Industrial Deals Beauty MagazinestoInspire STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning ballerss3 ballerss3,
image-map-link=rect  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $59.99 Kindle Paperwhite GNO Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

14 people shot dead, 50 injured, at 'The Dark Knight Rises' premiere in Aurora, Colorado....

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 326 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:31:18 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
Hahaha i like the added sound effects.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:31:20 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
better than the later sequels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:32:21 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
me too.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:32:39 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
There was one i liked, dont know which one, where Norman whacks his mom with a shovel in the back of the head.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:34:39 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
I don't remember that, maybe it was one of those copycat roles that Anthony Perkins played in the 1980's and 1990's.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:35:14 PM PDT
True, it's controlled and it's not real, it's safe. That's part of the thrill of experiencing a fantasy or adventure movie: the villain. Be it a James Bond villain or The Wicked Witch of the West, it's somehow so delightful being scared of them and seeing their awful deeds.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:39:01 PM PDT
One of the greatest acting performances in a thriller, Tony Perkins as mama's boy Norman. Marion was fooled by his mild-mannered demeanor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:39:29 PM PDT
Movies have always mirrored what society thought it wanted to be like (as opposed to mirroring society). So why wouldn't someone get confused on mixed signals. For example television in the '60s when you really sit down and watch a lot of it was very sexist in a way you couldn't get away with today, and a lot of the behavior that people didn't bat an eye at then could cost you your job today. Look at movies in the 30s and 40s with all the smoking and drinking. Notice that very few movies have any smoking and drinking in them now? What is the one constant that movies have always had -- that violence can solve problems. Doesn't matter whether its the good guy or the bad guy. We really like violence. One of the most telling comments I saw pertaining to the shooter was someone pointing out the irony of how much we love violence in films, yet we're absolutely horrified when it happens right in front of us.

Well truth is less people might be horrified than the average person might think.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:47:22 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
Yup, a classic. He was the best.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 6:59:54 PM PDT
James N. Smith says:
>>"Interesting that that film should come up in a discussion of violence at a movie theater. It has long been my opinion that ['Bonnie and Clyde'] is the benchmark film that started the trend in Hollywood that exists to this day of while not glamorizing violence (that would come much later) but glamorizing criminals and what I call anti-social behavior."<<

It was the first 'The Thomas Crown Affair', also with Faye Dunaway (Bonnie) -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that featured the bad guys getting away scott free with their spoils, unpunished, and portraying them glamorously (some might say immorally) throughout. I don't think that happened before in a mainstream Hollywood picture.

The mid-to-late '60s showed several movies that broke apart the old restrictions of the Code self-censorship in Hollywood.
'Who's Affraid of Virginia Woolf' presented new "vulgarity" is language, 'Easy Rider' gave us drugs and sex like never before in popular film.
'Thomas Crown Affair' and 'Bonnie and Clyde' did plenty to show criminals and violence in a pretty light, and 'Wild Bunch' certainly raised the bar as high as it could go for violence ca. 1969.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:03:47 PM PDT
I wonder how he felt playing that strange role-- a guy with a big secret, since Perkins himself was a closeted gay man in Hollywood in that time. Interesting. I don't believe that Norman Bates was gay; cross dressing is often a straight man's fetish. In fact I think Norman was straight but was so screwed up emotionally that he'd never have a chance at any sort of healthy relationship with a woman no matter how much he might have wanted one.

Wait, this is becoming a big tangent. I feel awkward going OT like this.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:13:25 PM PDT
re: 'Psycho'

J. Fields says:>"That movie is so homophobic. A killer cross-dresser. Ah, simpler times. Great flick, though. Good book too."<

Being a cross dresser is not necessarily gay. They made the same argument when 'Silence of the Lambs' came out, that it was homophobic, because the killer cross-dressed.

The first Hitchcock movie where the killers were definitely gay was 'Rope', based on Leopold and Loeb, actual serial killers.
'Strangers on a Train' also has strong undercurrents of identifying a gay characters with self-repression and violence.

Anyway, there's no indication that this Holmes guy was gay, so why are we talking about this? Oh yeah, Green Meanie. Figures.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:14:37 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
Oh i meant that the movie - in some ways - played on the fear of cross-dressers. Just like the very excellent Hannibal plays on a larger fear of doctors. If Norman was just a nut who killed people and talked to himself the impact wouldn't have been the same. I'm not saying everyone goes there, but i definitely believe there was a basic fear of the misunderstood within that character. All those villains that resonate with a large group of people usually have some very base-level fears at their core.

Dracula: fear of disease
Frankenstein: Fear of death
Werewolf: Fear of inner evil being seen
Plankton: Fear of knowing what's really in what we eat

Ok all of that was just for the Plankton joke, I'm really not nearly this philosophical about villains ....

Posted on Jul 21, 2012, 7:15:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 28, 2012, 6:26:08 PM PDT
It seems that every time something like this happens we hear the same mantras: "Guns don't kill people. Criminals do" and "If he didn't have a gun, he would have used something else." All said with the same end in mind: To ensure the unlimited access to firearms in the United States. Reputedly, the day after President Obama took office, the sales of firearms skyrocketed: people were convinced that he was going to outlaw gun sales the next day. This provides an idea of the sort of mentalities we're dealing with.

What is generally ignored is the fact that the murder rate in the United States is 6.5 times greater than other high-income countries and death by firearms is 19 times greater than other high income countries: this includes murder, suicide and accidental death by firearms. You know. Little Johnny finds Daddy's loaded pistol he forgot to put away and blows off his little brother's head of which there are many similar cases. My question is, how do those parents manage to live the rest of their lives? I'll bet my bottom dollar that they continue to keep firearms in their homes. Which brings up another statistic: A person living in a home with firearm(s) is 33 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound than one living in a home without firearms.

