alt.hn

1/13/2025 at 1:41:52 AM

How did they make cars fall apart in old movies (2017)

 https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/79161/how-did-they-make-cars-fall-apart-in-old-movies

by mgsouth

1/13/2025 at 7:18:43 AM

I immediately assumed this article was about the French movie Le Corniaud (1965) in which a 2CV falls apart in 250 pieces in an accident—this scene specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLj5Xo4zBc&t=19s It became one of the most iconic scene of French comedy movies. To prepare the scene, the special effects engineer sawed off the car in 250 pieces, reattached every piece with hooks, and secured the hooks with "explosive bolts". At the right moment, the actor driving the car pushed a button to trigger the (tiny) explosives which made the car fall apart. Here is a French article about it: https://2cv-legende.com/expo-de-la-2cv-du-film-le-corniaud-a...

PS: the French wikipedia article on the movie has a picture of the explosive bolts they used: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corniaud#L'accident_de_la_2...

by mrb

1/13/2025 at 1:02:49 PM

The one I thought of was the Silver Hornet from Revenge of the Pink Panther:

https://youtu.be/0z-FtAMg6Vw?si=zGsEnyt4NKtsMnLb

Even though I’ve seen many different versions of this gag, they are all still funny to me.

by yowzadave

1/13/2025 at 3:04:03 PM

This seems very much like an homage to the French film example, just done less well.

by dylan604

1/13/2025 at 10:27:37 AM

By the way, I always wondered why we got modern versions of the Mini and the Beetle, but not the 2CV.

by amelius

1/13/2025 at 10:49:23 AM

I guess the answer depends on which aspect of the 2CV is being replicated in the new version.

If its "outrageously small but can still take you and a goose to market", Citroën have a tiny little electric vehicle, the Ami, today.

If its "something simple enough that a farmer can weld the panels themselves", I fear those days are long gone, in the same way that the OG Land Rover Defender is no longer a car you can wrench on. The spiritual heir of such cars is probably a toyota hilux(?). Modern safety standards and the presence of complex electronics beneath every surface, to say nothing of the more complex sheet metal shapes, probably stop that idea in its tracks.

by kjellsbells

1/13/2025 at 11:45:21 AM

There's still simple cars being produced but they're aimed at the Chinese and Indian markets, same with motorcycles. Example is (was?) the Tata Nano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano), at $2500 a very affordable and simple car, mainly aimed at motorcycle/scooter drivers.

by Cthulhu_

1/13/2025 at 8:47:28 PM

Well since we're talking about Citroen I'll say where is the button I can press to make the car raise up 20 cm :-D Always loved watching my uncle come visit in their CX. We'd always wait to see the car start and lift up.

by foobarian

1/14/2025 at 9:47:33 PM

As someone who fixes basically everything until you can no longer tell it is a ship of thesis, I don't think complexity or safety features are the problem so much as not designing for or expecting someone to fix something in combination with extreme penny pinching in manufacture, so that there isn't enough material to anything for repairs to be done reasonably. If something breaks, the original material was at such a bare-minimum thickness and/or low quality alloy or plastic to start with that even the smallest defect in repair is a problem.

Its like trying to fix a single broken strand in a spider web, even with the tiniest thread you can find and the most delicate hands and tools, any manipulation of the web at all is likely to cause even more defects and any successful patch job will need to be way over-kill compared to what was originally broken. You can't just fix that one thread that broke, you gotta throw a large patch over the entire area and hope that the original spider thread designs that were undamaged will be able to hold up against your much stronger patch job.

by AngryData

1/13/2025 at 12:22:42 PM

There’s the Ineos Grenadier[1]

> The Grenadier was designed to be a modern replacement of the original Land Rover Defender, with boxy bodywork, a steel ladder chassis, beam axles with long-travel progressive-rate coil spring suspension (front and rear), and powered by a BMW B58 inline six turbocharged engine.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos_Grenadier

by iglio

1/13/2025 at 4:19:58 PM

It is a lot more complicated than a defender though, isn't it. It has electronics!

by jimnotgym

1/13/2025 at 3:09:41 PM

The Hilux went the other way: you can apply wrench to nut, but the odds of you needing to do so recede into the distance.

by regularfry

1/14/2025 at 11:20:05 AM

I thought one defining feature was the innovative front-to-rear linked suspension well suited for the poor road conditions in rural France of the fifties. Allegedly you could ride the car fairly comfortably across a freshly ploughed field.

