James Corden, Samuel Anderson, Sacha Dhawan and Russell Tovey have been in Doctor Who and James Corden, Samuel Anderson, Andrew Knott and Russell Tovey are in Gavin and Stacey together
One word about this film: "Fantastic". In my opinion, a classic. It's just thoughtful, funny, witty and interesting. I can easily watch it many times, and I actually have. ❤👍
Thats an appropriate name Hector with the way he hectored the boys! I was fooled at first thinking it was malicious gossip that Hector was Gay thinking isn't Mr Hector married?
Ah yes, those poor women in 1919, just arranging the flowers, then getting to gracefully retire. If only they had been so lucky to spend 4 years getting their arms, legs, and heads blown off in a trench, up to their knees in mud, blood, and shit, feeling rats the size of ferrets crawl over them at night, their uniforms writhing with uncounted lice. Truly, history is quite the frolic for men.
I'm afraid you are missing the point. History is not a particular war or any other events that has happened, it is essentially a story told by men to their children in case they started asking where did they come from. And women just want their roles in the story. Nobody wants to be the background singer for 5 centuries, it just feels depressing and unfair. (I know it has been a year sorry.
Also, I believe it is the case that men, most notably from privilege, sent those men overwhelmingly from the lower classes to war. Many women, from both past and present, would like the chance to make those decisions and to die for causes, but they're relegated to 2nd class citizenry. Perhaps women have been, most notably, following behind with the bucket after all.
@@thesaint8400 Well, an appeal to book-reading is slightly below the belt, given that you have virtually no information about me or my level of textual knowledge. That being said, you are absolutely right, ineptitude truly does pierce all (not both) genders. But, you see, this is where book reading doesn't save you, and that's from trying to bleed absurdly stupid interpretations from rather simple statements: they are not implying ineptitude isn't found in all genders, they are implying that history is thronged with men being inept, and this is true, and is disproportionally true for men, who have, objectively, and any book of any history can corroborate this, held the vast majority of positions of power throughout a very failure-ridden history. Women haven't failed as much if only for the fact that they haven't had the chance, otherwise, it would likely have been the same. So, instead of telling strangers to read books, perhaps you could be reading one yourself. It might help elevate your future pathetic insults.
As someone who makes his living cleaning other people’s messes (and I work professionally), I can assure you there are just as many men who have followed with buckets as women. History doesn’t acknowledge anyone in that role. I would recommend, however, to respect those people going forward. You will need them at some point.
it's more of a metaphorical bucket. she's not talking about the working class, she's talking about women, in general, having to deal with the messes caused by (predominantly) male leaders
So my question is about Hector's morality. IS he a good person or not? I mean the groping is 1. The students are adults. 2. Most of them seem Hesitantly okay with it but 3. He is a teacher in a position of trust! I am so torn on this, id love other people's opinions on the matter
Well as Dakin said, the boys don’t take it seriously. They feel hector is harmless and pathetic. You can tell he is a Passionate and caring teacher, but he is also lonely/depressed. They feel sorry for him and care for him because he is a good teacher. It’s a gray area on hector as a good person. I personally think he should have been reported. There is no excuse for touching a child, even if they are legal.
We had this conversation in class, we decided that the way Hector acts around the boys is understandable considering the time this play is set in, his sexuality, but when he gets caught later on and the Head Master confronts him is it any different to the head master coming on to his sectary?
Consider the degree of power teachers have over their students. Educators can decide which students are named to highly valued positions in after-class activities ranging from qualifying for a team, getting the lead in a play, or heading the school newspaper or yearbook. Teachers assign grades, and it's not uncommon for students to find themselves on the border between passing or failing or receiving or just missing getting an A. Members of the faculty choose which students will receive school awards. And of course, colleges or employers are influenced by the recommendations that teachers submit. For this reason, any such relationship between teacher and student holds the potential for being exploitive. Even if the student is a willing participant, that person may be fearful of halting that relationship. If there is a genuine feeling between student and teacher, they should have the wisdom and maturity to postpone acting on it until a decent interval after graduation. Then there is no possible threat or intimidation. In addition, that former student will be well into adulthood and capable of making decisions based upon greater experience. I hope this helps.
I couldn't reply to them because someone wrote it 2 years ago but, in regards to saying this is underacted and that Titus seems too calm - I just don't agree. When I think of my favorite scenes from this movie, this is one of them - along with Aaron's monologue - This scene in particular first invoked emotion in me when listening to the words. Anthony Hopkins is a master as well, and he performed it beautifully. You see in the beginning of the story how loyal he is to Rome and stern even with his own sons etc - and by this point he is already struck with grief, in knowing they are walking to execute two more of his sons. He pleads and even mentions his service in war for Rome - when he has only been silently dutiful before. They ignore him, and all he can do is weep on the stone. He's already grief stricken and desperate - then he learns of Lavinia. Titus says that his tears have run dry, that he's cried out as much as he physically can, I think it was just a mixture of shock, horror, and sadness when he saw his mutilated daughter. Being raped, losing her hands and her tongue - an extremely cruel mutilation to who once was his beautiful daughter. He's already used up his energy, I think he is in disbelief and for that is humorous about it. A dark, tragic humor. I think if Lavinia had showed up as a dead body instead he could of really been pushed into grief and hysteria - but she was alive and I think a very small portion in the back of Titus' mind was grateful for that - and rather than shame and in a way, make his daughter feel disfigured he kept his cool, also just turning mad. He also mentions that they should do as she does and stare into the water, or suggests that he and her brother and uncle also chop of their hands - I think he sees her as his daughter deformed or not, and put her feelings before him. However tormented or sad he felt about discovering what happened to her, he knew that it was nothing compared to how SHE, the victim felt. If she wanted to thrash about and be upset, maybe he would of gotten angry or excited then. So in my eyes between respecting her as being alive, but "not really" because of her situation, the grief of losing two more sons and crying and begging on the GROUND to men that he once served (and also loss sons in battle, which had been an honor...he wanted them to just spare him two in exchange for the ones he's already given - he even killed one himself in the beginning of the story for 'shaming' him by not being loyal) --- just everything happening, in the end --- He released all feelings of loyalty and only felt loyal to his own blood, and for that exacted revenge. Calm? I'm not sure I would use that word - he loses his mind and humanity, and everything he has - so what if he's a little 'drained'.
I think this play was hated for so long because it is so strange, plot wise, and people looked at it through the more simple definition of genre, in this case, tragedy. The earlier generations thought the extreme gore and comic ridiculousness of the climax made it fail as a tragedy. The concept of genre blending and bending only became common fairly recently. Now it's black comedy seems incredibly modern compared to Shakespeare's other plays. More than any other Shakespeare, it almost reminds me of an absurdist play.
***** It was quite popular during its day among the masses but it was hated for years afterward from the 1700's until the late 20th century. George Bernard Shaw called it the worst play ever written and many people agreed with him.
one of the things they didn't like is the part where his hand and his sons heads are returned to him and all he does is laugh. they could not comprehend that. this is among my top 4 of his works
lol sorry that was an extreme statement made while intoxicated, but, harshness aside, it does more or less express how I feel. It's not a competition since if it was, any modern writer might as well give up. The point is I think that modern writers, like the modernists, who DID feel the weight of history, started different for the sake of different exactly because they felt that weight. Why not good for the sake of good. Anyway.
For a while I've been calling people online 'Bro-tus Andronicus' for two reasons. First, I like to occasionally be confusing, and second I have a romantic hope that it will lead a few more people to discover this under-recognized play. Fucking Victorians and their squeamishness.
