|
|
Post by francesca on Sept 14, 2011 22:47:02 GMT
My view of Mick is that he was a survivor ! He did not appear to have made an enormous fortune from his trading with the natives. His trading seemed to give him a comfortable living and the respect and friendship of the natives and some sort of standing with the Commissioner and other Australians. He did not appear rich.
As Joyce said the pearls were worthless to the natives whereas the harmonicas were what they wanted,perhaps even as some sort of a status symbol. The other tribe needed more useful things so that is what he gave them.
That is what trading is. You give the other what he wants in return for what you want.
What matters is that both are satisfied.
His attitude is opposed to Philip's , and even Evelyn's in the beginning, who expected to get wealth and honour and gave nothing back but arrogance and contempt.
It was Mick's attitude to the natives that enlightened Evelyn to how she and Philip were behaving
|
|
|
|
Post by walt on Sept 15, 2011 6:11:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Sept 15, 2011 13:38:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Sept 15, 2011 14:09:55 GMT
Love the first one, Kate! Sepia, or original color? Whichever it is, it's a great cap!
Joyce and Frannie, Excellent defense of Mick! What you say is very true--he was giving them the things they wanted and needed. I just feel like he had a good deal of self-interest in his heart, too. But I love Mick very, very much and I definitely agree he had a much better attitude toward the locals than any other outsider in the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Sept 15, 2011 14:43:16 GMT
Love the first one, Kate! Sepia, or original color? Whichever it is, it's a great cap! It's not the original colour (that one's somewhere on the previous page), but I can't recall how I created that colouring  |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Sept 15, 2011 14:46:03 GMT
You invented a whole new art form!
|
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Sept 15, 2011 16:07:38 GMT
OMG - is it just Mick or is Rufus made for black and white? So very evocative. Wonderful job Kate.
Rue- you hit the nail on the head about Mick - we can argue about his ethics as a trader, but his attitude toward the natives was much more respectful than any of the others. Heck, he was just as likely to take advantage of Phillip and Evelyn as the natives.
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Sept 15, 2011 16:46:20 GMT
Thanks, Joyce!  OMG - is it just Mick or is Rufus made for black and white? I generally think that Rufus has the perfect face for black and white, those clear lines and angles are particularly beautiful then, but I've got a special penchant for Mick in b/w, maybe because the caps look like authentic photographs from that period ... Absolutely. He's not some idealized saint type, but he's not greedy, and he's not arrogantly superior towards the natives, he doesn't pretend that he knows better what's good for them or how they should behave. I guess that's why they like him and get on with him so well. |
|
|
|
Post by megagem on Sept 15, 2011 17:39:51 GMT
OMG - is it just Mick or is Rufus made for black and white? I generally think that Rufus has the perfect face for black and white, those clear lines and angles are particularly beautiful then, but I've got a special penchant for Mick in b/w, maybe because the caps look like authentic photographs from that period ...  I couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
Post by anglophile on Sept 15, 2011 18:52:23 GMT
This has probably been touched on before, but as someone fresh to the board, it's a new concept for me. I've only watched IASL once to this point, but when I looked at the screencaps, it reminded me of an impression I had while viewing it. As a not-very-experienced film watcher (in the past, movie perusing has just been pretty much an in-the-moment emotional response to something on screen), I'm now beginning to absorb them in a whole new way. Much of that is, of course, thanks to the fact that "the roof" compels me to view each offering again and again, so I have the opportunity to appreciate so many different facets of appearance, sound, movement, etc. But your comments on these threads is also a factor. So --- it was sort of weird for me when I watched Mick in IASL early in my obsession (was that really only a couple of weeks ago?) and actually had the insight to ask myself, 'Why is the dance scene included here?'  Not that I didn't appreciate it. It's a plus for me when handsome men like to move to a rhythm (and don't snigger). It just seemed a little odd to have dance steps of that type in a jungle setting. I even thought the director might have taken into account that a large portion of the audience would be women and such a scene would have strong romantic overtones for us — throwing it in purely to elicit soft sighs and gentle looks from feminine reviewers. But then — give me a minute, tears are truly making it difficult to type — then there was Mick in the pull-away shot at the end of the movie. Put yourself in the moment and you may weep, as well. There was Mick's beautiful face ... showing up when I'd been living with hope and refusing to give in to a deathly despair that I might never enjoy his perfection again. There was Mick's matured face ... giving me reason to believe the pair of them might move off into a blissful sunset together. There was Mick's eternal face … redeeming empty tomorrows in a war-torn world. There was Mick's broken body ... And my first heartbroken thought was, "He'll never dance again.' Somebody deserves a lot of credit for that one. I never even saw it coming. |
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Sept 15, 2011 19:49:51 GMT
Ooh, yummy! Especially this one:   Thanks, Kate! |
|
|
|
Post by annachibi on Sept 15, 2011 19:51:45 GMT
Oh, anglophile, I hadn't thought of that before. That's... that's so sad...  |
|
|
|
Post by anglophile on Sept 15, 2011 20:40:34 GMT
Tell me about it. Can't wait to get home and sob into the TV screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by kissmekate on Sept 16, 2011 8:46:31 GMT
GE2, that's one of my favourites, too, although it's relatively dark. anglophile, I loved the dance scene the first time around, but, like you, it touches me so much more now that I know the ending. It's such an intimate, beautiful moment that it makes me weep. But then — give me a minute, tears are truly making it difficult to type — then there was Mick in the pull-away shot at the end of the movie. Put yourself in the moment and you may weep, as well. There was Mick's beautiful face ... showing up when I'd been living with hope and refusing to give in to a deathly despair that I might never enjoy his perfection again. There was Mick's matured face ... giving me reason to believe the pair of them might move off into a blissful sunset together. There was Mick's eternal face … redeeming empty tomorrows in a war-torn world. There was Mick's broken body ... And my first heartbroken thought was, "He'll never dance again.' Somebody deserves a lot of credit for that one. I never even saw it coming. Neither did I, and I cried my eyes out the first time I watched. This piercing look from his large sad eyes and the multitude of emotion displayed within seconds touched me very deeply. You can see that his former self has been utterly changed, and still he's so incredibly beautiful. When I re-watched (and re-watched and re-watched) the film, I found many little details I regarded with a totally different eye with the knowledge of the ending: it's his right leg he scratches absent-mindedly in the canoe, it's his right foot we see in close-up when they dance, there's that limping man on the stairs when Evelyn is searching for Mick. I was wondering if that was included deliberately or if it was just me, over-interpreting. |
|
|
|
Post by megagem on Sept 16, 2011 9:02:04 GMT
Oh Anglophile and Kate, you are both so much more perceptive than I am! I didn't realize any of that! Oh, Mick!  |
|
