Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
April 26, 2018, 01:54:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... 303
  Print  
Author Topic: Movies  (Read 41109 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
obertray
Guest

« Reply #1650 on: August 24, 2007, 02:05:07 PM »

The Queen,

Spoiler, there's no Freddy Mercury in this movie.

The problem with a movie of this sort (IMO) is that it stales rather quickly. When you are dealing with actual, living persons and you know where they progressed to after this story, you have a difficult time sorting that person away from the one on the screen. Then there is the compounding (confounding) effect of seeing the film over a year after it was originally released (during which interval the characters have made even more news).

I got the feeling from the movie that the director/writers were makingpolitical commentary while trying to be distinctly nontabloid. The greatest example of this was the portrayal of Tony Blair. he is depicted as a man willing, (too willing) to follow in the path of "Greatness" which, as we know, lead to his downfall. This may well be an accurate telling, but it was interesting how the movie actually scapegoated him as you were looking for someone to dislike. The subtle engineering of which allowed you to sympathize with the protagonist.

Now I know what you're going to say, "Prince Phillip was the dispicable character in this movie" and indeed he was (kudoes to James Cromwell for another fine fine absolutely convincing performance, "That'll dooo pigga") except that one is lead by Blair himself to understand that he was just protecting his wife, and who can fault him for that!? The very fact that he stood resolute representing the traditional role of royalty allowed the Queen to soften to the "new World Order".

I thought that the stag was more than a bit treacly. Yeah yea I get it, the stag represented Diana's beauty and regality of spirit. Seeing the stag allowed the Queen to see who Diana was without the glare of Diana's own history with the royal family surrounding her. I get the further symbolism of the stag's head to be displayed on the Wall Streeter's wall (as in Diana's legacy belongs to the markets and there is no way for the royal family to change that reality) and the feelings displayed by the queen over the suffering of the beast. It makes it a tad icky that the boys were out "stalking" the stag, but nevertheless.

Charles was allowed to come out of this quite well. One even felt that he was, not too deeply down, a fine fellow possessing of an independent mind, and living in a world that unsubtely conspires to keep the crown from his head.  I did like the cockie eye that the queen gave Prince Philip when he was talking about the proper way to have a mistress and keep one's wife under control about it (it's the little things that make me happy, and no! that's not what my wife says!)

Also on, Prisoner.. Schitzoid Man. Would make a fine movie this one. Given the time they could have switched 6 back to 6 then back to 12 then back again a couple of time so that we'd all be not sure of who we were ourselves by the end of it. Then they could send one 6 away and the other one stays but you're still not 100% sure if he got away or not. I have a buddy who's a screenwriter, I'm gonna suggest this one to him! meanwhile I couldn't shake the lyric "twenty first century schitzoid man" I don't know where it's from (probably a Black Sabbath song) and wondering if they got the line from the show.

Tonight Rosencranz And Guilderstein Are Dead I can't hardly wait!

Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1651 on: August 24, 2007, 04:09:52 PM »

obertray,re:#1673

I tried to give  some benefit of the doubt considering that you doubtless did not understand the British humour of the piece but when you got to the bottom line, I decided to have at. And, I rather think, you were supposed to be enjoying it for the lead performance done so well by an actor who won award,after award, after kudos, for doing her part for the nation during the current very ugly period; not back then, now.

Peter Morgan, the writer know what he was about by keeping it light. I think he was recently discussed in The New Yorker, perhaps I can find a link that explains everything. You see, Tony was a schmuck but these actors have worked together previously, some of them anyway, so they knew what they were building toward, right from the first ,a little too pert, curtsey  from Cheri Blair (don't you love that name) whose husband was so obsequiously cute and eager. It was not his eagerness to please that led to his downfall; it was the opportunism of being in the right  place at the right time, long after Diana's demise, to take graft which is rarely discussed because then the Royales would have to reveal how they gather their evidence while appearing to ignore everything.  You might like to indulge yourself in a free subscription sign-on at The Guardian Unlimited before you see the next British film because the chattering multitudes over there  knew all about it and discussed the downfall of Tony Blair quite publicly which is a refreshing thought.  This wasn't meant to be a Tony Blair movie you see, he isn't really the hero of the piece, in real life that was always his mistake.  He was supposed to handle her Majesty's " government" for her, not her personal life. But it is an interesting thesis as a human interest story for the movies.

