Just rewatched Being There

No. Though your post is eerily stupid and pointless.

and changed the ending.

That should be -

and changed the ending from the one in the book.

If I were one to play junior mod, I’d–oh nevermind.

[Moderator Speaketh:] Your better response, lissener, is to hit REPORT THIS POST button. Then you don’t need to play junior-mod or to comment at all.

RikWriter, you should know better. There’s a fine point here: you’re insulting the “post”, not the poster, and I’ll accept “pointless” as refering to the post. But “stupid” clearly refers to the poster, not the post, and thus is not acceptable in this forum. Consider yourself abashed, and I want you to throw some money in some charity jar in atonement. [/Moderator Speaketh]

As Moderator, I’m ruling that “pointless” is acceptable, but as a poster, I don’t think it’s applicable. The question of whether a movie about how politics is manipulated is fair game, and neither “stupid” nor “pointless.” There have been several such movies, such as WAG THE DOG, if you’d like another one.

“The leaves will be green in the spring.”

That is as cogent a statement as I’ve heard any number of real life political-types make.

Totally inaccurate. Stupid can refer to an idea, an action, a statement or a person. In this case, I made it very clear it referred to a statement made by lissener. His comparison was stupid and pointless. That doesn’t make HIM stupid…I really don’t know him well enough to make that judgment.

Ha[sub] …[/sub]irs
Just to avoid wossname, I have edited the thread title so it can be a general discussion about relevancy to politicians over the last few decades, rather than the specific Bush-bashing (which would be moved to a different forum.)

She (Shirley) apparently (no cite) once said that that was the single most embarrassing scene she’d ever had to do.

I watched it for the first time ever a few weeks ago.

Very funny concept, and a great character by Sellers, but it just dragged on and on after a while. As a matter of fact, I think I turned it off when Shirley started rolling on the floor.

A more interesting satire of culture than any particular politician.

[SPOILER DELETED BY MODERATOR–CKDH]

I saw it a couple months back, for the first time. The version Netflix circulates has the outtakes.

So, was the ending just a representation of Chauncey’s mind wandering, or perhaps a “surreal” moment inserted for surrealism’s sake, or was the writer trying to imply that Chauncey was the second coming of Christ?

Interesting… When I saw it three or four years ago, from Netflix, there were no outtakes.

I think it was a little of both. Mostly, I think the director was showing just how surreal the whole situation is. I don’t think he meant to imply that Chance *was *Christ; only that the political process was capable of making people believe he was Christ. I think it was a cynical joke that took the entire premis of the movie to its bizarre, and absurd, conclusion.

Yes; she absolutely hated it.

Although you certainly have made a habit of such sentiments in other forums, so I’d take it as read. Dropping this; start a thread elsewhere if you want to pursue it.

Thanks, CK; I apologize for setting such a stage. It was not my understanding that political content is verboten in CS, but I’ll keep such in mind in future. I thought about posting this elsewhere, but thought that this would mean the movie would not be the main subject of discussion. Relating a film to real-life situations does not seem unCS to me. Even if the the real-life situation is a contentious one, I believe it’s possible to have such a discussion in a manner entirely consistent with the mandated civility of CS (that is, if hypothetical kneejerk blowhards were to keep that tone in mind and refrain from derailing the discussion in such a way as necessitates title editing). Nonetheless, I’ll try to keep my CS threads politics-free, and of course I’ll refrain from poisoning any CS threads with Pit posts.

I would hesitate to say that Cafe Society is entirely immune from politics, but I’m hard-pressed to think of an example of what might be OK. I suppose that the political background for Swift’s satires, those would be OK.

Trunk, hiding an anti-Bush comment in a spoiler, when the Moderator has expressly said NONE OF THAT HERE, is offensive, insulting to the Moderator, and damn close to a warnable offense.

If you can’t play nice, you can’t play.

Next offense, and this thread is closed and the person violating the rules is outta here.

Other forums? In which other forums have you and I interacted, exactly?