[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BADASSES

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 64744)
Message
File  []
close
23564794-7902277-image-m-56_1579366222493.jpg
647446474464744
>> No. 64744 Auntiefucker
19th January 2020
Sunday 9:18 am
64744 spacer
The ironing is delicious.
Expand all images.
>> No. 64745 YubYub
19th January 2020
Sunday 9:19 am
64745 spacer

23564796-7902277-image-a-57_1579366228844.jpg
647456474564745

>> No. 64746 Samefag
19th January 2020
Sunday 10:24 am
64746 spacer
Trolled to tears.

I've no idea about fox's personal life, but he's always played middle class privileged characters so I always assume that's what he is.

Shame it has to be someone from that background to speak truths like these.
>> No. 64747 Samefag
19th January 2020
Sunday 10:48 am
64747 spacer
>>64746
He was expelled from Harrow and there's a long line of actors in his family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Fox_family

The woman during the exchange at QT lectures on race and ethnicity at Edge Hill University. I sort of wonder with people like her whether they actually believe what they're saying or they know it's outright bollocks but have managed to carve a lucrative career by effectively creating a pyramid scheme.
>> No. 64748 Samefag
19th January 2020
Sunday 10:56 am
64748 spacer
Wow couple of Ben Shapiros in this thread.

So you're affirming white privilege isn't a thing?
>> No. 64749 Ambulancelad
19th January 2020
Sunday 11:07 am
64749 spacer
>>64748

Yeah, because it isn't.

White class privilege is a thing but so is black class privilege, or brown or yellow.

The colour of your skin makes very little difference compared to your social class and wealth.
>> No. 64750 Auntiefucker
19th January 2020
Sunday 11:11 am
64750 spacer
>>64749
>THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN MAKES VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE COMPARED TO YOUR SOCIAL CLASS AND WEALTH.

Come on lad. Not even in /iq/ could you get away with this shit.
>> No. 64751 Billbob
19th January 2020
Sunday 11:12 am
64751 spacer
>>64749
Oh sorry I thought you were in the mould of Shapiro but you actually one of these racist Marxists. Well at least it's clearer which outdated school of ideas is being subscribed to here.
>> No. 64752 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 11:52 am
64752 spacer
>>64748
Privilege is very much a thing, but breaking it down into things like white privilege or male privilege is divisive and tends to do more harm than good. It leads to the misguided notion that all white men are privilege. All those white men in scunthorpe who've been unable to find a job since the steel Mills were shut down apparently are in a very advantaged position; they don't know what struggle.

The notion that a white man can't give a differing opinion on something is ludicrous. One that apparently means he can be called a fascist and equated with the kkk. If lily Allen, lily fucking Allen, is telling someone to stop talking about things they don't understand and to stop forcing their opinions on everyone else then everything has clearly gone too far.
>> No. 64753 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 12:27 pm
64753 spacer
>>64751

It's not my fault all the other Marxists have succumb to a form of brain parasite that leaves them fighting shadows instead of advancing a cause that will do more good for a greater number of people. If believing wealth inequality should be addressed primarily above all other inequalities makes me a racist then so fucking be it.
>> No. 64754 Searchfag
19th January 2020
Sunday 1:16 pm
64754 spacer
Lilly Allen doesn't force her opinions on people though. She just makes social media posts that the Daily Mail writes articles about to rile up its half-retarded readership.
>> No. 64755 Crabkiller
19th January 2020
Sunday 1:29 pm
64755 spacer

Lily_Allen.jpg
647556475564755
>>64754
>> No. 64756 Searchfag
19th January 2020
Sunday 2:42 pm
64756 spacer
>>64752
>breaking it down into things like white privilege or male privilege is divisive and tends to do more harm than good
This is very hand-wavey. Can you explain how dolphin rape and actual maritime issues are supposed to be challenged if imbalances of power can never be acknowledged?

