What Are Your Favorite DEEP Films Worth Re-watching?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, August 14, 2023 19:42
VIEWED: 12501
PAGE 6 of 9

No JSF, the point of the film was not the inevitable massacre of the Native American, that was a by product. The point of the film was the clashing of two cultures and how a white man, once a European, took a moment to try to understand the Civil War - whites fighting over slavery - and also fighting to conquer a people
that he was told were "savages" and didn't deserve the land of their ancestors.

Build a Fucking Wall, are you kidding me!?

This country was built on FREEDOM, and there were no people freer than the Native American. The early settlers were shown how to survive the harsh winters in the northeast. The Tainos welcomed the Spanish Conquistadores with the open arms of friendship; and what did those greedy bastards do? They enslaved them and had them
extracting the gold, silver and spices of the island to bring back to the King & Queen of Spain. They brutally killed them and exposed them to diseases, so soon after they brought black slaves to continue robbing the precious metals and so forth. Sound familiar!?

But Costner was trying to show how walking in another man's moccasins could change one's perspective. Listen to the words in Dances with Wolves. Even his Native American name describes who he was as a man, rather than just a name of identification. Stands with a Fist told her story of how she "earned" her named. Wind in his Hair spoke freely from his heart without any forethought and he was a brave warrior. Kicking Bird....I could go on. This was a story about a man discovering that war was about not compromising, not understanding and falling short of the possibilities. It was about discovering himself by understanding the truth of the matter: that we are all in a tribe.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and destroy the tribe?

---

The very last few scenes when Costner's character and his wife were riding off separate from the Dakota. Those scenes showed what would become the end of an entire culture JSF. The Horse culture that was part of my ancestors and the Cheyenne and the Dakota and the Crow was coming to an end. That band would end up on a reservation. Way of life GONE.

Also at the end of the film, he wasn't in the army anymore. He had become Indian.

---

OK. So you are not upset that he tried to stave off the inevitable by returning to the Army so they would stop hunting down the tribe. You're only bemoaning the inevitable, the point of the film.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Well... this thread got too political for me. SGG coming in and putting a thick coating of white guilt on it sealed the deal for me.

It's a shame we can't discuss anything here without politics muddying the waters.

---

I invite you to reconsider.
The conversation about some films which nobody has nominated for the category of this thread topic may be a tad off the topic, but I was/am willing to discuss them with other film fans.

However, I also would enjoy discussing other nominees for the category of DEEP films worth re-watching. Do you have some in mind?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.

---

Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and destroy the tribe?

---

The very last few scenes when Costner's character and his wife were riding off separate from the Dakota. Those scenes showed what would become the end of an entire culture JSF. The Horse culture that was part of my ancestors and the Cheyenne and the Dakota and the Crow was coming to an end. That band would end up on a reservation. Way of life GONE.

Also at the end of the film, he wasn't in the army anymore. He had become Indian.

---

OK. So you are not upset that he tried to stave off the inevitable by returning to the Army so they would stop hunting down the tribe. You're only bemoaning the inevitable, the point of the film.

---

Costner's character rejoining the army would not have stopped anything. This film is set during the American expansion further into the West. There was no making the army stop hunting this band of Dakota.

Ceeehrist, JSF are you really that obtuse not to see that the army paved the way into the West and with that the conflict and the confrontations that occurred?

Were we just suppose to roll over and play dead because the White man wanted OUR land?

---

JSF is kinda right Brenda, as far as the movie goes. Hell, you're right as well.
I'll explain:

You're right about the US Cavalry/Army moving west and displacing tribes as they went along. Hell, they were being massacred. Land wasn't the only thing that was being taken, the culture and the spirit of the Native Americans were also being taken. It is well documented what the government did to the human beings that were here well before the arrival of the Europeans. Even the name Native Americans is a misnomer, as the country was "discovered" by the Europeans for Europeans.

America was so named by them after:

Quote:

---

Because a German map maker named it after Amerigo Vespucci because he was the first person to prove that America was a "New World" so he called it Amerigo but accidentally miss spelled it so it America.

---

German, Italian and soon after many other "immigrants" made their way to this country, they had a hand in the making of this country taken from those that were already here. Funny how that works isn't it. This is the land of those people and yet we have some "people" who think that building a wall is the answer to this country's problems. All I can say is Tisk, Tisk! Ironic isn't it. Land taken, stolen and those that did the stealing are claiming that others that come here are trespassing. That takes a lot of nerve. unbelievably huge balls to say anything other than thank you.

JSF is right about "Dunbar" not going back to rejoin the Cavalry at his post on the outskirts of the territory. In the movie he went back to retrieve his "dairy" and notes of his time out on the edge of the western territory, at least the edge as far as the whites were concerned. His story is one of understanding, after years of civil war and now the war against the native peoples, he describes in his book how he came to understand and care about humans that had a different way of life; different than the one he was used to.

