MovieChat Forums > TruMovieFan > Replies
TruMovieFan's Replies
I was hoping for more comments and should have indicated that when I use the word "actor," I include all types and not just men.
Here it is...the link to the harassment of the reporter...
https://slate.com/culture/2024/05/baby-reindeer-real-true-story-martha-richard-gadd-identity-netflix.html
Just so you know, a reporter interviewed the woman and guess what happened next? She started stalking the reporter next. I'll add the link later to the specific article later (the site is in the history on my laptop).
In the meantime, here is an article about her stalking of others.
I think it would be interesting to re-visit Sid & Nancy after all these years. Also, I loved the horror of seeing him in the very first viewing of his portrayal in True Romance.
Oh, you are so right about that Baby Reindeer part. And I did enjoy how after the series ended how it did humanize her and make her sympathetic rather than leave a narrative that she was just a lunatic.
Also, the scene between him and his parents when his father spoke the one succinctly and profound sentence made me tear up with what his father replied to him.
I agree With you about the actor that played Martha - she did an outstanding job. But I don't agree with your assessment of the real life stalker. I have known plenty of stalkers and they are not harmless people.
Did you even watch the entire series? Your encapsulation seems to indicate otherwise.
I have to ask - are viewers like you even watching the entire series before offering comments?
I looked around a bit about this and the woman in this series is crazy and mentally ill and after one reporter interviewed her guess what happened? Yes, she started stalking the reporter.
My point is, so many people that make all these comments are so lacking in sympathy when it comes to their behavior choices due to everything from insecurity to mental illness that it becomes such a bore when reading juvenile-like replies with little depth.
This guy, through the series and in post-interviews, has clearly explained his decision making in ways that do make sense to those knowledgable about human behaviors and mental illnesses, but not so when it comes to the overwhelming public that lack such ability.
Where did I suggest everything I "gathered" came only from the monologue? In fact, in my reply to your follow-up to my first posting, I mention other times how reveals what drives him. See above....
I can't recall every single fragment of information through the entire series and when each occurred time wise and it what episode.
And as for your need for a specific "initial" trauma, there was no singular event, it was a series or a culmination from all aspects of his life that fed into his manipulated willingness to be groomed. And to refer to his behavior as "moronic" is too simplistic.
In other words, it wasn't his "moronic" behavior that led him to be victimized, but his self-hate and loathing led to his "moronic" behavior that continued him down his destructive path.
With this, I think I've had about all I've had to say on this subject.
His issue was his own self-hate and self-loathing that developed from his birth to adulthood, and from what I gathered, found quite a bit of it based on his issues with his sexuality and how all of this dovetailed into him becoming a manipulated and groomed "willing" victim.
Lastly, to me, anyone's victimization can and often does go way beyond "moronic" behavior. Calling it "moronic" is too simplistic and especially for this series. Not only that, he kept conducting his "moronic" behavior because it was almost in a way similar to that of one pursuing what one feels is their perceived self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, I'm not ignoring your supposed point, it's just that I feel I am wasting my time discussing trauma and victimization with one who does not fully appreciate how complex and dangerous it is and how often, for a variety of reasons, it is almost impossible for a person to control behavior many believe to be precipitated solely due to their bad decisions.
And as I've previously typed, the reasons for his "moronic" behavior were clear to me and his behavior was clearly beyond the influences of simple "moronic" behavior.
I would either suggest you go back and re-watch it or read some interviews with the guy because in the series, he clearly portrays why he makes the decisions he does and especially the ones that continue to cause him harm.
All the indicators, big and small, are there and to me, clear as a bell, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. And again, I suggest you read up a bit on the things that go into trauma and how such things impact behavior and why people continue to behave in ways that are detrimental to them.
In his monologue and at other times, he made it clear that he kept doing things harmful toward himself because he was so full of self-hate and self-loathing that such behaviors were what he thought would bring him about to where he needed to be in life when instead he learned it was further victimizing him.
I would suggest reading up a bit about the aftereffects of victimization and trauma and how such things render a person almost inert in ways.
Again, he explains it all in the monologue and in other bits and made his behavior decisions clear to those willing to listen.
When I say the title is bad it is with the thought of it really doesn't paint a good picture of what the film is about and I think, just like the movie The Sadist, that it probably created an impression of this movie that didn't resonate with potential viewers.
For 1965, this is really a good picture with good acting and one that really has fallen under the radar and deserves more attention.
To me, a bad title to a movie is one that completely misses the concept of the film and portrays something else, and to me, "Rat Fink" is a bad title for this film and misrepresents its contents in a way that hurts the film.
Have you even considered that you missed the entire point of how his own trauma prevented actions that most likely would have been carried out by those without his trauma?
It's like you missed the entire point of his monologue at the comedy competition where he explained why he was rendered inert by this woman's stalking and how it was based in his own experiences, i.e., the grooming.
The marketing of this film would be interesting to know. It sort of has a beatnik-hipster feel to it and I would imagine that was done to try and tap into a current theme of the day back then.
It would not surprise me if this film was also geared toward early shows at drive ins and that is too bad because this really is a hidden gem if viewed in relative terms of 1965.
There is one scene that I am surprised is not more well known and talked about that surely had to be pretty shocking to portray back in '65 and is along the same lines as when Richard Widmark pushed an elerly woman in a wheel chair down a set of stairs.
I wasn't sure what to expect and was highly pleasantly surprised. I think those familiar with 70s television standards will especially enjoy it.
Right....a rapist trump supporter casting stones from his idiotic glass house. Probably one himself.
Who was instrumental and took the initiative to push the decision to drop the bombs to encourage and frighten people enough to purchase the expensive vaults and to move into them when the peace talks were working?
But I guess I wasn't watching the show and was dreaming that a major plot point was how the Walton Goggins character slowly realized the true nature of his wife. And I guess I imagined the part where he put a listening device in his ear and overheard his wife push an idea that everyone else was avoiding.
So my question to you is, do you always spout off with insulting and condescending posts before writing checks your keyboard can't cash and did YOU even watch the series?
Your reply was funny...thank s for the chuckle of the day.