Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "The Take" channel.

  1. I thought it was the best season so far. There were no misfires, as there were at least mediocre episodes in all of the previous seasons. Even one episode, Beyond The Sea, I didn’t like the ending of was compelling throughout, as the script was so good, the performances superb and the soundtrack choices. The last episode left me in tears, through the combination of existential despair, the nostalgia (I’m about the same age as the writer, Charlie Brooker) and the song, Bright Eyes, which brought back memories of contemplating death for the first time as a child, as millions of kids around the world did when they saw the movie Watership Down back in the 1970’s. Brooker manipulated my emotions ruthlessly and I didn’t mind at all. That’s what entertainment is for.
    4
  2. The Take : Chuck simply saw Jimmies rise as somehow being his own fall. Jimmie has cut corners, and not done all the, “hard work,” that Chuck has. So, Jimmies success is the Universe being out of order. So, he NEEDS to see Jimmie fail, as a kind of confirmation of his own life choices. He works at Jimmies failure, so as to maintain the universe. Everyone hiding their phones, etc, is also a passive exercise of power. No matter what a person’s, “rank,” they must defer to Chuck; even in the court room. That’s a LOT of power. But, Jimmie finally overpowers Chuck, on his OWN terms, on his OWN TURF, in the COURTROOM. At this point, Chuck believes he’s been slain; the very fragile world he’s built about himself, is finally shattered, with Jimmie able to beat Chuck at what he does; what he is; what he lived for. Ergo, there is nothing left for Chuck to live for. Chuck believes that Jimmie has destroyed his world, and the one time that they confronted each other, in court, where Chuck, “should have won,” Jimmie won. Chuck was never his own person. His sense of self was based upon his own measurement against his brother. Chuck had no real sense of self, which was his own, petty, self-annihilating destruction. That’s my take
    3
  3. I think we were all expecting that final scene, but the reason it’s so powerful is because it’s deliberately resisting that urge, leaving us to contemplate the protagonist’s final, monstrous act. And it was a nice directorial touch, where the gun flash from an external shot of the windows is something of a cliché now, but we get the camera flash and gun flash simultaneously. That’s what the gutter press would call the perfect photo: a star, naked and bloody, at the moment of shooting herself in the head. Murdoch’s wet dream. As a piece of criticism within art, that sticks the landing for me. What did you think of the last episode? It made me cry. The combination of existential despair, nostalgia and a song from my childhood got me.
    3
  4.  @jdg9825 : 😂👍
    1
  5.  @elyca6329 : Better yet, now she’s a wearwolf paparazzi photographer? 😉
    1
  6. Interesting take. Captured it nicely. I’m surprised you didn’t reference The Madness Of King George, which had so many parallels, though? The trope of, “not looking at,” Royalty, not in the eye; the absurdity of court behaviour and the juxtapositions between the very poor and the very powerful, as they coexist in close proximity? It’s all there in very similar ways, in the way that Barry Lindon’s natural lighting was interesting by comparison, the same dilemmas and themes, about, “being kind,” and/or, “honest,” to an emotionally suffering monarch, are what drives the characters in both movies. With a very similar payoff, showing that those who were too sincere, caring or unflattering in their approach, were ultimately, “punished,” for their authenticity. Only those who play their role and play the, “game,” of court life, survive to remain in the orbit of monarchy, with all of the perks that come with their roles, whereas those who didn’t stay within their strict bounds and defer to the imaginary boundaries were cast out. Royalty cannot tolerate the constant reminder of its frailty and, in the end, being a good or bad person had nothing to do with outcomes. Being part of the facade and maintaining the facade were all that mattered. Just a thought? . . . Really loved this take though. ✌️👍
    1
  7.  @MJ-cc4uf  : You seemed to have missed the point of what these videos do. They’re more of a deep dive into certain aspects of movies, that resonate with audiences. Art analysis, if you like? Not, “explanations,” for people who don’t understand them. Kind of ironic, when you think about it? As it seems you are the only one here who needed to have that explained to you . . . 😉
    1
  8.  @StarlyMusic  : Go on then? 🤔. . . 🙂
    1
  9.  @syzygy4702  : Ads are getting a little out of hand, aren’t they? And they always seem to pop up at the worst possible moment, when a point is being illustrated by a clip from the movie, or just when coherent point is reaching its conclusion, right? As if the ads are deliberately trying to break immersion and undermine the whole video. I agree, the balance needs to be restored. I get it. They need the money from the support from ads, but if it comes at the cost of a good video, it will drive away the fans, who can always go to another source, for less immersion breaking takes on the same movies. I wouldn’t want that to happen, as I really enjoy these videos. But, money comes at a cost, it seems? Maybe they need to pull back some? 👍
    1
  10.  @RobertSlover  : I don’t agree. Would you like them to improve their videos? Why not offer constructive criticism? Don’t you think it’s too easy to just tear people down? With the same lazy, unhelpful attitude that you’re complaining about? Don’t just say stuff, like your opinion, ‘’matters,” in some way, when it clearly doesn’t; not unless you express a reason for it? And, don’t say, “I don’t care,” because you obviously do. At least enough to comment in the first place? Grow up?
    1