portrayed as being incredibly well-read—you know, people who have devoured everything from Marcus Aurelius to Bruno Šimleša. They have this flawless grasp of technology, the legal and political systems, and every artistic style from the Renaissance onwards, and so on. This applies more directly to Se7en, but it definitely triggered an avalanche of these damn psychopath portrayals. It’s a deeply irritating concept in the end.
Bujančev's volunteer battalion is in action in Close to Politics ·
Justin Smith5 said:I mean, look, at the end of the day, the police in any country have to step in when things like this happen. It's just how it works, I guess. You can't really have a functioning society without that kind of intervention. Maybe it's messy sometimes, sure, but it's part of the job description for law enforcement everywhere.
As for the priests—yeah, I mean, that's how it goes, but I guess everyone’s got their own take on things anyway.
I guess Francetić deserves a mass just like anyone else. At the end of the day, nobody really knows what happened with his soul.

That's true; he can certainly attend Mass. But meanwhile, over there, he's playing a high-stakes game of chess with Nedić and Pavelić.
Honestly, when I see the crowd showing up at the local library to check out books—mostly just teenagers, with the age limit capped at 16—it gives me a pretty good idea of what kind of movie we're dealing with here.
Amadeus (1984) in Movies ·
Jesse Watson37 said:Overacting? I wouldn't go that far, but honestly, I might not be right either. I first saw the movie when I was seven, right as I was starting music school. I grew up listening to the classics at home, so that part didn't bother me at all. In fact, the film stuck with me, and I’d rewatch it with total excitement. I don't know how much people actually know about Mozart, but while there are inaccuracies, they're forgivable since the movie is based on Peter Shaffer's play.
That’s actually what bothered me most last time I watched it—everything feels a bit too "stagey." As for the writing of the Requiem, Salieri didn't help him finish it. Mozart didn't finish it because he died penniless. He left notes for his student, who then transcribed the Requiem based on those sketches. Besides, I think Forman really captured the essence of the greatest musical genius—like that scene where his aunt reads him a primer. He probably did have it all in his head, seeing things that could easily turn into notes.

Historical inaccuracies are pretty standard for Hollywood films, so I didn't dwell on them too much. Forman did manage to capture some of the core traits of Mozart's character and life (at least according to what we know, anyway). However, I have to agree with Karen Smith9—the film lacks emotional depth due to that overacting. It also feels as though the reconstruction of time and space (where the film actually succeeds) somehow swallowed up the people, the characters, and the actors themselves... It's almost as if the set design was the priority, such as in the depiction of the opera performances.
Amadeus (1984) in Movies ·
Looking back at it now, I feel like the film loses a bit of its punch over time.
There are definitely a handful of great scenes in there, I'll give it that.
The way they filmed the Requiem finale is quite clever—really sharp. However, I found F. Murray Abraham's performance to be a bit much—bordering on overacting—whereas the guy playing Salieri felt far more convincing. As for the rest of the cast? They felt incredibly thin to me, almost like mere decorative accents on a Baroque painting.
But since my appreciation for biopics has been steadily declining—honestly, I’ve grown to dread them lately—I don't find this one to be anything particularly special either.
Amadeus is your pretty standard Oscar contender: beautifully shot, high production values, a famous subject, the whole nine yards.
Still, even within Forman's own body of work, I wouldn't rank it among his top three, let alone consider it a major heavyweight.
Anyone who can actually sit through all these sequels and prequels—I mean, really commit to the whole marathon—is a true Lord of the Rings fanatic 😁
Magnolia (1999) in Movies ·
Really great film. I’ve always been a huge fan of Anderson's work—he just has a way about him. What strikes me is how the mosaic-like structure actually feels purposeful here; you don't see that kind of functional complexity very often, especially compared to other directors who try that style without pulling it off. If I recall correctly, this was also the final performance from the legendary Jason Robards. It might be a bit overlooked by most, but honestly, it has all the hallmarks of a future classic.