Roads are mostly in better shape today, but in remote places of California there are still secondary roads where long-travel suspension is of benefit (partly explaining the popularity of pick-up trucks there).

by guenthert

1/13/2025 at 5:02:26 PM

https://2cev.co.uk/ showed up on ev-youtube last year (but other than the drive train, it's going out of it's way to not actually be modern... the 2cv aesthetic of "you think a VW Bug is too fancy" kind of limits the options.)

by eichin

1/13/2025 at 6:06:29 PM

Well but the modern Mini and Beetle are related to the classics in name only, not in spirit.

by andrepd

1/13/2025 at 10:42:14 AM

Was one 20 years ago, Citroen c5 or c3 or something. Maybe still is.

by dostick

1/13/2025 at 11:49:03 AM

It doesn't have the iconic 2CV look ...

by amelius

1/13/2025 at 12:36:21 PM

Nor do the new mini ever had the original mini look. The Daihatsu Trevis was much closer to the Issigonis Mini look than the new mini ever was.

I may be wrong but I don't think the 2cv has a design that can translate as easily to a newer version the same way as the beetle design could without being completely denatured. I think it would be easier to build a modern HY looking van.

by prmoustache

1/13/2025 at 11:52:58 AM

Because the 2CV is mostly replaced by the entire crossover and compact SUV market segment.

by potato3732842

1/13/2025 at 2:20:05 PM

I'm not sure how to translate this line: « Ah ben maintenant elle va marcher beaucoup moins bien, forcément ! » (Bourvil reportedly improvised it, causing de Funès to start laughing and bow his head to hide it).

Google Translate: “Ah well now it’s going to work a lot less well, of course!”

Deepl:

- It's going to work much less well.

- It's going to run much less smoothly.

- It's going to run a lot less smoothly.

None of these suggestions sounds good to me (in case it isn't clear I'm not a native English speaker).

by af78

1/13/2025 at 8:19:26 PM

The Google one seems dead on, except it should be gendered, native English refers to boats and cars as female gender:

“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, of course!”

Since you mentioned Google and Deepl, here's O1:

“Ah well, obviously she’s gonna run a lot less well now!”

“Ah well, looks like she’ll be running a lot less well, naturally!”

My own thoughts on google were replace work with run, replace it with she, and I wasn't sure about of course, versus, say, naturally. My own would have been:

“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, naturally!”

The context is that the 2CV driver is fussing to the Rolls driver who bumped him to make it fall apart. It keeps the Galois humor of a 2CV running well ever, and the naturally rhymes with that.

// English native, FSL here

by Terretta

1/13/2025 at 2:43:45 PM

All four sound fine to my native ears. "It's going to run ..." is most natural when talking about a vehicle. (French if I recall does not distinguish "working" from "running" for machines generally.)

by colanderman

1/13/2025 at 3:29:14 PM

Thanks.

While the primary meaning of 'marcher' is 'to walk', it can be used for machines and vehicles indeed. 'Rouler' is for vehicles only. Interestingly in English the verb 'to run' is used, suggesting higher speed.

The expression “to work better” is quite common but I don't remember seeing “to work less well”. And as I was taught that « plus grand » translates to “taller” but « moins grand » to “not as tall as”, I expected something more involved.

by af78

1/13/2025 at 8:57:40 PM

Yes, I might naturally say "It's no longer going to run as smoothly." But, to me, phrasing it as "It's going to run much less smoothly" adds to the humor by suggesting that it will to _some_ degree still run "smoothly" (when in fact it won't run at all).

by colanderman

1/13/2025 at 11:12:09 PM

Marcher here means "work", "function".

by cryptonector

1/13/2025 at 3:19:23 PM

Something like "Oh well now it will run a lot less well, obviously." Seems like the more or less literal translation.

