Posts by Jamie Davis9

northerncrane4 said:Nobody actually gives a damn about Nick.

🤣 Well, that certainly puts my mind at ease.

northerncrane4 said:So-called celebrity-porn. Just regular people in totally mundane situations reacting in a completely predictable way. It works fine as a documentary, I suppose, but when it comes to a feature film, I really expect something more than just stating the obvious.

Ognjen Sviličić? Well, since I actually went to see his latest flick, 'That's Just How It Is', for work recently, I was sitting here trying to figure out how to articulate what exactly was missing from it—it wasn't terrible, mind you (his other stuff is better)—but then you hit me with the term celebrity-porn and realized you basically nailed the exact sentiment I was struggling to put into words. 👍
p.s. assuming, of course, you weren't talking about Nick.

Jacob J. Harper said:

🙏 is a fantastic movie! ☕

He needed them as sidekicks during the heists. Once he decided his time was up, yeah, he needed Robert Ford to step in and pull it off for him. Was that actually what happened in reality? Who knows, probably not, but I’m talking about the story the movie is telling us here. Go ahead, rewatch the scene and tell me what you see.


You're being so impossibly stubborn that my brilliant little point has effectively sunk under the weight of your ignorance. 😠 Honestly! 🙂

simply because they needed him.

How could his assessment not be overblown? The man didn't even trust himself—which they made perfectly clear in the film—so there's no way he would have given any credence to someone he openly despised.

Patrick Martin said:I honestly think he pulled the trigger mostly out of pure terror. He even told someone once that Jesse James would've definitely taken them both out if he hadn't struck first.
That guy Ford is just a self-centered, unstable wreck who used Jesse's trust in the most pathetic, bootlicking way possible.
Let's not overthink this or turn it into some grand myth.

What kind of "trust" are you talking about, for God's sake?! Are we even watching the same movie? Help me out here—why on earth would Jesse James strip off his gun belt, something he absolutely never did, and then stand there with his back turned to a man he supposedly knew better than anyone else? Was he just trying to dust off a picture of a horse or something?

He’s just fundamentally repulsive, and honestly, can’t he see that? The sheer scale of his nastiness is constantly laid bare whenever he interacts with his idol, much like how the cruelty of Jesse James is mirrored in Ford's betrayal. That is precisely why Ford has to kill him—it’s why he kills him over 800 times—because that is the only way to truly destroy them both.

I know. They both are. Tell me, did I actually claim that Ford was mature and just?

Even though it’s technically a Western, I didn't experience this as some grand studio production or a heavy-handed allegory for American society. Instead, the film focuses on these deeply archetypal figures of the American West—characters who seem entirely degenerate on one hand, yet possess enough psychological depth to offer everything: fear, dilemma, guilt, and remorse, which serve as the true measures of their individual dignity and humanity. Jesse James is portrayed as a psychotic, brutal killer constantly battling paranoia and bouts of depression, yet he's also a caring father and husband, a man struggling to maintain control over a fractured personality. To the common folk, he is both an elusive rebel and a guerrilla fighter loyal to a fallen Confederacy, just as he presents himself at the start. He embodies resistance while simultaneously striking terror into people, which is why the weak-willed find him so impressive they feel compelled to turn him into a legend.
Robert Ford is a young man whose obsession with his hero grew so intense while listening to tales of Jesse James that every single move he makes in this relationship feels calculated and deeply personal. He doesn't betray his hero for a payday; rather, he does it out of a conviction that such cruelty must be stopped, viewing it as his duty without ever questioning that impulse. However, he doesn't perceive James's brutality through the lens of mere murders and crimes; he feels it most profoundly in the way his idol relentlessly mocks him, driving him toward the ultimate realization of his own nature as a repulsive human blight who reenacts betrayal on stage over 800 times just to kill a single myth.
From beginning to end, Jesse James and Robert Ford are mirrors of one another, and all their conflicts stem from a perfect sense of closeness and recognition. It is clear to Jesse James, and honestly to us as well, that no one else was truly capable of taking down a killer at the exact moment he consciously turned his back on the task, except for the coward Robert Ford, who is the only one to find the necessary strength within himself.

John Palmer9 said:I was watching this on CBS a few days ago and I honestly still haven't quite processed what I saw. You can find it over at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvl...ilm_shortfilms

Exactly, such an incredible film! I actually mentioned it back in my impressions. And if I recall correctly from somewhere, they only used three professional actors for the whole thing.

goldenhound32 said:I’d recommend this to anyone who actually appreciates subtle filmmaking where the drama isn't just people shouting at each other.

An eight.

🙂

In that case, it might actually be worth my time... plus, I have a nagging feeling that Emma Thompson absolutely nailed it; you can just see the brilliance written all over her face.

Gary Wells16 said:Hey, can I change my username to:

Gary Wells16
😁

If that's too much, how about something slightly less extreme:
RomeobezJulijeKlovica

The current one sounds way too pathetic 😁

Sure thing, Gary Wells16 😁 Just hit up New York City.>

🤣

nimbleskipper37 said:I suppose I'm not going to learn everything here, am I? 🙂

Well, isn't that exactly why we're all gathered here in the first place? 🙂

northernpilot2 said:An edit tag shouldn't stick around unless someone goes back and tweaks their post immediately after hitting send—we're talking maybe a minute or two at most.

To be more exact, if they're editing within four minutes of posting, fine, but once you hit that five-minute mark, you're just playing fast and loose with the rules.

Linda Price5 said:Honestly, I used to feel the same way after finishing a heavy piece of literature. I’d feel this desperate urge to go run through some light, breezy paperback just so I wouldn't lose my mind—it was exactly like that jarring sensation when you're forced to jump straight behind the wheel of a car immediately after being stuck in gridlock traffic.

I am certain there were plenty of actually decent books on that required reading list. I never bothered to pick them up, even though—if they hadn't been mandatory assignments—I probably would have. But because they were part of the curriculum, I just assumed they’d be a total disaster, much like the rest of my schooling. 😁

And look at you, you've certainly made some progress!

Linda Price5 said:Honestly, I used to feel the same way after finishing a heavy piece of literature. I’d feel this desperate urge to go run through some light, breezy paperback just so I wouldn't lose my mind—it was exactly like that jarring sensation when you're forced to jump straight behind the wheel of a car immediately after being stuck in gridlock traffic.

I am certain there were plenty of actually decent books on that required reading list. I never bothered to pick them up, even though—if they hadn't been mandatory assignments—I probably would have. But because they were part of the curriculum, I just assumed they’d be a total disaster, much like the rest of my schooling. 😁

Well, they say you shouldn't hold any of it against yourself. 🙂 Some of those books might even be grateful you gave them a chance.

Jessica Chavez4 said:Well, maybe things have shifted since then.

As far as I can tell, nothing substantial has actually changed in that regard since my own school days.

Jessica Chavez4 said:It feels pretty mindless that everything follows a strict chronological order instead of being tailored to where students actually are developmentally. Take high school freshmen, for example—they’re stuck wading through the Iliad and the Odyssey right out of the gate. Wouldn't it make more sense to start with something like *The Most Dangerous Game* or *The Diary of Anne Frank*, and then save the heavy hitters for when they've matured a bit? As it stands, Anne Frank ends up in eighth grade, and because she's tucked away near the end of the syllabus, there's barely any time to actually cover her work. Meanwhile, you've got stuff like *The Hunter in the Woods* sitting in senior year, which often gets skipped entirely because the curriculum is too busy checking off boxes in order. We’ve been living in the twenty-first century for quite a while now, yet the system acts like we aren't. To me, it just doesn't add up.

😕
The twentieth century is covered toward the end of junior year and throughout senior year.
*The Old Man and the Sea* is read in freshman year.
Regarding the entirety of the Iliad and the Odyssey, only a few books of the Iliad are actually read; the rest is just lectured on in class.

James Perez54 said:No, no, no.

You’ve completely ruled out the possibility that terrible teachers might actually be the reason kids don't read the assigned books.

For someone trying so hard to present themselves as a highly educated American literature professor, you sure are being... quite rigid, aren't you?

Good grief...🙄 I never once excluded incompetent teachers from being a cause for reading struggles, among other factors.
I simply chose to focus more on the other side of the equation.
For the sake of balance. What I actually dismissed was the idea that a student might grow to hate reading entirely because of a poor teacher; given how much flexibility there is in modern education, I just don't see how that could happen. A good teacher can help spark an interest, but a bad one isn't capable of stifling a natural inclination.
Back in high school, I had a truly terrible English teacher. Her lectures weren't even poorly delivered, she was just a total sadist. She picked on us for no reason at all, constantly making our lives difficult. At that time, parents didn't really step in to challenge school administrations like they do now, so I felt pretty stuck in a situation I couldn't escape until graduation.
Did I end up hating her subject because of her? No. I went on to get my degree in it. In the grand scheme of things, she was, and remains, completely irrelevant.

amberskipper3 said:My arguments?
Look, this isn't just my personal opinion; it's the standard educational philosophy driving most school systems across the globe.
The fact that we don't have an elective reading option is the only thing setting us apart from that global standard, though even that varies depending on which school district you're looking at.

There!

Good grief, it’s hopeless; most plumbers aren't exactly out here reading Beckett. 🙄 Even if they did, I doubt it would actually change their lives for the better. 🙂
I mention the SATs because those standardized tests place such an immense weight on teachers, and the specific book we're discussing is chosen specifically to align with the essay prompts students face during testing season.
Regardless, I just wasted my entire afternoon trying to explain what this book is and why reading it actually matters, but since I was talking to you, it felt like a complete exercise in futility. Now, imagine when one of your kids—already hardened by your own skepticism—walks into my classroom; I have to work ten times harder just to convince them that studying the classics isn't a total waste of time. They've already been told by their own mother that skipping these books doesn't cost them a thing, so honestly...