>It leads to the misguided notion that all white men are privilege
For white and male privilege, yes, this is correct. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by the terms? Case in point:

>All those white men in scunthorpe who've been unable to find a job since the steel Mills were shut down apparently are in a very advantaged position
This is irrelevant to the concept. White privilege doesn't mean 'not oppressed'. It means 'not oppressed for your race'. You're talking about people who, in this instance, are being disadvantaged because of class/wealth. People can be disadvantaged in a variety of ways.

>One that apparently means he can be called a fascist and equated with the kkk
Has anyone actually done that outside of your imagination, lad?
>> No. 64757 Auntiefucker
19th January 2020
Sunday 2:51 pm
64757 spacer
>>64756
>THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT. WHITE PRIVILEGE DOESN'T MEAN 'NOT OPPRESSED'. IT MEANS 'NOT OPPRESSED FOR YOUR RACE'. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO, IN THIS INSTANCE, ARE BEING DISADVANTAGED BECAUSE OF CLASS/WEALTH. PEOPLE CAN BE DISADVANTAGED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.

In the world you're defending a white male with nothing must be self aware enough to do some self reflection and accept that he has more than a black woman with nothing. While I agree that white men are just generally better than other races or sexes I believe this is a bit too much of a burden to place on a man with nothing while the chinless cousin fuckers from the shires ride roughshod over both the white men and the black women.

Maybe once we've solved the massive inequalities like that we can start to work out which race is better.
>> No. 64758 R4GE
19th January 2020
Sunday 3:28 pm
64758 spacer
I just think we should treat people as individuals with unique personal struggles. The reason addressing privilege meets such a negative reaction, even amongst those it aims to help, is that identity politics chips away at our dignity as human beings and is something best left in the 10s.

Does this make me a fascist or a libtard?
>> No. 64759 Searchfag
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:01 pm
64759 spacer
>>64758
It's more the age of the narcissist than anything else. Valuing the individual over the collective.
>> No. 64760 Searchfag
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:34 pm
64760 spacer
>>64759
Only I feel, and ironically I'm aware that I'm making this all about me, the guiding principle and success of our liberal society is the individual. The next labour leader shouldn't be a woman, it should be the one who holds the best character, acumen and beliefs for the job.

To take this in a more theological angle, a good deed isn't about pleasing the collective but in doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Narcissism is in the why and what you do.
>> No. 64761 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:49 pm
64761 spacer
>>64758
I don't think it makes you either, just a bit naive. If folk from Wakefield got eggs chucked at them whenever they left Wakefield and it happened to about 80% of people from Wakey, the suggestion that you just need to be a more exemplary Wakefieldoid wouldn't probably feel like quite hollow advice. You'd probably prefer it if something was done about the egg throwing, or even the beliefs and ideas that encouraged it in the first place.

This arsehole on QT pissing and moaning about having facts about his background pointed out is just insecure because the truth of the matter is lads of his age who spent their GCSE/A Level years getting pissed and shagging around rather than revising usually can't get their daddy to put in a good word at RADA after coasting through their time at Harrow. He can pretend it's unfair to have that highlighted, but what's actually unfair is that some people wind up in significant hardship because they were playing silly buggers when they were 17 rather than being given the means to live a safe and stress free life. I'm not saying everyone should be given an uncnoditional offer at RADA, but the system we've got now creates cycles of despair and forces people to suffer because well fucking loads of reasons really, but in part because people like QT-Cunt are literally incapable of understanding how fortunate they are. They genuinely don't have the life experiences to fathom what being an anxiety ridden pauper is like. It's not far removed from the "is you've got a fridge and a flat screen telly you can't be poor" mindset. I, personally, don't know how shit it is being out on the streets camping in a bush off the highstreet, but I've made a decision to trust that it's fucking horrible. Whereas someone like QT-Cunt have made the inverse to decision to assume that those who struggle more are just pissing and moaning for the sake of it.

Fuck QT-Cunt. Slash his tires, bleach his lawn, burn down his shed, that'll give him something to whinge about.

Now fuck off because I was sick of this story the moment it broke.
>> No. 64762 YubYub
19th January 2020
Sunday 4:56 pm
64762 spacer
>>64761
>THIS ARSEHOLE ON QT PISSING AND MOANING ABOUT HAVING FACTS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND POINTED OUT

It was used to dismiss his viewpoint. His opinion was that the press attacks on meghan markle weren't driven by dolphin rape. Whether you agree with him or not, there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's a valid opinion, you shouldn't say someone's beliefs don't count because of [skin colour/sex/upbringing].
>> No. 64763 YubYub
19th January 2020
Sunday 5:07 pm
64763 spacer
>>64762

It's dangerous to say that. A person's background contributes massively to who they are and what they believe unless that person has done massive introspection on their beliefs. If we allow ourselves to lose such a potent tool against the bourgeoisie because it's easier than slapping anyone who says the word privilege we deserve to be slaves.
>> No. 64764 Crabkiller
19th January 2020
Sunday 5:23 pm
64764 spacer
>>64763
There's something very wrong with this post but i lack the capacity to decypher it.
It seems perfectly reasonable to cosider an idea by its own merit rather than who expressed it.
>> No. 64765 Ambulancelad
19th January 2020
Sunday 5:23 pm
64765 spacer
>>64763
So why does being a white man specifically bar you from having an opinion on how the press have been treating markle?
>> No. 64766 Anonymous
19th January 2020
Sunday 5:55 pm
64766 spacer
>>64764
>>64765

If Sandra, working mum of 8 tells me why zero hours contracts are great for her and therefore great for everyone I'll take the time to explain why they're awful for society. If Lord Earl Earlington III of Derbyshire tries to tell me why zero hours contracts are great I'm going to tell him to stuff it because his background does not meet the minimum experience required for the position of eating up my time while I explain why he's wrong.

>IT SEEMS PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO COSIDER AN IDEA BY ITS OWN MERIT RATHER THAN WHO EXPRESSED IT.
Only if you assume horse owning cousin fuckers are arguing in good faith. They're usually not.
>> No. 64767 Moralfag
19th January 2020
Sunday 6:03 pm
64767 spacer
>>64764
He's resorting to ad hominem which is all this argument is about. It should be possible to prove that Princess Not-A-Former-Boat-Whore is subject to racist treatment and by that I mean something that goes beyond usual criticism on account of her race. As an addition it should be possible to show an area where something or other has been missed because of white privilege.

Unfortunately people such as >>64761 lack the capacity to demonstrate and articulate such a argument. Something that is perhaps encouraged as the royal dolphin rape argument emerged from twitter where there's a word-count and you're rewarded for strong opinions.
>> No. 64768 YubYub
19th January 2020
Sunday 6:10 pm
64768 spacer
>>64766
That doesn't explain why an opinion by Laurence Fox on the press treatment of Markle should be outright dismissed.

The press were extremely hostile to Diana before her death and also to Sarah Ferguson, dubbed the duchess of pork. The Mail weren't exactly keen on Kate Middleton before she was married to William, with regular articles calling her 'waity katie', disparaging her for being a 'commoner' and her parents for raising their daughters to be social climbing gold-diggers.

You might not agree with this viewpoint, but outright dismissing it because it was raised by a white man when it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold means people are less likely to take you seriously on an occasion where pointing out privilege is actually relevant and applicable.
>> No. 64769 Samefag
19th January 2020
Sunday 6:45 pm
64769 spacer
>>64763
>>64766
Nothing of the character(s) displayed here has convinced me to consider the arguement as valid.
>> No. 64776 Auntiefucker
20th January 2020
Monday 11:53 am
64776 spacer
When people seem to care more about calling things crypto racist, because they have no evidence that they are actually racist to the point that they raise above what is demonstrably privileged such as wealth or power, and the absence there of as signs of not being privileged. I am lead to conclude that the Unabomber was right about this all being a distraction from the point, and capitalism will slip back into feudalism long before we even tackle a fairer distribution of prosperity in our society.
>> No. 64782 Auntiefucker
20th January 2020
Monday 7:07 pm
64782 spacer
There's an article in the Graun about QT following last week's episode. The more popular comments btl tend to supportive of fox and disagreeing with the writer's view of what happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/20/question-time-jump-the-shark-laurence-fox

I'm going off on a tangent here, but how come there is such a disconnect between the stance often taken by the paper and its readership? There's been a number of occasions where the editorial output has been completely at odds with the views of its readers. I can't think of any paper in this country with such a wide chasm. I don't know why it exists. Perhaps it's because other sites have a paywall so telegraph readers and the like have decided to troll the comments of the Graun instead. Perhaps it's because it's pretty much the only paper in the country that's left of centre so this is where all lefties end up, regardless of whether they're a little bit left or full blown crusty. Perhaps it's because 4he paper is often detached from reality. I dunno.
>> No. 64787 R4GE
20th January 2020
Monday 10:29 pm
64787 spacer
>>64782

I think it's a combination of journo detachment and the fact it's shifted strongly towards clickbait recently. Editorial contributors like toynbee and Jones often use inflammatory provocative clickbait headlines and seem to intentionally lean into the daft, out of touch type of middle class cuckoo liberalism that passes off sensible lefties as well as mail readers.
>> No. 64788 YubYub
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:37 am
64788 spacer
Actor Laurence Fox slams Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes over 'incongruous' Sikh soldier in blockbuster movie 1917 as he says 'forcing diversity on people' is 'institutionally racist'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7909283/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Laurence-Fox-goes-war-Sam-Mendes-Sikh-soldier-movie-1917.html

Okay, so it turns out he's an arse. Broken clicks and that.
>> No. 64791 Paedofag
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:29 pm
64791 spacer
>>64788
Have people already forgotten the Gurkhas?
>> No. 64792 YubYub
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:35 pm
64792 spacer
>>64791
Someone send for lumley!
>> No. 64793 YubYub
21st January 2020
Tuesday 1:39 pm
64793 spacer
>>64782
The disconnect between writers and readers is rampant throughout the legacy media.
Just look at the comments of any Daily Mail article about cannabis - The DM is constantly trying to demonise and call for harsher enforcement/punishment yet the top rated comments are all pro-legalisation.
>> No. 64794 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 2:35 pm
64794 spacer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re7K2SGMmHU
Oh look, absolutely fucking nothing. Just people reacting on social media. Who'd have thought?
>> No. 64795 Crabkiller
21st January 2020
Tuesday 4:15 pm
64795 spacer
>>64793

By the same token, the kind of twarts who comment on newspaper articles are not representative of the electorate as a whole.
>> No. 64796 Paedofag
21st January 2020
Tuesday 5:29 pm
64796 spacer

2020-01-21-cglies.gif
647966479664796
>>64793
>>64794
>>64795
So really when you think about it, everything we read and watch is a load of bollocks made by media twats and boorish idiots. Maybe we should go back to the days when we were fed lines direct from institutions and experts? At least back then we had the warm feeling of establishment jingoism.

Question Time was a mistake. Although the other lad was clearly talking about readership rather than electorate, riling people up seems to be a business strategy these days.
>> No. 64797 Anonymous
21st January 2020
Tuesday 5:36 pm
64797 spacer
>>64796

>> No. 64798 Billbob
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:20 pm
64798 spacer
>>64788

Sounds like he's just cottoned on to the fact that being in the middle of a media shitstorm like this is both lucrative and ultimately relatively harmless to your longer term career; the fact he doesn't appear to have had much of one lately being not uncoincidental. Wasn't he the cowardly poof brigade captain in deathwatch? pretty sure that's the last time I saw him in owt, ironically a world war one film so historically accurate it had possessed barbed wire in it.

I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war but largely in indian regiments from actual india. if it's just riz ahmed playing corporal sunil who happens to be part of the 23rd north yorks regiment yeah that will be pretty disconcerting. this is like what happened in battlefield- I feel like a lot of people (fox not included) aren't actually being racist when they complain about racial hisorical innacuracy, they're just being anal. Have you ever seen the TV tropes page for trains painted the wrong livery in historical films, for fuck's sake?
>> No. 64799 Auntiefucker
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:36 pm
64799 spacer
>>64798
>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war but largely in indian regiments from actual india.
You spent a lot of time complaining about Tomb Raider on the grounds that most of the actual archaeologists were men, right? Nobody ever complained about historical accuracy in games until it became a social justice thing where all the racists got triggered.
>> No. 64800 Crabkiller
21st January 2020
Tuesday 6:42 pm
64800 spacer
>>64799
>YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME COMPLAINING ABOUT TOMB RAIDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT MOST OF THE ACTUAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS WERE MEN

It's surprising there isn't more female archaeologists, seeing as they're fucking experts at digging up the past.
>> No. 64801 Searchfag
21st January 2020
Tuesday 7:05 pm
64801 spacer
>>64798
Mate the Indian Army was fighting in France from the very beginning of the war, because we were too pussy to send white people. Operation Get Behind The Darkies.

Does that address your concerns?
>> No. 64802 Searchfag
21st January 2020
Tuesday 7:21 pm
64802 spacer
>>64799
I for one have always been sceptical of Lara Croft's credentials. For an archaeologist she spends an awful lot of time chasing rare artefacts and an awful lot less time writing papers on the many ruins she discovers.

>NOBODY EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT HISTORICAL ACCURACY IN GAMES

BF1 was an travesty and you full know it. There is a real difference between elements made necessary for the purposes of core gameplay (AoE's RTS elements for example) and playing silly buggers because you don't like history.

Even then I remember the historical narrative presented in old Civilization and AoE games was rightly criticised as all too linear.
>> No. 64803 Paedofag
21st January 2020
Tuesday 7:23 pm
64803 spacer
>>64799

Why do carpet-baggers like you insist that anyone who holds X belief must also hold Y belief? Can't someone care about WWI without having an ulterior motive about keeping the darkies and the womenfolk in their place? Why does everyone who cares about WWI also have to be a racist, whale poacheric cunt who wanked themselves silly over Lara Croft in your mind?

It's all a very American idea. Everything a person believes is rooted in either some form of ism or some kind of anti-ism. No mate, in this country we're just autistic little spackers who really fucking care about our niche subjects of interest. If you don't want to hear why the olive colour on the uniforms is half a shade out and why the khaki colour on the skin of the racist inserts is 3 shades out maybe you should fuck off to an interest without hundreds of thousands of people who autistically obsess over it.
>> No. 64804 Are Moaty
21st January 2020
Tuesday 7:58 pm
64804 spacer
>>64803
>WHY DO CARPET-BAGGERS LIKE YOU INSIST THAT ANYONE WHO HOLDS X BELIEF MUST ALSO HOLD Y BELIEF?

It's just online discussions all over.

"I prefer dogs over cats."
"That must mean you hate cats then. I bet you torture them and pin their dead bodies onto their owner's doors. You sick animal torturing fascist."
>> No. 64805 R4GE
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 12:02 am
64805 spacer
>>64801

I'm a little bit alarmed at how you've managed to misinterpret my post so wildly mate. try reading it again slowly.

>>64799

since when was tomb raider, a game where there were literal dinosaurs, based on anything resembling real world history? i feel like you could have made a point here if you'd thought a bit harder.

And for both your sake's here's the apex of historical accuracy autism i mentioned.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustTrainWrong

>Enigma features 1950s Mk1 British Rail Stock (with Eastern Region numbering) in a scene that takes place near Bletchley in 1943. This is quite common due to the large number of BR Mk1s in preservation (and the large number built; they were a standard carriage used throughout the system, replacing many previous designs, and the last of them weren't taken out of service until 2005), compared to the accurate pre-war types which are in comparison quite rare. The Mk1s are also all steel construction, whereas earlier types were often wooden framed or wooden bodied, which didn't help their survival.

When people are willing to go to those lengths to spot something out of place in a historical production, you shouldn't be at all surprised when they get up in arms about conspicuous brown people.

And again, for clarity, I'm not saying there weren't any brown people on the western front. there were at least 300,000, the number of troops india committed to the colonial call to arms. much greater numbers were committed to the conflict with the ottomman empire.

What's exceedingly unlikely, however, is that they'd turn up in regular tommy regiments.
>> No. 64806 Anonymous
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 2:44 pm
64806 spacer
>>64804
Never forget that Hitler was a dog person.
>> No. 64807 YubYub
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 2:54 pm
64807 spacer
>>64805
>i feel like you could have made a point here if you'd thought a bit harder.
I'd had most of a bottle of mezcal before I posted that.
>> No. 64808 YubYub
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 6:20 pm
64808 spacer
>>64805
>WHAT'S EXCEEDINGLY UNLIKELY, HOWEVER, IS THAT THEY'D TURN UP IN REGULAR TOMMY REGIMENTS.

So in this film, despite having not seen it, you are asserting that said Sikh soldier is part of a British regiment?
>> No. 64809 Ambulancelad
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 6:29 pm
64809 spacer
>>64808

No, i specifically said I was going to reserve judgement until I had seen it. do you have the attention span to check that far back? okay, here, i'll do it for you.

>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it, naturally there were sikh soldiers in the great war

Did you catch that?

>I'll reserve judgement over 1917 until I've seen it

You're really trying very hard to be offended over a post that really had nothing to be offended over mate. i was very clearly not even defending fox's statements, so i don't know why exactly you think i'm part of the horrible racist brigade, other than perhaps because you're a mentally feeble fuckwit who sees phantom discrimination in every blade of fucking grass.
>> No. 64810 Samefag
22nd January 2020
Wednesday 9:23 pm
64810 spacer
>>64809
No need to have a teary, mate.
>> No. 64811 Are Moaty
23rd January 2020
Thursday 1:18 pm
64811 spacer
Lads, I'm going to reserve judgment on Planet of the Apes until I've seen it, but I think it's really unlikely for astronauts to go into space and then just happen to land on a planet where apes and humans have their roles reversed but are otherwise exactly the same as on Earth, and not only that but speak English too.

Like I said I'll reserve judgement until I see it but I understand why this heavy-handed metaphor just doesn't land because it stretches the bounds of believability.
>> No. 64812 Billbob
23rd January 2020
Thursday 5:24 pm
64812 spacer
>>64811

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30456703/1917-movie-based-on-true-story/
>1917 Is Based On a Harrowing True WWI Story From Director Sam Mendes's Grandfather

https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/1917-true-story-film-historical-accuracy-first-world-war-sam-mendes-accuracy-explained-1358467
>1917 is something of a true story, loosely based on a tale the director's grandfather - Alfred H. Mendes, who served with the British Army during the First World War - told him as a child.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/1917/
>Though much of the World War I movie 1917 is fiction, it is loosely based on an account that director Sam Mendes' paternal grandfather, Alfred Mendes, told to him when he was a boy.

Some bloke down the pub.
>No mate for the last time Planet of the Primates of Hair was not based on a true story, now fuck off, you're barred.

My hairdresser.
>How did you get in here? What time is it? Who are you? OH MY GOD I'M CALLING THE POLICE!

My arresting officer.
>No mate, Planet of the Urban Youth was not based on a true story.
>> No. 64813 Billbob
23rd January 2020
Thursday 5:29 pm
64813 spacer
>>64812
>PLANET OF THE PRIMATES OF HAIR

These word filters are getting out of hand.
>> No. 64815 Searchfag
24th January 2020
Friday 2:17 pm
64815 spacer
So, true to my word I went to see 1917 so i can pass judgement on it.

fucking great film actually, i can only fault it for one slow scene that felt somewhat forced in the middle of an otherwise consistently tense runtime. even the two chavs in the back corner of the cinema shut their gobs after five minutes and i'm convinced i heard one of them sniffling in the emotional bits.

as for our out of place sikh, it really wasn't distracting from the film. he is dressed in regular tommy attire, but he's clearly shown as a foreigner with basic english and one of the other lads even gives him a jibe about barely knowing the language. i've not bothered googling it to see how many sikhs there actually were in british regiments as opposed to colonials, but in this film it didn't feel out of place. it could have been done badly, but it wasn't.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password