"a lot less well" is the awkward part, a more natural construction would be a negation "is not going to run well" or something like that.

by maxerickson

1/13/2025 at 8:19:33 AM

Super impressive ! Thanks for sharing.

Similar (albeit a bit heavier from the all paperwork) explosive bolts are user for stage separation in launch vehicles (rockets).

by 4gotunameagain

1/13/2025 at 10:52:21 AM

That scene would've been a lot more impressive if wasn't edited like Liam Neeson jumping over a fence, haha

by moffkalast

1/13/2025 at 10:51:35 PM

I also thought first about the 2CV in Le Corniaud (1965) :)

I had no idea that explosives were involved!

by llsf

1/13/2025 at 1:07:44 PM

[dead]

by TacticalCoder

1/13/2025 at 6:03:36 AM

For those who don't know, Keaton was amazingly dedicated as a comedic stuntman - a silent era Jackie Chan (he was less popular after the silent era, but kept working until his death in the 60s).

From Wikipedia: Garry Moore recalled, "I asked (Keaton) how he did all those falls, and he said, 'I'll show you.' He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care." This would have been in about 1955, when Keaton (born 1899) was an old man and well past his heyday of really dangerous stunts (he once broke his neck during an early stunt).

And he usually had an amazing commitment to film in a lot of other ways. The first time he was shot in a film he took a camera apart to figure out how it worked, because he really cared about every detail (though in the middle of his career this really hurt him, as execs wanted to just trot him up in front of the camera as a high paid celebrity - they didn't want him wasting his valuable time fussing over details, or risk their investment letting him do stunts).

by wisty

1/13/2025 at 8:11:14 AM

Video of some of his better stunts: https://youtu.be/yOo_ZUVU_O8?si=1OEwZTk-d88ma2Zs

And a great Every Frame a Painting film essay on his work: https://youtu.be/UWEjxkkB8Xs?si=n-4ZNr_cMnYVKijs

He was truly an innovator that makes today’s “films of people talking to each other” look amateurish.

A few months ago the local theatre was playing Sherlock Jr. with a live band, and it was awesome. Try to see it in similar circumstances if possible.

by keiferski

1/13/2025 at 7:46:33 PM

> He was truly an innovator that makes today’s “films of people talking to each other” look amateurish.

I feel you could have said the first part without attempting to critique films with a different aesthetic aspiration.

I just watched Eisenberg's "A Real Pain" last night, and there is no way that any of the things Keaton was good at would have improved that film at all. Which is not to say that Keaton was not an innovator .. just that there is more than one aesthetic goal for films, and room for all of them.

by PaulDavisThe1st

1/13/2025 at 8:50:20 PM

I was comparing Keaton to a modern film that has people talking back and forth without any interesting use of space on film. This video explains it well:

https://youtu.be/jGc-K7giqKM?si=0sOBkBrsYa4IBo5N

A lot of Keaton’s gags and shots are similar.

by keiferski

1/13/2025 at 4:20:02 PM

Wow, those stunts are incredible - it's hard to believe he died of old age and not of these super risky stunts.

by exhilaration

1/13/2025 at 2:28:42 PM

> A few months ago the local theatre was playing Sherlock Jr. with a live band

AFI in Silver Spring?

by acuozzo

1/13/2025 at 3:28:29 PM

Nope, other side of the world

by keiferski

1/13/2025 at 7:22:25 PM

All those falls, my toddler is going to love his films I guess.

by smusamashah

1/13/2025 at 9:55:45 AM

> He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care."

