David Full Movies Hd 720p
Christal Rasband
For me, perhaps the most interesting person aboard the Prometheus was the android, David. I'm still confused by his seeming fascination with the movie, Lawrence of Arabia. Although I couldn't make notes during the film, I believe that he quoted Peter O'toole's character, Lawrence, on more than one occasion. Was he attempting to attain a similar achievement with the Engineers as Lawrence did with the Arabs? Why did he infect the Crew leader? What was his motivation?
to help Weyland achieve Weyland's goal, which is to contact engineers so engineers can help Weyland cheat death. After all David is a computer with a programmed purpose: serving Weyland.("Try harder" is Weyland telling David to keep looking for a living engineer, which David then does successfully.)
In the very beginning of the film David's hair style is different, then we see him watching the film while he is coloring the roots of his hair to match Peter's, and then he combs it so that he has the same hair style. He later repeats the phrase "The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts". I think David repeats that line two or three times. I took this to imply that David's natural appearance is different including his hair color.
Is this sequence connected to David's fascination with the Engineers. Absolutely, because this scene defines a repeating theme that David tents to overly obsess over things related to the human condition. I think you have to watch Lawrence of Arabia to understand what was being implied by that scene.
Did Peter tell David to infect a crew member, or did David conceive this idea on his own? That isn't made clear in the film. Later in the film, Peter Weyland is told to take off his helmet and Elizabeth protests saying that the infection that killed the Doctor could be air born. Peter Weyland appears to not know that the Doctor is dead, and David just gives Elizabeth a look.
David says "big things have small beginnings" and then later while talking to the Doctor. He says "if you could meet your creator, what would you say?". I really feel that David understood that the dark fluid was a virus, and that it created life. In that scene David expresses a fascination with meeting ones creator, and also his disapproval of humans. I think he gave it to the Doctor, so he could destroy his creator and turn himself into a creator at the same time. While answering the question, what does this black stuff really do?
Here's my biggest problem with it: David knows absolutely nothing about the black goo. What would make him think that it could create, change, preserve, whatever, human life? I mean, if you happened to come across a bunch of black goo would your first thought be to feed it to some animals. Even if it contains a bunch of nutrients, eating an egg doesn't cause a chicken to start growing in my body. So he just comes up with this alien virus/embryo idea out of nowhere.
Not only that, but they have an awesome lab there, why doesn't he just use that to run some experiments on it? Why doesn't he work with the other scientists to find out more about it? Surely that would aid the old man just as much if not more than david working alone.
He turned out to hate the humans due to the actions of Dr.Holloway. To me, since the first time David and Holloway met... I always had the gut feeling that David was going to do something to Holloway sooner or later. I mean, Holloway was being such an ass towards David! Plus, not only that.. but.. to me, it seemed as if he knew that the black goo was dangerous. One reason why I believe he knew is that he didn't inform the crew about taking that black goo back with him.
TDR: Thank you, Mr. Thomson, for taking the time to talk with The Review. Would you be able to situate your time at Dartmouth in the context of your early career? And what brought you to Dartmouth in the first place?
DT: I began teaching in 1971 in England, when a small liberal arts college in New Hampshire, New England College, established an English campus. I taught there part time, and in 1975 they asked me to go to their American campus and teach there, which I did. While in New Hampshire, I visited Hanover and saw Dartmouth, and I was impressed with it. Then I had various family upsets, including the death of my mother, and I had to go back to England. But I was told by a friend that there was a job opportunity at Dartmouth, and I applied for it.
In my experience, there were also people in the language departments who had quite a big influence on what was going on in film. When I first came to the College, Neil Oxenhandler was a professor at Dartmouth. He was an authority on Jean Cocteau, among other great French filmmakers. There were people in the German Department also who had very good knowledge of German films.
TDR: I have before me a first US edition of your epochal Biographical Dictionary of Film, published in 1976, one year after the first UK edition came out. So, you wrote this book, and it was twice published, before you even came to Dartmouth.
DT: I started going to the movies at the age of four, and it became a sort of family tradition with my parents, my aunt, and grandparents that if they had me on their hands for a day or a weekend, they would take me to the movies, where I would be content.
I have always loved the medium in an absolutely uncritical, unconsidered way. I just love being in the dark, looking at the big screen and the light. I loved books, I loved reading, I loved history, those things. But it was only when I was involved in what was a fairly serious education in England that I realized film was the dominant imaginative force in my life.
But I met a group of other students, and we had a ball. We made films; we shot pieces of films. I had never attempted filmmaking before that, but I loved it, and I found that it was deepening my sense of how films worked. I started going to the school in 1960, and by then, I was probably seeing at least one film every day. Sometimes more.
TDR: When you arrived at Dartmouth, the first British and American editions of the Biographical Dictionary had already been published. What was the genesis of that book? What motivated you to compose so vast and authoritative a compendium?
The book did not get reviewed very much at first, but by the time I came to Dartmouth, it had been reviewed quite widely and generally favorably. It had upset some people, but the book was a very important calling card in my getting the job at Dartmouth.
Things moved quickly. We pulled together a little bit of a budget. The Hopkins Center was very good about it. Peter Smith, who was the director of the Hopkins Center, found some money. We floated the idea, and it was approved, that Michael would come over and somehow teach a course in filmmaking.
Administrative duties at the College had been getting to be quite a big chore in my life. I had been told that I was likely to be Chairman of the Drama Department, which I was not cut out for at all. Really, I wanted to write and be more involved in making films, that kind of thing. So, by 1981, I left Dartmouth. So, in fact, I was there just over four years. But it was a very great time, a very important time for me.
TDR: Today, of course, Michael Powell is held in considerable esteem, and he is certainly one of the most represented filmmakers in the Criterion Collection. But at that juncture, I daresay you and Scorsese were perhaps his stalwart champions, certainly in this country. Is that a fair assessment?
DT: I entered film school in 1960, and I had no sense of it then, but later I realized that there could not have been a better moment to start it. Hollywood was breaking down and changing, and increasingly there was an enormous influence of foreign films.
It was a great, great time. The people one had first encountered as writers in Cahiers and Positif suddenly began making films that were clearly some of the most interesting films being made at the time. It was the age of Godard, you know. There was also a fervor to know more about films, which meant that Americans started looking at their old films.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "SASQUATCH SUNSET")UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character) Oh.(SOUNDBITE OF THUMPING)AYESHA RASCOE, HOST: That is why you won't find me out in the woods in the Pacific Northwest in some sleeping bag, no matter how pretty the stars are. What you hear there is from a sasquatch. And I should know because I did a school project on them when I was a kid. One thing all my fourth grade research didn't cover was what a sasquatch's family life is like. So I'm so happy now to have those gaps filled in by the new movie "Sasquatch Sunset."(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "SASQUATCH SUNSET")UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: (As character, imitating sasquatch).RASCOE: It stars Riley Keough and Jesse Eisenberg. Brothers David and Nathan Zellner directed "Sasquatch Sunset," and they join us now. Welcome to the program.DAVID ZELLNER: Hi. Thanks for having us.NATHAN ZELLNER: Pleasure to be here.RASCOE: As I said, I really did do a school project on sasquatch. I can say, though, it was not as explicit and sweet as this movie is. David, can you start by dropping us in where the movie starts? Like, where are we, and what are we watching?D ZELLNER: It follows a family of sasquatches during a year of their life, traversing the Pacific Northwest in search of others of their kind. And it just covers the whole spectrum of their existence, from joy to sorrow and tragedy and complete absurdity, as well.RASCOE: I mean, it really does. And I was interested in the family structure. Did you want to leave that a bit ambiguous?D ZELLNER: Well, we kind of modeled it after, you know, the type of films where it follows, you know, a pack of wolves or a herd of elephants or that sort of thing, where, you know, you have a general idea of the dynamic. But we didn't want to anthropomorphize too much. And what's interesting to us about Bigfoot is kind of the way it represents the gray area between human and animal behavior. And so we liked the idea of using that as an entry point to the human condition but then leaving some ambiguity to it as well because they are animals.RASCOE: When do you both remember becoming really interested in sasquatch? Was it around fourth and fifth grade like me?D ZELLNER: Yes. We first saw this show that was on TV in the '70s called "In Search Of..." that was hosted by Leonard Nimoy.(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "IN SEARCH OF...")LEONARD NIMOY: A giant, hairy creature, part ape, part man. Indians call him Sasquatch.D ZELLNER: They had one about Bigfoot that we were obsessed with, and so I think that kind of kicked it off for us.RASCOE: Nathan, this movie is a tight 90 minutes, which - I do like a 90-minute movie. But there's no dialogue in it, no human dialogue. Did you know that you wanted to make this movie without words from the beginning? And was it hard to convince a studio to go along with this and say, you're going to have a big-name actor, but they're going to be completely unrecognizable, pretty much, and then there's going to be no talking?N ZELLNER: Yeah, it - we always wanted it to be from the perspective of the sasquatch and kind of like you're immersed in their world and within their family. And so, like, you really feel for them through their struggles. And you laugh with them. You laugh at them. But it's always with respect for these creatures and these animals.And I think a big part of that is making sure that the audience is on their side and kind of, like, takes them as real, you know, so, like, immersing the audience in this environment with just the dialogue that they communicate to each other, which is a series of grunts and loops. But it's really clear what they're saying to each other, even though there's no English language. There's no subtitles.It took a very long time to just convince everybody what we were doing. The tone of the film is very specific, and that's kind of what we led with.RASCOE: What was the pitch? Like, this is a unique opportunity to tell this story in a way that's never been told?N ZELLNER: Yeah, it's a very unconventional script. It doesn't have the dialogue written out, but it's very specific on the actions and the beats and all the emotion that these characters are feeling. And it was really obvious right away what a unique opportunity this was and what a challenge this film would be and how much fun it would be 'cause it's not something that as actors, you get - a movie that - where you get to disappear under full makeup and really use some different acting skills other than just your voice. And I think that was what was exciting to all the people involved.RASCOE: Well, David, let's get down to some of the science here because - how did you come up with the mannerisms, the rituals? You know, as far as we know or - what science claims is that these animals don't exist. We don't really know that. We're - we still got to keep looking. But how did you come up with these mannerisms and rituals and what have you?D ZELLNER: You know, I think we, in writing it, used kind of the foundation of Bigfoot lore as an entry point, you know, the things that everyone's familiar with. And - from the broader strokes to the more specific details about sasquatches building nests and the way they communicate with knocking on trees and some of their ritualistic behavior. You know, and then from there, we kind of needed to fill in the gaps with other things and fleshing out their characteristics. And so that involved studying a lot of, you know, like, primate documentaries and things like that.RASCOE: We don't see any humans at all. Our presence is clear, but we're not seen. Why is that? And is there an environmental message?D ZELLNER: I don't know how we could make it without an ecological message about it just because this is from the perspective of these creatures. And while we don't show humans in it, as the movie goes on, they're exposed to the impact of humankind.N ZELLNER: And usually, in these creature movies or Bigfoot movies where it's from the human's point of view, the creature is kind of mysterious and in the distance. And we liked the idea of switching that and - so that the humans are never seen. They're kind of like the bogeyman or the mysterious thing that is kind of encroaching and making things ominous for the main characters.RASCOE: I've got one question left for both of you, and I think it's probably the most important question. And it's do you believe sasquatch exist?D ZELLNER: I believe in its cultural relevance in terms of what it represents as our connection to the natural world. And as civilization developed, it feels like we've become more and more disconnected from that, and so that might be part of what the origins of the stories come from. But I think regardless, it's relevant for that reason.N ZELLNER: Yeah, I'm hopeful that it exists. I think that what brings a lot of people to this story, including David and myself, is the mystery of what's out there that isn't known yet and the desire to have that sort of wonder and not have everything spelled out but still be curious, especially of the natural world.RASCOE: I totally agree, and I feel like this is what I tell my children about Santa Claus. He is as real as you believe him to be, and so I think we can...(LAUGHTER)RASCOE: ...We can leave it at that.D ZELLNER: I love that.RASCOE: That's David and Nathan Zellner. Their new movie, "Sasquatch Sunset," is in theaters now. Thank you for speaking with us.D ZELLNER: Thanks for having us.N ZELLNER: This was great. Thank you.
7fc3f7cf58