If this mental case lurking in a darkened theater had not had a firearm (an automatic weapon yet) available to him, what WOULD he have used? A knife? A sword? A hatchet? Maybe strangulation with a length of rope. A blackjack? How far would he have gotten? Would he even have considered undertaking this action if an automatic firearm had not been so readily available?

It's important to realize the relative ease which a firearm, especially an automatic weapon, provides. (When the Constitution was being drafted, I suppose the firearms being considered were muskets--something that probably takes at least a full minute to reload after one shot if you're good at it). I suppose using an automatic firearm is probably as easy as using a TV remote control. It all done from a distance with the push of a button. You, yourself, are not physically involved--you don't even get your hands soiled. I, personally, wouldn't know. The only weapon I ever fired was my cousin's bb gun when I was eleven or so. I don't feel that I have missed out on very much in that regard.

Apparently, following the terrible massacre that occurred in Tasmania some years ago, the Australian government instituted rational gun control laws, resulting in a dramatic decrease in deaths by firearms -- something, alas, Americans seem simply too stupid to even consider.

The famous writer H.L. Mencken once said, "Democracy is based on the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it -- good and hard.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:20:26 PM PDT
Re: "I don't believe that Norman Bates was gay; cross dressing is often a straight man's fetish."<

I think it's left open, and is ultimately irrelevant. Look at Victor Buono's mama's boy in 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' (1962)... many have commented on his character being gay (supposedly Buono was gay in real life) but they didn't camp it up at all, unlike in the '90s remake.
Seems to me it's as likely that Buono is asexual in that role, as any other possibility. Unlike Norman Bates, there didn't seem to be any repression urge compelling him.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:20:37 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
True. I guess Norman was more transgender with a dash of split personality and a kitchen utensil fetish topped off with an anti-social vouyeristic geekiness.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:28:47 PM PDT
J. Fields,

Yeah...I think the cross-dressing thing was just something to kink up the character of Bates, to portray and odd, forbidden 'window dressing' as we peer into his deranged mind. I think the kinky dressing is there not to make people fear deviant sexual impulses, but to disguise the fact that the psychological portrait lacks depth. It's no more about playing off the fear of cross-dressers than taxidermists.

So, if Hitch is to be charged with homophobia, make it a duel charge of being an Anti-Taxidermite as well!
Also, not a particularly sensitive film choice to watch on Mother's Day.

Alright, I'm done going Off Topic.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:33:57 PM PDT
J. Fields : "anti-social vouyeristic geekiness"

That last charge could probably be leveled at everyone on the internet, to some extent!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:34:06 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
I forgot he was a taxidermist! See the blatant references to "stuffing" and "stiff". Definite homophobia.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:34:56 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
It is sort of awesome when you put it that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:37:02 PM PDT
J. Fields says:
Ya know, i still think the intention of that amendment was more about a militia defending their country than a guy defending his flatscreen tv from home invaders.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 7:54:11 PM PDT
>J. F. : "the intention of that amendment was more about a militia defending their country than a guy defending his flatscreen tv from home invaders."<

Or using automatic rifles to take down a Rocky Mountain Elk ... or Bambi's mother.

I'm also skeptical that the Founders and writers of the Second Amendment would not have revised their phrasing had they known of all the modern weaponry available now to the public, which they couldn't have dreamed of then.

Posted on Jul 21, 2012, 8:29:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2012, 9:16:23 PM PDT
S. Stalcup says:
If you really want to go back to the glamorizing of villains and violence, hop in the Wayback Machine with Peabody and Sherman and go see one of the medieval cycles performed. I don't mean the re-enactments Alexandra Johnston used to do (may still) at U of Toronto, but who did the peasants think was the coolest character in those plays? If you guessed Satan, you win a year's supply of Rice A Roni!

Now back on the discussion of pre-Stonewall depictions of transgendered characters in film. Some of us know better now, and sadly some of us don't, but in films made when homosexuality was still regarded as a mental disorder by the APA, and sex and gender were conflated, the notion of someone presenting as a member of the opposite sex immediately was equated with wanting to be treated the way the opposite sex was treated by someone who was their same biological sex and because it transgressed societal norms, unless they looked like Christine Jorgensen, guess what? To be a crossdresser (specifically male to female) was to be gay, mentally unstable, and . . . THE BADDIE.

For further reference see the brilliant film The Celluloid Closet
Or read the equally fascinating, exhaustive Marjorie Garber text Vested Interests: Cross-dressing and Cultural Anxiety

EDIT: Jeez, even when I try being helpful and properly academic I get unhelpfuls. I cordially extend an invite to onanism as well as the two fingered salute of the mother country to the guilty party. Doubtlessly the invite to onanism is nothing new as I doubt anyone would willingly participate with you IN sexual congress.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 9:17:30 PM PDT
S. Stalcup,

Oh, come off it, I'm sure that sophisticated audiences since the 1910s and before, knew well enough how to tell the difference between cross-dressing characters, and those wanting sex from the same gender, and it wasn't to present them as a "baddie" or mentally ill most of the time...





I could go on and on. . .

It's not like people were clueless, intolerant cavemen before Stonewall. That's modern, myopic cartoon thinking, Mr. Stalcup Magoo.

And now I've veered off topic here for the last time on this subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 21, 2012, 9:53:01 PM PDT
AndrewA says:
Bullets kill more people than guns or criminals do.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  46
Total posts:  326
Initial post:  Jul 20, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 17, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers