I was more inclined to think “The Lottery” was Shirley Jackson venting about how much she hated her neighbors in small-town America.
TODAY, Bennington, Vermont is synonymous with liberalism, but in her day, it seemed like a backward village populated by narrow-minded, provincial rubes.
Shutter Island with Leonardo DiCaprio. That is one weird movie.
I’m not sure this is missing the whole point, but I have read To Kill a Mockingbird dozens of times. My daughter pointed out the whole story was about how Jem broke his elbow.
[QUOTE=Opening Lines]
When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow. When it healed, and Jem’s fears of never being able to play football were assuaged, he was seldom self-conscious about his injury. His left arm was somewhat shorter than his right; when he stood or walked, the back of his hand was at right angles to his body, his thumb parallel to his thigh. He couldn’t have cared less, so long as he could pass and punt.
When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, we sometimes discussed the events leading to his accident.
[/QUOTE]
I think it was made at a time (1967) when the mere act of rebellion was something to celebrate and admire. I’ve had the same feeling as you when watching it recently. The Captain and bosses on the chain gang are tyrants (and so is Dragline, in his way) and it’s nice to see someone stand up to them. But if you’re gonna fight for something, can’t you find a cause a little more noble than cutting the heads off parking meters?
I saw it differently. Keefer was the villain as well as a coward. He constantly pressed Maryk to go behind Queeg’s back as soon as he get’s there. Maryk didn’t want to at first. Keefer only backs off on the witness stand when he realizes it might get hisself in trouble.
From wiki:
When I took a college Machiavelli course in the late '80s, that was a trendy theory. Not sure it’s widely accepted in academia these days.
Would you think differently if it were in semaphore?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91_jymgH8QY
Good to know he’ll still be getting work then.
Elendill’s Heir it does go against the theme of the rest of the man’s writings.
2001, A Space Odyssey. I have seen it over a dozen times. Read the books.
And it still baffles me.
It wasn’t until the third viewing of “Fargo” that I understood the importance of the scene between Marge and her classmate at the restaurant. At first, it seemed kind of shoehorned in, a way to break rhythm in the movie.
On the third viewing (and my then-girlfriend’s second), it really clicked in my mind. Up until then, Frances McDormand was just kinda taking everyone at face value.
When she finds out that her classmate has had emotional problems, it occurred to me at the same time that it registered with her that she really needed to dig deeper into the kidnapping.
I saw Big Trouble In Little China when it first came out. It was only when I saw it again last year that I realised: Kurt Russell’s not the hero – he’s the comedy sidekick. :smack:
I don’t think being confused by the ending is missing the point. 
There is a short story called The Humanist Jew where the title character is hidden by his assistants during WWII, who care for him and protect him for the rest of his life. They just don’t tell him that WWII is over. When I first read it, I thought it was alternate history, and a happy ending. I read it again, realized it was not alternate history - but I couldn’t be sure it wasn’t a happy ending.
It was the final line of the story.
“It is clear that Herr (I can’t remember the title characters name) will die a happy man - holding in each hand the hand of a loyal friend. And with the satisfaction of having been proven right.”
Is that a happy ending? His “loyal friends” have stolen his factory and lied to him. But he is happy, and thinks his faith in them and in humanity is justified. Which is better - truth, or happiness?
Regards,
Shodan
The first time I read The Catcher in the Rye I was in junior high school and thought it was just a funny book. As in, it was supposed to be a comedy. Since then I have read it a number of times and while there are parts that still make me laugh, it most certainly is not a comedy.
This thread has me rethinking the whole Caine issue, especially Greenwald’s speech about how Queeg is career Navy and they are civilians dressed in blue. Could it be that Queeg’s actions are based on his idea that “I’ve been here for years and you haven’t - therefore I know what I’m doing and you don’t” I know a lot of business managers like that and many act just like Queeg (minus the ball bearings).
As a hijack, how did Tom Tully get an Oscar nomination from that movie?
When I took Honors English in high school we had to read Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Not a single student in the class understood the satire. (Including me)
I first saw The Phantom of the Paradise when I was 11 and was expecting a straight-up horror film, and was confused by some parts being sort of goofy. It wasn’t until I saw it again in college that I realized it was a satire of the music business and a comedy, with a few horror elements thrown in to punch up the satire.
All these years later (I saw the MAD parody in the mid-60s), I still think of that line every time I see or hear a *Caine *reference.