Great movie, and Pacino deserved the fuck out the Oscar, but what was with the end message/moral?
>even though Phillip Seymour Hoffman and the other rich kids treated you like dirt, it's righteous and the good thing to do to not snitch them in for fucking up the principal's car?
Yes
post kino scents
The school was trying to ruin Charlie's life for not playing ball. Basically the punishment did not fit the crime. So the best option was to call the bluff and cal them out in the process.
HOOOAAAH
god i fucking hated when everyone stood up and cheered after his speech at the end, completely destroyed the scene.
i would have done a loud sharp fart right on that cold wooden bench. it would have echoed throughout the venue
he taught johnnie how to be a man.
jOhnnie saved his life. In turn he helps johnnie at the trial.
Charlie had integrity and wouldn't take the easy way out to save his own skin, even if it meant suffering injustice. Pacino wasn't going to have any of this shit and let it happen because the other greasy fucks were going to weasel out of it, and if it took sacrificing Charlie to do it then they would. So if the school was meant to build men, instead of recognizing the honorable qualities inherent in Charlie but rewarding the weasels then the school didn't mean fucking shit because it was just pumping out more worms and rats into the world to fuck other people over instead of doing the right thing. That this had to be spelled out for you is quite sad.
That is the body of a male human
Fuhhhhhhhccccck godddamnnnn
Jeeeeeeesus I love me sum SS
Kimmel you’re a faggot
Thanks for reminding of this film.
I saw it when too young to understand it properly and gonna rewatch it tonight.
You wrote a good post but that last comment is completely unnecessary.
Nah, Charlie was just too much of a pussy to just not care what anyone thinks and instead tell the school exactly who did it. Scumbags deserve to be snitched on.
Sarah was a genuine cutie in her 20's8mdwh
It wasn't a movie ruiner but it did kind of take the immersion out
>You wrote a good post but that last comment is completely unnecessary.
That post is just a rephrasing of what Pacino's character literally says. You'd have to be halfway into a coma not to get it.
Good explanation, and thanks for spelling it out for me, I guess. I'm of a mindframe that I would have ratted those cunts out but I suppose Chuck in his mindframe would have though it might affect his future career or some shit
No, Charlie didn't think any of that. Charlie has intrinsic integrity, in that it existed on its own outside the influence of external factors. Therefore it would not occur to Charlie to rat out his friends, because they were his friends, and that meant something to him even if it meant nothing to them. Because Charlie had integrity, and they did not. If Charlie decided that the reciprocal actions of his friends meant that he should betray them for his own purposes, then Charlie would not have any more integrity than they did. Integrity means doing what you believe is right no matter what the consequences might be and, in general, both in life and in decent fiction, those consequences can sometimes be steep or dire. The kind of people who have that kind of integrity are a better class of people, removed and above the usual unreliables who talk a good game but would happily sell out anyone for an edge. Do you not know what integrity is?
>integrity is shielding criminals from prosecution
yeah, you just might be retarded.
He took the job of an actual blind person
It's not my fault that this sappy, mediocre 90s movie is too far beyond your limited comprehension.
You don't have to be patronizing, buddy. Look at you, rhetorically asking me if I know the definition of integrity.
Anyway, so your argument is that Chuckie was that naive being a poor scholarship student that he considered those rich cunts as his friends and peers and thus felt duty bound to protect them despite the threat of expulsion? Serious question.