It reminds me of the glass eating trick by David Blaine, where the trick is to… just eat glass. It makes it quite bittersweet, as after all, those men are trading some of their wellbeing for some of their fame. Not sure how to feel about it.

by exitb

1/13/2025 at 11:23:16 AM

I am also trading my short term wellbeing, if only for money - by working in an unappreciative startup; I suppose many others do the same, and even more would like to. My hope is that my long term wellbeing improves as a result.

by thih9

1/13/2025 at 11:53:59 AM

That's true, although society generally does not applaud sustaining permanent injuries at work as dedication.

by exitb

1/13/2025 at 3:09:26 PM

I can’t imagine staring at a screen for 8h+ hours a day[1] is not causing some permanent injuries.

[1]: Not to mention daily zoom calls with a micromanaging boss and a mandatory video on rule.

by thih9

1/13/2025 at 2:22:40 PM

Men sell their bodies all the time. Miners, fishermen, football players, etc. 97% of all workplace fatalities are men.

by db48x

1/13/2025 at 12:15:26 PM

> He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care.

I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment. Obviously I cannot stop it, but I can stop watching those who engage in things like this. (And I don't just mean the stunt performer, but the director, the producers, the studio and the franchise.)

I have unsubscribed from youtube channels when I felt that they were pushing themselves in dangerous directions. It is not like that alone will stop them, but if I would keep watching I would be complicit in the harm which might befall them.

There is the principle attributed to Houdini by Penn Jillette that a performance/trick should not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room. Especially when it appears dangerous. I don't know about the exact line though. Strictly interpreting the "not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room" definition would disqualify any performance where the performer had to drive (or be chauffeured) to the location of their performance. And that would be a bit ridiculous.

by krisoft

1/13/2025 at 2:28:40 PM

> There is the principle attributed to Houdini

Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before. A hit to the abdomen before he could flex his muscles most likely ruptured his appendix. Keaton died of lung cancer well past the end of his fame.

You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it and prepare for anything that could go wrong. You can never completely avoid it and sometimes a single error is all it takes.

by josefx

1/13/2025 at 2:41:25 PM

> You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it and prepare for anything that could go wrong.

I think that is all I'm asking. Or not even that. Just saying that if they don't, i don't want to watch it.

> Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before.

The blows which allegedly killed Houdini were not suffered during a performance or stunt.

by krisoft

1/13/2025 at 3:21:03 PM

There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort of nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their stuff in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel host isn't the one getting stung anymore. I have to wonder what it was like from their perspective, watching the view counts go up and up with each successive "Hurt yourself on camera" video, and wondering what to do next.

by gigaflop

1/13/2025 at 4:39:32 PM

>There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort of nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their stuff in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel host isn't the one getting stung anymore.

Brave Wilderness?

by astura

1/13/2025 at 7:18:05 PM

Yeah, that's the one! With the guy named Coyote.

by gigaflop

1/14/2025 at 1:37:16 AM

I'm a rock climber. There are many people out there who take wild and unnecessary risks on a regular basis for no accolades whatsoever, out in the middle of nowhere where no one can see them, and they don't tell anybody about it aftwerwards. However, if they want to do it for my entertainment that's fine too.

by Fricken

1/13/2025 at 12:45:51 PM

> I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment.

I mean, they pretty much all do to some degree. It's not healthy on your body to do eight Broadway shows a week. Or to be constantly switching between all-day and all-night shoots on a TV show. And performing a role of high emotional trauma every day for weeks or months takes its own kind of toll too.

Obviously nobody should be at risk of life or of permanent injury, that goes without saying.

But getting bruises while doing stunts, that's just what being a stuntperson is. Nobody is forced into it. And this is why there are stuntpeople in the first place -- it's not just for skills. Sometimes the regular actor could do it fine, but there's no time in the schedule for their body to recover afterwards.

by crazygringo

1/13/2025 at 1:10:22 PM

> Nobody is forced into it.

And i’m not forced to watch it. So all is fair.

by krisoft

1/13/2025 at 3:09:50 PM

Your position is similar to why I stopped watched NFL games. I get that players choose to play (for money), but at the end of the day, I am unwilling to contribute to brain damage.

by adamc

1/13/2025 at 7:05:59 PM

I think there's a pretty big difference between long-term brain damage and bruises though.

Stuntpeople aren't getting blows to the head, generally speaking.

by crazygringo

1/13/2025 at 11:08:59 PM

That is not what the research shows. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9835670/

“One hundred seventy-three performers (80%) indicated at least one head impact/head whip during their stunt career. Of these, 86% exhibited concussion-like symptoms and 38% received one or more concussion diagnoses. Sixty-five percent continued working with concussion-like symptoms.”

by krisoft

1/13/2025 at 12:45:43 PM

[flagged]

by BiteCode_dev

1/13/2025 at 1:08:51 PM

> Then you have to stop watching any competition of anything

Done. Easy.

> stop reading about start up on HN as well

I don’t think there the motivation is to create entertainment though. But i don’t care much about that kind of content either.

> forget about any extra ordinnary human achivement

I disagree with that. Plenty of extraordinary human achievements were created under circumstances I find acceptable to celebrate and watch.

by krisoft

1/13/2025 at 3:41:03 PM

Let's not scale mountains, explore the oceans, cross the poles, or go to space. Why be heroic when we can all hold hands and be safe.

"""They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth."""

by daseiner1

1/13/2025 at 3:49:11 PM

> Let's not scale mountains, explore the oceans, cross the poles, or go to space. Why be heroic when we can all hold hands and be safe.

In terms of exploring the oceans my hero is Admiral Rickover and not Stockton Rush. Different kind of heroism. Not the lack of it.

by krisoft

1/15/2025 at 12:34:35 AM

Yeah, because scaling a mounting or exploring the ocean is exactly the same as "punch me in the kidney bro, it'll be funny".

by justarobert

1/13/2025 at 10:03:26 AM

I saw a Jackie Chan interview years ago (20 or so) in which he said Keaton was an inspiration.

by draven

1/13/2025 at 3:00:50 PM

You can see some classic Keaton in "A Funny thing Happened on the Way to the Forum". He remained great, even as an old man.

by adamc

1/13/2025 at 3:05:37 PM

Wow, I completely forgot that he played Erronius. Every time I think about the way he says "stolen in infancy by pirates" in that gravelly voices of his I have to stifle a laugh.

by throw4847285

1/13/2025 at 7:00:13 AM

His dedication was truly next-level

by ErigmolCt

1/13/2025 at 6:05:52 AM

Those reasons seem to make sense but I'd say just as much has to do with Buster Keaton himself, he had nerves of steel.

During the filming of the Civil War movie The General there are images of Keaton doing things that even the bravest of stuntmen wouldn't do these days and we'd now rely on film animation and tricks to make the scenes work.

For instance, Keaton—who obviously was very fit and agile—is filmed sitting on a cowcatcher of a moving locomotive whilst removing rail ties that were placed on the line to impede the train's progress and then tossing them aside.

I read somewhere that Clyde Bruckman the film's director gave instructions to the cameraman "to keep filming the scene until finished or until Keaton is killed" or words to that effect.

I can't remember whether Bruckman was referring to this scene or another such as when he's running across the locomotive's tender (the comment could equally have applied to many other scenes I reckon). Others who are more knowledgeable could perhaps fill in the details.

I like this movie, Keaton was a great performer and his movies are a testament to that.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 9:55:09 AM

My favourite Keaton movie is the one near his end where he goes across Canada by hand crank car on rail roads.

"The railrodder" (1965)

Kenton died 1966

by ggm

1/13/2025 at 11:16:01 AM

Yeah, I came across that one by sheer accident some years back. It was such a surprise. Now you've reminded me of it I'll watch it again. :-)

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 10:20:00 AM

I found the movie interesting in that they managed to make the Confederates the good guys by simply never showing a Black person on screen or mentioning slavery. There were a few good stunts and it was worth watching as a historical curiosity, but I didn't think it was all that good as a movie. I'm not American, so may have missed some things that would have let me follow the story better.

by mkl

1/13/2025 at 11:05:47 AM

I'm not an American either so I've not a patriotic fervor over the outcome of the Civil War to the extent as that most Americans have.

That the movie showed the Confederates in better light than the Yankees wasn't appreciated much when it was released. Back then, there were Civil War veterans who were still alive who criticized the film which contributed to its poor ratings. Also, keep in mind the film was based on the story The Great Locomotive Chase, changing it to having the Yankees as the main subject just wouldn't have been feasible.

Nevertheless, the film's stature has grown over the years and has developed a bit of a cult status:

https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) (read 'Legacy')

Oh, and I just noticed on the Wiki page there's even an image of Keaton riding the cowcatcher.

I'm not a film buff so I'll let those comments/reviews stand on their own merits.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 11:29:43 AM

Some context for non-Americans: the 1920s (when the film was released) was the hey-day of Civil War revisionism; that was when most of the statues of Confederate generals were erected and the narrative of the noble Confederates was written. "1920s film made Confederates the good guys" is one of the least surprising things ever.

by saalweachter

1/13/2025 at 11:41:17 AM

Thanks for that, that's a perspective of which I was unaware but I've long been aware there was a reasonable level of criticism when the film was released.

It's notable from this outsider's perspective that there's still levels of animosity over the War and that statues of Lee get desecrated and or damaged from time to time.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 1:37:20 PM

Well, it wasn't just putting up statues and making movies where the Confederates were the good guys -- the 1920s was also the peak of organized white supremacy like the Ku Klux Klan, when lynching and other mob violence was common. The Tulsa massacre, which involved burning one of the wealthiest black neighborhoods in the United States, was only 5 years before this film came out.

You can kind of think of this era as a sort of "anti-Civil Rights movement", and it was the same group of people burning houses and lynching and putting up statues and working politically to keep black Americans disenfranchised. And it's still a salient issue today -- disenfranchisement of minorities (closing polls in minority neighborhoods to create multi-hour waits to vote; gerrymandering to concentrate minorities in a small number of Congressional districts; disproportional felony convictions and the accompanying loss of franchise) is an issue in every election. Hell, one of the initial backlashes against public health measures early on in the COVID pandemic was that the early waves primarily affected large cities and the initial mortality rates were higher for blacks than whites, so it was viewed as a problem more for blacks than whites, and therefore, not a problem.

The white-washing of Lee and the other Confederate traitors is still part of modern American politics -- it reframes the Civil War from a bunch of rich slave-owners rebelling against the United States to maintain their power and privilege, and getting hundreds of thousands of other people killed for it, to cast these men as victims of a rapacious Federal government meddling where it didn't belong. This narrative that was (and is still, eg, Shelby County v Holder) used to claim the Federal government had no right to improve the lives of minorities over the wishes of the States, is now used to claim the Federal government has no right to mandate minimum wages, or environmental regulations, or educational standards, or a thousand other things, over the wishes of the individual States.

So it's still modern politics to cast down Lee and declare that he was not a noble martyr fighting for States Rights against an oppressive Federal government, just a traitor to his oaths who was personally and politically reprehensible. And to point out that States Rights have always just been a political shell game -- Slave States were happy to use the power of the Federal government to override the will of Free States, and force them to extradite escaped slaves back to the Slave States, just like issues like abortion are "sent back to the States" until a Federal ban can be passed, at which point it will miraculously no longer be an issue for the States to resolve.

It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

by saalweachter

1/13/2025 at 2:15:27 PM

There are eight states that have a Confederate memorial day and two that combine Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lees birthday.

by scarface_74

1/13/2025 at 4:29:16 PM

"It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Right, how very true. One of my aunts married a French soldier at the end of WWII and went to live in France. She often told me La Révolution française was far from settled, just scratch the surface anywhere in France and you'll still find much contention. BTW, it was ≈235 years ago.

I've been to the US many times, have relatives who live there and have even worked there so I'm somewhat familiar with many of those events you've.mentioned. I suppose I'm still surprised by the intensity and vehemence of the attacks—whether verbal or physical—towards both the black population and the various underclasses/undeprived. That's not say this country I'm in is lily-white by any means—we've had our fair share of atrocities in the past—but present-day vitriol and animosity towards certain peoples certainly isn't as intense as I've seen it in the US. The question is why.

