Beau is Afraid

>He's angry at his Dad
Come on, bro. He was never shown to resent/be angry with his father.

His mom told him that, he never met or knew about his dad until the attic scene because his dad was a giant penis monster.

Then why do you think it was his dad he was angry at rather than the one who lied to him about dying if he had sex?

Why would he blame the dad instead of blaming the crazy lady eager to have sex with someone who would die if they did?

>t was all his mother so he accepts whatever she says
What exactly did she say about why she chose to bang a guy knowing he would die if she did?

I don't understand what part of the film you are referring because I don't remember her ever saying the things you are claiming about it being entirely the dad's fault, so I am asking exactly what she said that makes you believe that.

I don't understand how that is just the dad's fault rather than the person who had sex with him knowing it would kill him, so I don't understand why you think that means he would be angry at his poor dad for dying rather than his sociopath mother for killing him.

I don't understand how that is just the dad's fault rather than the person who had sex with him knowing it would kill him, so I don't understand why you think that means he would be angry at his poor dad for dying rather than his sociopath mother for killing him.

You miss that his dad was probably never dead or had a condition, and wasn't a penis monster either. In the scene of beaus birth his mom was screaming at presumably his dad that he made her birth him and that she never wanted beau to begin with.

The narrative of the story and from his mother says he is. As the audience we know otherwise.
>and wasn't a penis monster either
As yes the symbolism. It's obvious the mother didn't have intercourse with a giant penis monster.
@194644251
Point out what op? You're moronic. I've told you countless times. Maybe don't watch the movie with your phone out.

I've answered every question you brought up. Sorry you don't understand. You've been hung up about this daddy issue shit for over 2 hours now. Give it a rest mate.

>>and wasn't a penis monster either
>As yes the symbolism. It's obvious the mother didn't have intercourse with a giant penis monster.
She didn't? Then what the frick did Beau see? Was he hallucinating?

>She didn't? Then what the frick did Beau see? Was he hallucinating?
Idk. Ask Ari. Wait don't. He doesn't seem to know either.

Again, what problem? I've answered everyone of your questions for the past 2 hours or so until you finally shut the frick up because you got btfo and now you're revved up again because some dingleberry replied to you.

What question because you posted about 5 of them all of which I answered starting here

Then why do you think it was his dad he was angry at rather than the one who lied to him about dying if he had sex?

>bringing up your own personal head canon about how much he loved and respected his mother
Uh, he did? We see her overbearing and overall b***hiness through snippets of the movie. She doesn't become really a true psycho b***h until the end when everything is revealed. And when the trial happens at the end we get a runthrough of all the supposedly good things she did for him and Beau regrets ever crossing his mother and begs her.
>never get angry at her
I literally never said this.
>because it was all the dad's fault for dying
It's his dads fault for passing on this problem (that his mom told him it was his father) that he believed existed his entire life up until he cooms in that one woman and realizes he didn't die and is happy (although she died).
>If you were wrong and clearly unable to provide a quote 2 hours ago, you are obviously still wrong and unable to quote now.
I haven't seen the movie in months and I'm not gonna download a torrent to quote a line just to satisfy your autism.

>all of which I answered
You mean answers like

>Then why do you think it was his dad he was angry at
For most of the movie he only believes his mother and everything she says obviously. Until the end when it was all revealed.

where you didn't actually reference anything and just pretended to know exactly what beau believes when he was clearly far too confused for the entire film to actually believe anything coherent.

>regrets
Again pretending like you know what he believed when it was far more likely he was just pandering to her because she was threatening to kill him.

>It's his dads fault for passing on this problem
He couldn't pass on that problem if there wasn't some psycho who wanted to have sex with someone who would die if she did.

>I haven't seen the movie in months
Thanks, that explains why your memory of the movie is so faulty, I accept your concession.

also considering op, that you just watched this movie and I'm going off of memory from this dogshit movie and know more about it than you just goes to show how much of a midwit you are. I seriously hope you're pretending to be moronic.

Your memory is faulty and you aren't going off of the memory of the actual film, but the memory of the narrative you invented to accompany the film, in other words you are making things up to support your original asspull that Beau was angry at his father and I am not OP, I just don't understand where you got the idea that he expressed a bunch of anger towards his father.

>And it's true he believes her because if he didn't he wouldn't be so anxious about cooming if he didn't.
Except if he knew she was a psychotic manipulative liar who was just trying to torture and manipulate him with lies, he would also be anxious about dealing with her.

>He literally confesses in the trial scene that what he did was wrong.
He literally was coerced to say whatever he thought they wanted to hear under the threat of murder.

>The point is she tells Beau that the father had the dying coom issue.
No, the point is that doesn't explain why he would be angry at the father or point to any time when he actually expressed anger towards his dad.

>this minor point
I am only "hung up" because it wasn't an actual plot point, it never happened in the movie, only in your faulty memory.

So he was only a little angry, not enough anger to actually be expressed by only enough to be noticed by you and other people who know exactly what he believes that was never actually spoken?

>Yeah and he doesn't but we do.
The flashbacks and his increasing nervousness over time indicate otherwise.

>That's your headcanon speaking again mate.
No, its the psychology of coercion and there is more evidence to support that theory than there is to support yours given he didn't confess when they were originally arguing at the house, he tried to get away from her and only "confessed" when she clearly had the upper hand and was threatening capital punishment.

>Yes.
Nope a loved one dying generally makes people sad for them not angry.
Someone killing your loved one with sex is much more likely to lead to anger.

>I accept your concession OP.
The "concession" that if there was any anger, it could only possibly be a small indiscernible amount of anger that was never actually expressed in the film and is likely just made up by someone projecting their own general hostility?

No, never, he actually got onto a stage in the middle of the woods that turned into a completely different life where he grew old and died after having a bunch of kids, then eventually returned to the stage after he died old to continue his journey.

*the world he was imagining wasn't real.

But opening the door to "he was hallucinating" means we can't be sure of anything that happens in the movie because we see it through Beau's eyes.

>insane hallucinatory things were happening from the very start.
Such as?

I don't know, bro. I'm not American but I have seen some vids, the crazies on the street and the degenerate signs seem more than plausibly real to me.

>exclusive window into the US
You can't pretend that such places don't exist.

Got some screenshots of these vids where some random residential neighborhood has signs that incoherently reference pussy dozens of times?

You kind of confused me, what he saw in the attic, was it real or not?

That is literally what a euphemism/metaphor is since you already said it was to tell another story that isn't 1:1 factual.

That was me, and I meant that if you put the events of the movie through a filter that removes all the blatantly unreal shit, you get the vague outline of the real beau, but most of the events can't be interpreted as exaggerated versions of real events. It's a cartoon based off a "real" character

Theory of mind + paranoid schizophrenia

There are a couple of bits that indicate the shrink (and others) are working for mom. The fact the first drug is a placebo and the bit where grace, food truck woman who ran him over, is on the phone with beau’s mom, trying to tell her he needs the real medication (read: anti-psychotics) that was being administered to him until the call.

Fun fact about anti-psychotics, they intensify schizophrenia if they’re given irregularly.

He was really sick but his mom rejected that diagnosis and had him fed placebos. By the time the movie starts he’s basically learned to live with his hallucinations, then he misses the flight.

He believes they were.

In the real world it’s just the food truck woman and the shrink.

So do you interpret the trial scene for a simple "his mother guilt trips him over past mistakes" and that he's not really dead just wishes that he was?

I got no problem with that.

>it's not that kind of movie
Says who?

>I'd be pretty angry
That has nothing to do with the character in the film though, he has a picture of a man he thinks is his father on his wall. At the least he shows eagerness in wanting to meet his father and not to give him a whooping or anything.

Thanks. And Beau doesn't show those qualities.

He's not.
His horror and cowardice are warranted.
The world around him is literally violently abusively insane.

It's not self-centered to avoid or dissociate from that.

That's cold, man. Some people are just not in the mood for reading.

lol I get but film is a temporal medium, much easier to teach someone about editing techniques with video. Plus they probably have not seen much of the source material in text

If you can’t read faster than a person talks then youtube videos will just be pretty images and sounds.

Only to someone who doesn’t need to sound out words to read them. Slow reading == slow cognition

>he didn’t understand Beau is afraid
>he thinks his iq is high

lol

You’ve already been told. You didn’t understand. Why would I bother repeating myself?

That doesn’t make sense, it would glow in various other curvatures which are visible to the viewer. It doesn’t just randomly pick two surfaces and reflect on them. Also you need to actually watch the film instead of responding off pics.

I didn’t say it looks irregular only in motion. It looks irregular now and your explanation doesn’t make sense. Again, there’s different colors to the lights, light doesn’t reflect off wood this way, and light doesn’t arbitrarily form two reflections with completely different angles. Try harder.

How can you continue to say stupid shit? It’s a different color and different angles than the light source. If your argument was that it’s wet that would mean the reflection would change over time as the wetness dries (and typically would be very quick). However the glow of the feet remains constant throughout the entire credits from the moment the boat flips.

It is in water and the boat is bobbing up and down with the waves.

>Yes and reflections would stay fixed over the bobbing boat.
They would reflect from the surface, so if the surface moves, the reflection would also move along with it because reflection is a surface effect.

Anon. Imagine if the boat surface flattened out. The two reflections on either side of the point would be one single reflection. If the now flat boat tilted, the reflection would tilt as well.

Reflections tilt according to the angle between the viewer and the light source. The light source is above the boat, it is the shaft of light from the projector.

No one is trolled bruh.

Nope. It’s two reflections of the light beam above the boat.

>their ORIENTATION within the viewer’s frame of reference does not change.
It does when its a curved surface instead of a flat uniform one.

I still don't have the movie handy and don't know what you are talking about with your you have to see it in motion argument, but the reflections look nothing like feet.

>the shape of a surface.
Nobody is claiming that the shape of the boat is changing, its due to the location changing with the waves in the water.

>at no point does the reflection change location
Reflection is a surface effect, so as the location of the surface changes with respect to the camera, so does the reflection.

