Yes, it’s made an impact on so many others as well.

I was 9 years old when I watch it on cable

Awwww thank you and it was a pleasure to meet you as well! You killed that outfit!!!

Wow! Thank you so much! And yes, I agree with you with so many things still being similar today.

@@breezyvelli23 thank you! Hope you had a good time at the pop up as well :)

Thank you!

Thank you! Glad you liked it!

@@melissarosecooper yw♥️.

Thank you. I really appreciate it!

Indeed!

Wow. Not state troopers outside with shot guns! But I am happy you and your mother were able to enjoy the movie together.

Yes he does!

@@machtnichtsseimann I agree with your perspective to a point regarding having a person outside of a tribe telling the other tribe’s story, but it will only be a surface level thing. The subtleties and depth of a tribe wouldn’t be told properly without living and seeing through said tribe’s eyes. The Color Purple was great because Spielberg consulted with Quincy Jones, a black man, to get things right. Even with Amistad, Debbie Allen was brought in. So yes a person outside of a tribe can tell another tribe’s story, but it won’t be the same if it was told by the outsider themselves.

@@machtnichtsseimann thank you for watching! And I’m happy you liked it. Iconic film for sure!

@@rovingearth7028 - It is good that you are being more specific which is appropriate for this topic. Here's where I would push back in the spirit of philosophy, psychology, humanity and truth. You make a solid point about the insider's life and vision through said tribe's eyes, which seems undebatable. In terms of actual experience, it is. That's not my point. I'm wondering ( brainstorming here ) if still the outsider can bring a depth of understanding of Human Nature, of the Human Race, that many insiders do not possess. Think of it this way: Why is there perhaps one storyteller for the tribe and not everyone from within that carries the same skill, insight, wisdom, understanding of subtleties? Because not all humans ( including from within a tribe ) think the same, understand with as much breadth and depth as one another, so there is more crossover / inter-tribal understanding than we like ( or want ) to believe. Hence, far too much prejudice, distrust, divisive hostility that leads to the assumption that only a tribal member will tell the story of said tribe with depth beyond "surface level". I do not share your restrictive take in that regard. An outsider can definitely share the tribe's tale with care, profundity, depth of understanding, though of course limited in the sense of not having personally experienced it. But with that same logic, then a man should never direct a film about a woman, a woman should not about a man, an American should never direct a film about someone Polish, because all such efforts will absolutely be works of superficiality. It appears you are supportive of my point in the examples of "The Color Purple" and "Amistad". To the point on consultants, insiders from the tribe, that is a general fact of films in general dealing with history or skills needed to be learned for the narrative, etc. Insiders are utilized for their expertise, YET an outsider directed and/or wrote it. To beautiful and wonderful depths. Mentioning again: "Killers of the Flower Moon". Conversely, an insider can produce/direct a shoddy, superficial movie as well. Society should grow out of our narrower restrictive mindsets that are too superficially bound in the Name of Tribalism. P.S. - My respect to any defensiveness on the part of any insider that wants their tribal story told appropriately and are guarded against an outsider doing it. Yes, I can relate. The shame is if we turn away a true artist and respectful human being who can do the project right. As an outsider. ( My longer reply is not meant to be preachy. This topic fascinates me and your comment was more civil than my usual experience on YT. Tip of the hat to you in that regard. )

@@jbb8090 I’m not sure unfortunately

@@melissarosecooper ok 👍🏾