Let me give you two instances that come to mind (and I've more) that I think wouldn't be commonplace here (but that's not to say they couldn't happen as sometimes they do). First, I was the only person in a manually-driven elevator and its driver was black and as I was alighting I said to him "thank you very much sir" and with a great big smile he said "and thank you too sir, not many people are so nice and say that to me these days". I've never forgotten the encounter.

The other example is some years back I was traveling around California in a minivan with about a half dozen of my compatriots after having been to a computer conference and we were in Redwood City and had to refuel. At the servics station we were served by a local who asked where we were from and we told him. He then went into a tirade that I'll never forget which I won't repeat in full here to the effect "you're fucking lucky that down there you don't have any of those… (you can guess the rest), and that was only a small part of his outrageous and vitriolic tirade. It wasn't just his tirade that so surprised me but that he was so open to strangers who he'd never met previously. BTW, that exchange was well after the 1960s civil rights stuff—mid 1980s in fact.

Despite me agreeing with your quote, as I said I suppose I've never been fully reconciled to or able to get my head around why the US continues to cycle over these issues with such intensity for so long. One would have thought that after 150+ years things would have settled down much more than they actually have. That said, I accept that discrimination and racism never seem to fully go away no matter where one is, although nowadays in many places it's softer and more nuanced that it once was.

My position is pretty straightforward, that is I've found there's a small percentage of bastards in every country and racial group on the planet (certainly in ones where I've been for some length of time to know) but almost without exception most people with whom I've met have been kind and nice to me. I always try to be nice to those who I meet and deal with and again—almost without exception—they reciprocate similarly—no matter who they are and where they come from.

That's the rough outline, I'd like to develop that discussion further and make specific comments on the issues and instances you've mentioned. Trouble is, to make my position clear and not be misinterpreted and or misunderstood would take some considerable effort and lots of text not to mention the large amount of time involved—and anyway it'd be too much for a HN post.

One thing I've learned online—and HN is no exception (albeit it better than most)—no matter how neutral or impartial one is when discussing these matters at any reasonable depth it's almost impossible not to upset some people, they'll often take great umbrage at the slightest provocation and or at the most innocuous comment for reasons I find unfathomable.

Once I was taught formal argument and debating, they've structure and people can (mostly) say what they want without fisticuffs breaking out. Unfortunately, this art of debating propositions in an orderly manner on the web is almost unheard of. It's why I usually steer clear of such topics.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 12:17:35 PM

The entire film is embedded on the wiki page. Public domain is cool!

by nejsjsjsbsb

1/13/2025 at 1:01:50 PM

If you can, buy a DVD copy from Kino, it's a much higher quality copy than any of the public domain copies available. In fact, the quantity is quite excellent.

The reason the DVD copy is in copyright is because it has a new musical soundtrack. That said, the soundtrack is excellent and the music (which includes Civil War tunes) is both appropriate and is well integrated into the visual material.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 3:11:05 PM

I recommend listening to the episode of the Blank Check podcast about The General (and Battling Butler), if you can sanction some buffoonery. It's a mix of a comedy podcast and deep movie analysis, which is not for everybody. For that episode they brought in writer Jamelle Bouie who is both a huge movie buff and a student of American history who brings in some great perspective on the Lost Cause.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/battling-butler-the-ge...

by throw4847285

1/13/2025 at 6:14:59 PM

Have started listening to it, thanks.

by hilbert42

1/13/2025 at 10:59:34 AM

It’s a comedy; the sides don’t matter. It’s a hilarious movie, in fact.

by db48x

1/13/2025 at 9:07:59 AM

I'm surprised there's no mention yet of the incredible scene from the 1980 film "The Blues Brothers".

https://youtu.be/QfN1GRqKXpM?si=-4Mwmipl5sCFtCWN

This practical effect took weeks to set up.

