Freemasonry and "The Man Who Would Be King" 

The book is amazing. Also, The ending line about “business in the south” is the thing peachy said in the beginning of the movie. I have a working theory that the three characters are actually the same person. Rudyard Kipling being an old man reflecting on his younger years. Peachy and Daniel are the embodiment of the internal conflict of a young man accomplishing a large undertaking. They swear off women and booze as part of the deal and when Daniel suffers from becoming too “high and mighty” the young and arrogant version is killed off. The level headed man (peachy) is left to reflect and mature. Kipling reflects on this journey and growth as an old man as he tells the story. In the book peachy also dies, leaving Kipling as the only version of this man to remain. I believe Kiplings other works lend themselves to this analysis. For the possible offended, if you reject art in any form because it might offend, you are robbing yourself of perspective and shielding yourself from growth. You don’t have to agree with offensive content, but you can open yourself to learning from it. The world and history is full of imperfect people, but there’s something to learn from everyone on the path towards excellence. For the record I’m a millennial.

I love the critiquing of the movies by such a diverse group! I also love Sean Connery, and Michael Caine… Can’t go wrong with those two! The maturity level of the critics is definitely shown…

Unlike Shane and B.J., I think the narrative structure of the movie is a masterpiece. It gives the movie TWO endings, actually, instead of just one! Ain't it great? And the progress towards one ending and then the other is absolutely brilliant. One genius, Kipling, met another genius, John Huston, with his superb cast, and we have this gem.

This movie is in my top 10. It would be pointless to remake it. They couldn’t do as good a job and nobody would care to see it, regardless.

It seems that we have a young man here who is determined to find racism or reasons to be offended.

I think Peachy and Dravot were masons. If you watch the scene where they're [Peachy and Kipling] talking to each other on the train, they use some very 'specific' code phrases. 'Supposing I was to ask you, as a stranger going to the west...' and that whole dialogue. Kipling was definitely one, but the other two were probably ones as well at one point, and I could see them using all the little codes and passes to nudge who they needed to for a con.

Scottish Rites Masonry was founded in the 1700s - they claim to be from older Orders which can trace itself back thousands of years - this is false. Peter Partner did an excellent book dismissing all their claims of ancient beginnings. There is also a video on RU-vid which claims the film Stargate is a retelling of The Man Who Would Be KIng - very interesting video. As for TMWWBK, it is indeed an excellent film - made before the glow ball ists made British feel ashamed for their glorious past.

Showing racist views does not make the movie racist. That’s like saying All in the Family was racist for showing Archie Bunker. That’s like saying Blazing Saddles was racist. Those properties had points. In the case of this movie, the racist views were period correct. Younger people don’t seem to understand context. It’s ruined a lot of great art…..

Freemasonry? When are you going to a review of The Simpsons?