Tue, May 18, 8:56 AM (6 days ago)
to me
What do you think of this movie and final fight scene. It looks pretty realistic to me and it's entertaining. The one thing I don't like about it is at the end leonardo cucks out and doesn't give the final killing blow to revenge the murder of his son. He lets the indians give the final killing blow. In your opinion is this propaganda to continue the pussification of the white man? White men are supposed to give up all violence even justified violence and only "colored" people can exercise justified violence.In the movie that is the natives because they are justified in their violence because bad white men took their land. Do you think I am off in my thinking or is it correct? This is in contrast to rob roy who does kill the rapist of his wife in a sword duel? what do you think of the final rob roy sword duel? But that was about a woman so maybe that is also propaganda of white men are only justified in violence for the sake of women.
take care james!
The revenant, final fight scene
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video The revenant, final fight scene
-Michael Collins
My opinion of the writing is that it is done in such a way as to affirm the Princess trope behind the mainstream of American westerns and hero stories, that moral authority for the masculine actionist is derived only from the female, from the great Cսnt Civilization. Rather than see the many falsifications in this movie as crafting a false narrative, I see them as necessary writing for mass appeal to the female and cucked drone audience of America who had long ago been pussified. John Wayne and Chuck Norris are probably the two actors that the emasculation of the American man was channeled through the most, with Gary Cooper a close second to Wayne, and Clint Eastwood the counterpoint with his man With No Name character. Even cheap B movies like Mel Gibson's Mad Max required the killing or violation of the woman as justification for the hero's action, as did Rob Roy, a very old anglophone tale. I will expand on the anglophone emasculation of the European hero and Amerindian warrior when addressing Mike Thompson's religious awakening as a prison knifer.
It is my view, that this Hollywood cucking of the American psyche was no feminist conspiracy, no Abrahamic plot, but represents simple economics. To tell an un-cucked real hero story such as Hell is for Heroes, High Plains Drifter, Valhalla Rising, The Dead Lands, or Hold the Dark we will see unapologetic masculine action, not pinned to female justifications. But, these movies will be enjoyed almost exclusively by boys and men, not women. That is okay at home, with the man watching action flicks and the woman watching Hallmark tear-jerkers. But to get a man to go to the movies and buy concessions, the woman must want to see the movie as well. In this way, the most successful form of storytelling—American movie-making—evolved to excuse the violence the male viewer wants to see used by the male protagonist, by enlisting the female viewer as sympathetic to the cause of killing the villain because the leading lady has been wronged in some way.
The Country Music Cuck Anthem, Coward of the County, tells such a story, as does Rob Roy and many an American tale. The other night my mother was watching a police drama on network TV set in Chicago, where all violent criminals are white men, who execute hookers with gunshots to the back of the head and stomp female police officers, in order to generate hatred for the cheaply written villain. This type of writing is both lazy and highly appealing to the low-IQ mass of American humanity. This was the key to success of much pulp fiction of a hundred years ago, and to "blood and thunder" dime novels of the late 1800s. It is very anglophonic.
Michael, a much more accurate movie treatment of the adventures of Hugh Glass—though still fanciful and lacking the great grizzly bear mauling scene of the remake, as the earlier movie made use of a black bear—is the 1971 Richard Harris movie Man in the Wilderness. This fight scene was inserted in this recent twisted version of Hugh Glass's story starring DeCaprio.
From memory:
The Ri Indians who tried to kill Hugh and his companions were punishing them for trespassing, not avenging a rape of a feisty woman somehow stolen from an Indian camp by French fur trappers. But since defense of territory is not a legitimate modern moral cause for combat, an impossible rape had to be inserted.
In reality, Hugh was not attended and then abandoned by young Jim Bridger, another and his sainted half-breed son—he had no half-breed son with him. The innocent fantasy son was inserted to make the villain more evil.
Hugh was not helped by a Pawnee whose family had been slaughtered by Lakota, but was actually helped by five Lakota warriors.
Hugh let the villain go and there was no final fight.
Only Indians provided moral sanction in this movie, so Hugh could not kill the villain. This moral authority was given over to Mother Earth in the form of the raped Ri woman who is inferred to have killed the defeated villain.
Interestingly, in real life, the Ri's tried to kill Hugh again and again, and eventually butchered him.
But whoever did the combat choreography, did a nice job.
Also, rape of Indian women was not a French thing—they married Indian women. An entire tribe north of Lake Winnebago is descended from French bison hunters and their Indian wives. Most chiefs were willing to sell daughters to Frenchmen. Why rape the woman when you can simply direct her to have sex with you with her father's blessing while she is not busy making you clothes, carrying your stuff and cooking. In the Harris movie there is a very realistic scene in which an Indian wife and French trapper are slaughtered by an enemy tribe of Indians.
I will address your Mike Thompson White Indian email in two parts, next week and later this summer.
Thanks, Michael.