I can't find documentation specifying any special techniques used to create this version of the car. I recall reading an interview naming the builder who set it up, and how no one on set was allowed to touch it except the actors, John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd. Only one take. Can't find that interview now.

by watersb

1/13/2025 at 12:28:28 PM

I remember watching that movie recently and seeing that the cast was almost half stuntmen. The fact that the Chicago police basically gave them free range and unlimited extras also made a lot of things possible. The final chase scene is about 15 minutes of car crashes including the one where the neonazis fly off the bridge and the camera jump cuts to the car dropped from an airplane into Lake Michigan. https://youtu.be/FD9N7v5qGig?si=p-QYJSkkYJIlN3b4&t=110

by blululu

1/13/2025 at 10:18:06 AM

It's a very nice scene, but not as good as the 2CV from Le Corniaud.

Also looking at it closely, you can see at the camera angle change that the car is not the same (roof shape cut, rear door a bit open, ...), and that it is not standing on its wheels with supports appearing below

by gregoriol

1/14/2025 at 8:20:49 AM

>This practical effect took weeks to set up.

Today that's replaced by crappy CGI done on a crunch by a sweatshop.

by Cumpiler69

1/13/2025 at 3:23:37 PM

takes off hat

by lenerdenator

1/13/2025 at 6:37:19 AM

"The only secret of magic is I'm willing to work harder on it than you think it's worth" - Penn Jillette

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRJ4J15xU8

by csours

1/13/2025 at 11:57:38 AM

Spending more time and effort than other people are willing to do works in a number of fields.

by wisty

1/13/2025 at 8:35:22 AM

I love Buster Keaton. For me he might be the greatest performer ever.

I actually watched the video linked in the comments with his greatest stunts and also one short movie together with my kids (5 and 8 years old) just the other day. They laughed their heads off!

So if you can hear me, Buster, wherever you are: Your films are holding up a hundred years later. That is quite a feat.

by vodou

1/13/2025 at 10:59:47 AM

Much of these tricks comes from how cars used to be constructed. Without any concept of safety cages, they were basically a bunch of very light structures secured atop a heavy metal frame. So long as the actor remains on the seat above the frame, they are in a falling house of cards. Today we build the frames around the people. Pull such a stunt in a modern car and you will be trapped amongst twisted metal rails.

Cars were also much simpler to take apart. A few bolts here and there and a couple people could remove an engine. A few more and the roof came off too. Today, it is all spot welded and tight tollerances. Removing any substanial part of a modern car, anything beyond the seats, requires planning and specialized tools.

by sandworm101

1/13/2025 at 8:00:58 AM

This made me think of the scene in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang when Lionel Jeffries is captured and forced to convert a car into the titular phantasmagorical fuel-burning oracle. I was wondering just the other day how they achieved that effect.

Wonderful little read. Thanks!

by OuterVale

1/13/2025 at 6:57:38 AM

It’s hard to believe they could make cars fall apart so perfectly without the tech we have today.

by ErigmolCt

1/13/2025 at 10:22:51 AM

Seems easier back then; way fewer parts, not held together as well, no roof.

by mkl

1/15/2025 at 6:59:11 AM

Maybe the lighter materials and looser tolerances played a role, but it’s still impressive

by ErigmolCt

1/13/2025 at 4:49:39 AM

This is both engineering and art. Magnificent.

by monkeymeister

1/13/2025 at 6:58:26 AM

They didn’t just build cars to fall apart... they choreographed it like a performance

by ErigmolCt

1/13/2025 at 9:51:24 AM

Kinda looks like the Michael Waltrip 1990 crash at Bristol in the NASCAR race.it’s on YT, look it up.

by radar1310

1/13/2025 at 5:56:54 AM

Just don’t look up how they made the horses fall down.

by sirshmooey

1/13/2025 at 6:03:23 AM

tripwires?

by Over2Chars

1/13/2025 at 3:36:56 PM

This is brilliant. Today it'd all be CGI trash.

by josefritzishere

1/13/2025 at 5:59:35 PM

Or a CyberTruck dumpster falling apart, bursting into flames, then exploding, naturally.

by DonHopkins

1/13/2025 at 3:58:31 PM

They loosened the screws.

by betimsl