No, I'm not making any kind of argument. I'm simply explaining the decidedily not-complex point of the movie. Charlie is going to a private school, he has friends there. His friends do some stupid shit. Charlie gets grilled and presented with a dilemma: rat out his friends and get them expelled, or shut up and take the consequences. From Charlie's point of view (not mine, the character in the film) this is not a decision he wants on his conscience. So he shuts up, and is determined to stick to this regardless of the consequences. Then he goes and has some adventures with a cranky old blind man, who even counsels him to betray these assholes, explictly saying they do not deserve his loyalty since they will turn him out. Charlie nevertheless says no, not doing that. This earns the respect of cranky old blind man, who decides he's not just gonna let this good kid with a good heart take the fall so he shows up to tell people what's what, and to illustrate that Charlie's actions demonstrate,in practice, what the school's entire motto is supposed to mean. That's it, that's the whole of this movie. There is no argument, the shit is dead simple and the movie isn't subtle about it. It is the explicit point of the entire film, not hidden in any way, and I repeat that if you got the end and it remained a mystery then that is quite sad. Because it's wearing the message on its goddamn sleeve the whole time.
But they're not his friends. Sure, he's friendly with them but did the movie actually make a point of establishing he was actual friends with them? They did invite him on a ski trip that they knew he couldn't afford mockingly and he didn't know that. I do agree with your contention generally but 'friends' is the wrong word. I dunno, maybe fellow colleagues he didn't want to betray because of some stupid private school convention?
Whether they are or are not actually his friends is not the relevant point. The revelant point is that Charlie is presented with a decision: 1. To take an action (rat) which will result in their explusion, or 2. To say nothing and plead ignorance. Doing number one means that Charlie choose to DO something that results in their explusion - he takes an action. Charlie instead decides that this is not an action which fits with his integrity, and will not be compelled to take it. This decision is ALL Charlie's, it's completely independent of either consequences of punishment OR whether or not it is reciprocated. It is its own thing, constructed entirely from his internal principles, and it is this fact which makes it integrity. Because it is non-negotiable. And it is this quality, the fact that Charlie exists as his own man who will follow his conscience regardless of external factors, that earns the cranky old blind man's respect because it is such a rare trait, since most people would not do this - they would instead measure their action strictly against what they personally could win or lose. Despite the fact that cranky old blind man disagrees and thinks it's foolish to sacrifice for the unworthy, he nevertheless recognized that this quality makes Charlie a much better man than them, and indeed a much better man than most. He recognizes that here is a person who is immune to corruption.
The military just hates snitch
So - how does this fit in with the Baird School's mission? Well by rewarding the rich rats and sacrificing Charlie, what the school is doing is creating leaders who will go out into the world and be corrupt. They'll lie, they'll fuck people over, they'll act without principle. But Charlie, regardless of whether or not his principles in this case are working for or against him, would not be that kind of leader. Instead he would be the kind of leader who will make personal sacrifices for the people he leads, or represents, or who count on him. The kind who would expose corruption, not feed it. Who would place principle above profit or personal gain. In other words, a proper leader - what the school is supposed to create. It's a sappy message, and not a particularly sophisticated one, and I don't know how the fuck this movie ever got an Oscar, but that's the message all the same.
>And I have seen boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But there isn't nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit
But I always thought getting arm ripped off is worse than being expelled from high school.
Not a good movie. 5/10. Literal disablist trash.
I always though the school is to make law abiding kids not kids who do things because he thinks it is right
Pacino was the only one who got the Oscar for Scent, wasn't he? He did deserve it too
>I'm no fuckin' good.
Very true as well. Pacino was still very much an army man despite being passed ovahh hooha
Well said but look what Frank's "integrity" made him do to his squad and to his own eyes
No, the school is an elite institution which professes to create the elite leaders of tomorrow. Whether in business, politics, et al. Its founding mission professes to be one of character and principle, wherein a leader who is his own, proper man would make the right decisions - even if that meant not following bad laws (this is essentially an extension of "just following orders is not a defense"). The whole idea of the school is that it will build and instill proper character into its pupils, which is why punishing Charlie for adhering to the spirit of the school is presented as an injustice. It's also why Charlie had to be an outsider who got there by pure merit, and not by wealth or connection - he is the fantasy of every person who has ever wished for proper leaderships that's not just a bunch of shitbags out for themselves.
Frank doesn't have any integrity, that's why he's presented as a foil to Charlie for some 90% of the film. Frank realizes he is not half the man Charlie is, that's why he fights for him.
>this quality makes Charlie a much better man than them, and indeed a much better man than most.
Well he did stop him from shooting himself
Pacino's character hates being fuckin blind. He fights against it. He was an asshole before he was disabled and rwalizes this and tries to top himself. He doesn't want your sympathy, he doesn't want welfare in any form. He juggled those grenades on seabreezes and accepts the consequences. Fuck you, he'll go out on his own terms
In conclusion, how is this disablist trash?
You've obviously read into this a lot more than of us Yea Forums dumbasses. Did you go to an American private/Catholic school yourself?
imagine the smell
Frank womanized, drove fast car and played with grenade just to impress his "friends" and "brothers".
He treated his army friends like how he treated his real brother: with ego and contempt. He hated his real brother because he got a family and a mediocre life, and because on the dinner table they didn't worship him.
Frank played with grenade because he decided to do what people with common sense told him not to, even though it doesn't benefit anyone
That's what Charlie's "principles" made Charlie do for his friends and Frank. He said himself he didn't care about them. But he did things because he hated the headmaster. taking care of Frank gave him excuse to do impressive things. Just like how war gave Frank an excuse to do things.
Charlie is Frank without the war, yet.
Works
No, I just watched the movie. I'm not an American, and I went to a public school. Although it was a very good public school at the time, one of my classmates was the daughter of a UN ambassador. It's probably a shithole now.
>do the right thing is ego
The movie that dared to ask...
Brainlet and tegridylet. Repent.
Don't be a rat. A rat is a rat. Always.
Charlie isn't doing it out of anything resembling friendship. It's just called not being a fucking narc, wtf how do do you have a Y chromosome and still need this explained.
His name is Charlie
i watched this with my dad when i was like 8. uplifting kino
>The kind of people who have that kind of integrity are a better class of people
Which is why they always end up poor and die in a ditch right? Lmfao loser.
t. shitbag
That's why created the whole "principal tries to buy charlie to talk" subplot.
Indeed, but surely your country had weirdo elite private schoole? I'm assuming you're not Brit and didn't have Eton and Harrow?
sure the rich kids might get ahead temporarily and become "leaders" but the hollow core can never be filled and everyone around them is aware of that.that's how you get the rich kid "money can't buy you happiness comes in", it's patently untrue. money can't buy you principles or integrity and no one will let you forget what a bitch boy you really are inside even if they fawn over you
The message is pretty much summed up in Pacino's monologue in the court scene:
>I'm not a judge or jury. But I can tell you this: he won't sell anybody out to buy his future!! And that, my friends, is called integrity! That's called courage! Now that's the stuff leaders should be made of. Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard. Now here's Charlie. He's come to the crossroads. He has chosen a path. It's the right path. It's a path made of principle -- that leads to character. Let him continue on his journey.
>Charlie is Frank without the war, yet.
No, Charlies is Frank with the courage and the balls to do the right thing and opt for the hard mode in life.
yuck
Yeah and? You're still poor and everyone who matters isn't, slave morality retard, read up on it, you invent reasons why you're "better" than your masters.
preheated oven?
Beyond stupid. Also completely false dichotomy.
There are far more options than just "scumbag opportunist with a silver spoon" and "holier than thou poor man".
You can be an honorable man and still understand nuance and proper context.
It's one thing if they are your friends or comrades and you don't rat them out and another completely if they're people throwing you under the bus.
If you buy wholly into the movie's message, you are probably a complete sucker and will get taken advantage off all your life. Not only that, your naivety and/ or slave morality will make you believe you're somehow "better" than your abuser, when it is YOU enabling your abuse.
scent of a GREAT ASS
If your shallow takeaway of Neitzche's treatise was that Master morality is merely a license to be an avaricious asshole then you have more reading to do.
What else would it be? There are winners and losers, winners have no qualms about crushing everyone else, losers invented Jesus so that they have an excuse to stay losers.