Someone on YouTube described it as Wind in His Hair, once a bitter enemy to all whites, also came to understand that not all whites wanted his death. He came to understand Dunbar, a white man. Just as Dunbar came to understand that the natives had their own way of life, as noble as any human being. He befriended Wind in his Hair

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I've known for a lot of years that "Indian" was a misnomer. Which is where the phrase "Native American" comes from during the late 60s and early 70s.

And I thank you for telling me how America got its name. I have tried for years to find that out and maybe I just wasn't looking in the right areas to find the information.

---

My reply got deleted by the site. An hour down the drain.

Short version:
Leif Erikson visited what is now Nova Scotia, IIRC. Archeological remains of their buildings have been located.

Christopher Columbus searches for Far East (Orient), conjures that the Earth is not actually flat, and tries to go around the world, without falling off the edge of the Earth.
At landfall, the humans he finds less resemble Asians than those of India (a British Colony), so it is assumed they overshot Asia and found the east coast of India - therefore these humans are referred to as Indians.
This is the 1490's.

1499, Amerigo Vespucci travels with a small fleet, and proves the land they find (modern Brazil, West Indies) is not actually part of Asia, but a previously "unknown" 4th continent. His letters begin to get published in 1502.

1520, Ferdinand Magellan is also looking for a shortcut to the Far East - the Spice Islands. Around the southern tip of South America, he finds a new ocean - the second one of the world, and names it Pacific because it was peaceful when he found it. He thinks he is a short way to the Spice Islands, but he has found the largest Ocean on the planet, large enough to fit all landmasses within it.
Prior to this, all maps show THE OCEAN labeled as Atlantic.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Notice that I repeatedly say that the Europeans discovered "America" for the Europeans. The country was always here, hence the undiscovered part, and the "natives" were always here.

I'm strictly speaking of how America got it's name, mistakenly named by the Europeans via the German mapmaker Martin Waldseemuller, way back when (circa 1504).
There are various accounts, but here are two that are close to what I learned in college:

Quote:

---

1- According to a book that I have been reading entitled "The Island of Lost Maps" by Miles Harvey,and I am reasonably sure this is the correct answer. In 1507 the cartographer, Martin Waldseemuller made one of the first maps to depict the "New World" and he was under the mistaken impression that Amerigo Vespucci had discovered the the land mass and so he named the southern part of the continent, "America",he later on found out about his error and deleted Vespucci's name from his further editions,but by that time the name "America" had stuck to the whole continent so it was too late to change that name.

Ray Sinclair, Pickering.Ontario Canada

---

and

Quote:

---

2- A Florentine businessman who moved to Seville, where he ran a ship supply busines (Incidentally supplying one for Cristophe Colon - Columbus) he visited the new world only three or four times as a lowly officer or passenger. He was not an accomplished seaman. However, in 1504-5 letters of unknown authorship began circulating in Florence stating that Vespucci had been Captain of voyages to the new world. The mistake would have gone no further except that an instructor at a small college in eastern France - Martin Waldseemuller - was working on a revised edition of Ptolemy and updated it with a new map of the world. He came across the letters with the spurious account of Vespucci's exploits and named the continent in his honour. First translating Amerigo into the Latin 'Americus' and then into its feminine form (as with Europe and Asia) America. Interestingly Vespucci is thought to have been the brother of Simonetti Vespucci - Boticelli's Venus!! All of this is taken from 'Made in America' by Bill Bryson.

Ben Roome, London

---

Take your pick. Both name Vespucci, and both seem to allude to mistakes made. That's all well and good, but what seems to be missing is the fact that people, native peoples, were already living here. How typical is the European mentality to dismiss anything that doesn't originate from the "Old World." This is wrongheaded
thinking that dominates the mentality of certain members of our society. The more correct approach would be to acknowledge that people inhabited these countries/nations and that the discovery of same was on behave of the Europeans -
Spanish, English, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc. - and who's history does not begin and end with the written history as we have come to know it.

My final suggestion is that "America" is a lot more than the history of 1776, our declaration of independence, but that it incorporates an amalgam of peoples. Including, but not limited to, the natives of these lands. Immigrants, after all,
are, historically speaking, uninvited guests.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I've known for a lot of years that "Indian" was a misnomer. Which is where the phrase "Native American" comes from during the late 60s and early 70s.

And I thank you for telling me how America got its name. I have tried for years to find that out and maybe I just wasn't looking in the right areas to find the information.

---

My reply got deleted by the site. An hour down the drain.

Short version:
Leif Erikson visited what is now Nova Scotia, IIRC. Archeological remains of their buildings have been located.

Christophe

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME