Six (294 to go): --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected] , TurquoiseB no_reply@ > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > Just rent a copy of "Dance With Wolves" and watch > > > it and document for us (with a time listing of when > > > they appear in the film, or a clear description > > > of the scene in which they appear) every instance > > > you see in the film that supports YOUR descriptions > > > of Mary McConnell's hair as follows: > > > > > > 1. "slovenly looking" > > > 2. "wild and savage" > > > 3. "matted and tangled" > > > 4. "a snarled, dirty-looking mess" > > > 5. "looks like a rat's nest" > > > 6. "looking like a slattern" > > > > Already posted a still *from her wedding* that > > supports these descriptions, plus another one > > with my first post on the topic. Here's a third: > > [mcdonnell2] <http://www.flickr.com/photos/36189...@n02/4271258355/> > > This is not a shot from the film; it's a publicity photo > taken on the set but not from the film itself. Note the > signature.
Yeah, right, she'd mess her hair up real good for a publicity photo and then comb it neatly into place when she was filming a scene. <snicker> Her face even looks dirty in that shot. Could just be the lighting, but they don't typically release publicity photos of stars with dirty-looking faces *unless that's a feature of the character*. Also, of course, stills from a film, complete with autographs, are often used as publicity photos to send out to drooling fanboys. > I think you're pissing into the same wind that blew > Mary's hair into the tousled but attractive form you > projected *your* inner ugliness onto. I repeat, there > is not a moment in the film in which her hair is shown > as "dirty-looking" or "matted," only wind-blown. Only > by doing what I suggested can you ever prove otherwise. Already posted three stills, one of them from *the wedding scene*. > Here's a more representative shot from the film itself: > [http://www.koehlercustoms.com/Fist3.JPG] It's in better shape in this shot, I'll grant you, but it isn't "more representative" by any means. It's still uncombed looking, and it's STILL in striking contrast to the hair of the Indian women. Her hair looks a lot neater in the "normal" shot. But even if it didn't, it would be fine *for her* as a "normal" style in modern times. That doesn't somehow diminish its incongruity for her in the role of a white woman of the 1860s raised by Indians and fiercely loyal to the tribe. Apples and kiwi fruit. I challenged you to address that contrast rationally and without demonization. Still waiting. And I also said: Before you demand that I go through the film and annotate all the scenes in which McDonnell's hair looked messy, you go through your posts, retract all the assertions you know to be false, and provide documentation for those you genuinely believe to be true but that I've contested. Pointless to "wait" on that one. You're constitutionally incapable of even that much honesty.