You could’ve just said yes. It’s kinda sad to think things like doorknobs not made of pig iron or rust are completely outside of your experience.

>If it was a reflection they would not change location in the viewer’s frame of reference, regardless of the bobbing of the boat
If the boat's surface was change location in the viewer's frame of reference due to bobbing, the reflection would too because the reflection is a surface effect directly connected to the location of the surface.

>Water doesn’t “carry away” reflections as it flows.
the absolute state of discussions on this forsaken board

Is optics really that difficult to understand? Are reflections really that complicated?

You understand it’s reflections of the light beam, right? Not the light itself?

>there’s different colors to the lights,
Because of the different angles of reflection leading to different intensity of light that ultimately reaches the camera from each peak of the curve.

>light doesn’t reflect off wood this way
Its not reflecting off of wood, it is reflecting off of shiny paint and epoxy.

>light doesn’t arbitrarily form two reflections with completely different angles
Its not arbitrary, its based on the curve of the surface peaking and changing in different spots.

So you think that no matter what angle light hits a curved surface, it always looks the exact same intensity from every angle?

Then why are you saying that light reflecting from completely different angles of a curved surface should be the exact same intensity/color?

White + glossy gray == bluish.

Wait, are you color blind?

Okay you’ve gone from saying there’s blue to there’s no blue.

You said the reflection is blueish. And now saying it isn’t.

There isn’t a “spotlight,” it’s the projector, like in a theater, that was showing beau’s memories. The boat is reflecting the light beam from said projector.

The intensity of light definitely affects the color, just look at the sun directly, then look at it through a pinhole and you will see that its color profile is different when you reduce the intensity.

It’s really all ESLs have in life.

Because it’s most of the movie.

Because it’s funny watching you struggle so hard with the fact the movie was a comedy and if you didn’t get it, you won’t. There is no primer I can give you, no key that will unlock the hilarity. You are left out and always will be.

Yep. You had to ask, so you don’t know. You’ll never know.

Or I recognize you as one of the people who haunts these threads and is always begging to be let in on the joke.

I asked how their reflection extended into the water

So his feet are longer than the boat is wide and their reflection extends well into the water in front of and behind the boat directly under the light source for reasons?

and you brought up bed sheets and residual light extending beyond the source

Shine a flashlight through a bedsheet and see for yourself how residual light can extend beyond the circumference of the flashlight

.

If the projector light is clearly reflecting off of the water, why wouldn't it also reflect off of the paint and epoxy on the boat's curved surface?

Okay so you’re saying his feet are spotlights magically glowing through wood now? And he’s just upside down however far below the surface?

And the fact the “lights” are completely inline with the diffusion pattern of the reflected light beam in the water means…

No, you specifically said beyond the circumference and if its light diffusing like through bed-sheets why would they reflect in lines that match the angle of incident with the projector light rather than extending in every direction like a novel light source such as a flashlight would?

> completely inline
This is a cope because they are not.

See that point at the front? It’s the highest point above the water in the gif you keep posting. It’s a lot easier to see in the movie.

You’re colorblind

You’ve got it backwards, you think different shades equal different colors, because that’s all you can see.

You know I just feel sorry for you, right? That your life is so empty that “pretending” to be moronic is the only way you get attention?

Feel free to have the last word and “no (you)”

You literally just need to use photoshop's color selection tool to see there are different colors in the reflected light and you are colorblind.

It’s completely random and you should invest in a ruler to help you figure out what alignment actually looks like

No it’s random with respect to all environmental factors and is clearly a separate light source within the boat shining outwards. Try better Genghis.

Nothing about your explanations track with observations. Must be your cognitive dissonance from wishing you were European but forever being an Asian gypsy affecting your perceptions again. Must be tough.

Nothing dishonest or fallacious about it. Everything I’ve said is 100% true. I’m so sorry you had to find out this way Genghis.

Thank you for confirming you are most upset about being an Asian. As I’ve mentioned many times before, many of the cognitive issues rusanglogermcucks face is due to this core cognitive dissonance of their identity of wishing to be European but forever being Asian gypsies. You’ve helped further solidify how central this dissonance is to your identity.

>Im definitely European even though my ancestors come from Mongolia and arrived in Europe in the ADs, please let me into the Euro club!
No. Sorry Hansdeep Nigelwong.

>insert asian seething

So why is it in lines like you would get from overhead reflection instead of circles like you would get with a light source diffusing through material?

Do you have some kind of weird chicken feet that you associate feet with straight narrow lines.

>If it’s a source of light shaped like feet and the feet are not touching the surface all across the sole, then you’d get a pattern where the point where the feet are touching is the brightest and the parts lifted off from the surface would look more “diffuse”
Pics? Light travels radially, not the way you describe.

>doesn’t mean you’re going to end up with perfect circles
It does mean the light would be more circular than linear which isn't the case.

It doesn't scatter, it is almost entirely linear and extends into the water in a way that matches the overhead light source.

There is definitely light in the water right in front of the boat in a similar line as the reflections.

>incongruent
How so when you can draw straight lines through them that go straight through the light in the water to the camera?