Lol Nickname territory 😄

Laconic, that's Eastwood. A fine actor and a fine director.

Yeah after all these years of directing he still hasn't lost his edge despite being his 90s real inspirational

Well, I look like Robert Redford. I have the build of Dolph Lundgren in Rocky VI. I have the voice of Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mocking Bird. I have the upstanding nature of every version of Captain America, and both the humility and charm of Christopher Reeve imitating Cary Grant in his version of Clark Kent! :D

I had never heard this before. Fascinating.

Really?
Straight from the horse's mouth: Reeve stated he based his Clark Kent on Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby (1938).

It's kind of obvious in his performance (although I shouldn't really say that since I've never sat through Bringing Up Baby). ;)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...30TYE&usqp=CAU

I've only seen the Superman movies once. I was planning to watch the first in 4K soon. Maybe I'll rewatch Bringing Up Baby first.

Salieri.

I don't want this to be the case. But it's the case.

Re: What film character is most like you?
 

Well, I'm definitely a cross between Kaneda from Akira, Pazu from Castle in the Sky, and Taki from Your Name.

James Cole... twelve monkeys

Re: What film character is most like you?
 

I actually look a lot like HENRY ROLLINS and my psyche is a mix of LOKI and THE PUNISHER.

I am practically a narcissistic a-hole with a thing for punishing bad guys, while i really prefer not to hurt or attack any "victims".

Kind of a mix of Howard Beale and Walter Kowalski.

Yeah, I get cranky...

I’m aroused.

Salieri is the patron saint of the greater portion of the human race. Do not spurn your mediocrity. Those who are truly excellent are truly different and those who are truly different lack connections we take for granted. Those who are really different go mad, enter self-exile, and/or suffer considerable loneliness (e.g., it's lonely at the top). Mediocrity, on the other hand, is simply commonality. And commonality is what binds us to the rest of the fabric of the whole human experience. If you can take solace in a poem written 2,000 years ago, it is because it touches something common, something mundane. It is a source of comfort and guidance, precisely because it speaks to that which is universal (and which is thus sometimes treated cheaply, because it is not a scare resource). To the extent that you're common you can consider yourself a mate, part of the family as the song goes.

Alas, I do not think you're a Salieri at all. You're more of a Jorge de Burgos (The Name of the Rose).

I've seen this movie at least three times, and I still remember nothing about it.


Are you saying I'm the villain in a movie I've forgotten about multiple times?


I'm going to stick with Salieri.

Re: What film character is most like you?
 

nice

I think I'm the Charlie Kaufman you see in Adaptation, and funny enough we nearly have the same name. What's not funny is being Charlie Kaufman.

Allen in Happiness (1998) played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
Joe Ramson in Joe (2013) played by Nicolas Cage.
Bruno S. in Stroszek (1977) played by Bruno Schleinstein.
Lucky in Lucky (2017) played by Harry Dean Stanton.
Paterson in Paterson (2016) played by Adam Driver.
Max Jerry Horovitz in Mary and Max (2009) voiced by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Here are some, I take a little bit from every single one, and every single one is coller, more artistic, and interesting than me.

forgettable, that's what you are
completely unmemorable though near or far
Like a song that recedes from me
How the thought of you fades from me
Never, I guess,

has anyone been less
memorable in every way

No. You are like the villain in a movie. And it is a good movie, based on a good book. You are a zealot. Embrace it. It's what makes you memorable.

Zealotry implies inflexibility. Which I am not. My stance has consistently been there needs to be more flexibility in finding ways to appreciate or criticize an artist work. I'm for traditional, populist, esoteric and more eccentric analysis. They all have their place and I'm also definitely not the one dictating that for art to matter it needs to cater to specific kinds of audiences. Or needs to do specific things. Or must honor the average persons contract of what they expect from art. If anything, that kind of dogmatism is more likely to lead to zealotry. And that aint my kind of dogmatism.


Being a zealot would also imply i am trying to force others to view art the way I do. Which I have also been consistent in my opinion on. I dont care how others want to appreciate a work, as long as they aren't dictating how others should. You know, the total opposite of forcing my approach on others. Now this doesn't mean I don't find the more basic approaches to this to sometimes be bland as ****. But that's just preference. I am allowed to have those, right?


If anything, I'm simply passionate about art. And Im willing to write lots of words explaining why it matters. So I guess it's possible this passion may get confused with zealotry when so many others are treating art with the kind of no-passion that comes with thinking of it as a little more than a diversion. Or those who for some reason consistently take issue if it's ever suggested that some artists dare to create for themselves and aren't slaves to the interests of some imaginary and milquetoast eyeballs. I am quite the rebel when I stand up for artistic expression, and how everyone's artistic interests and needs should be stood up for (no matter how big or small an audience it might be!)


Now do I condescend to that brand of dispassionate milquetoast viewer? Sometimes. But it's usually when they are the ones dictating that there is one approach to art that has validity and all others are a form of hucksterism. Then in those instances I just might start pushing back on how wrong that person is. Which isn't zealotry either. It's called being informed and pointing out the obvious deficiencies in what that person is dictating. It's called being aware that their are many different modes of expression and appreciation. It's called, for lack of a better term, being correct.