Then, you have to understand from the British point of view, there is a reason that Prince Philip is called Prince and not King. He is no more nor less than the Prince Consort. Which means the Queen who was a princess who became Queen because her father who never wanted to be King became one, which meant she was it. No brothers, you see.  Had to shush up the fascist gossip anyway about the former Prince of Wales who abdicated to the position of the Duke of Windsor and had a high old time while everybody else had to prepare for war. 

No really, I always thought Elizabeth and Margaret were my cousins because my gram always kept their pictures, separate birthday commemoration plates, hanging over the sideboard in her cottage. They certainly looked like the people, I knew; but,then, back then styles were pretty much world wide, even as today, only then children's clothing was the same in Europe as here which came as quite a surprise to me recently. You mean it wasn't all Mommie,Dearest?  Anway, poor girl, the Princess Elizabeth, had to get pregnant somehow; thus Prince Phillip of Greece. There would have been no Charlie waiting to be King, possibly, if not for that little arrangement.

Then we got to the part where you mistook a majestic, was it twelve-point or more(?) racked stag for Diana Spencer.  Not on your life, deer boy. The Queen knew what she was seeing; after all, the kids had been brought out to hunt, to keep them from grousing about in melancholy thoughts. What she saw was one of those Ephiphany moments where the message was, You think you have problems. Look at me, I'm being hunted. Lift up you head, old girl, and keep a stiff upper lip. We are royalty."   I find it  a beautiful moment but then we looked forward to the venison in winter at home and I was more taken with the exceptional landscape of Balmoral, Scotland because I have ancestors from Auchtermucktie who came down to the lowlands in the Border for awhile before emigrating here.

The actor who played Charles by the way, I've forgotten his name as well but I see him every-so-often in a little movie known as--Wings of the Dove (where he is Charlotte Rampling's friend among the gentry trying to make a good connection). Very sour  movie that when all is said and done.

Ps. the old gal who plays the Queen Mother, not well but will do because the QM was also a Scotswoman you will never find the like of again, modest, capable, witty and kind. We can't even get that in a presidential candidate of her sex.  Anyway, the player who did the part possibly did by request of Mirren as they both were of Russian descent before they became equated with England(in Helen Mirren's career anyway; the other started about 15, as most do, given permission by her mother in the Bronx, no matter how father's resent the idea, mothers know what it takes).

Good luck with Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead. It's a right gay comedy that will set you to laughing and wishing  you always could see Shakespeare this way but then, I'm partial to Gary Oldman, myself.  I figured that if I could stand him in Sid and Nancy, he had it knocked(Nancy, of course was another matter, whiny sort of broad).

Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2412


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1652 on: August 24, 2007, 06:15:59 PM »

Nathan Rabin's take in his "My Summer of Flops" series, regarding FGF ("Freddy Got Fingered"), says that it is a work of surreal genius and a wonder that it got made.  I agree, and have been saying, if you recall, that "'Freddy Got Fingered' is a better movie than "'Schindler's List'" for years now.  So, welcome Nathan, and even though my comparative accolade was more joke and provocation than an evalution of each on the merits, please understand that I chided Ebert in "real time," meaning as soon as I saw it on cable.  I remember that that was the time after "Mary"'s and the Farelly Bros. success had "shifted the paradigm," meaning throw money at gross-out raunch again, only Green was smart enough to exploit this gap the way Bush has exploited 9/11 to make the Iraq War, not really crafty or anything, but still amazing that he got it done.  The results of each popularly as ideas are bombs, and the irony is that history may indeed be kinder to "Freddy Got Fingered" than George Bush.  There I said it, George Bush is worse than "Freddy Got Fingered." 
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2412


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1653 on: August 24, 2007, 06:18:36 PM »

I know the Bush analogy is silly, but here's link:

http://www.avclub.com/content/blog/my_year_of_flops_case_file_61
Logged
obertray
Guest

« Reply #1654 on: August 24, 2007, 06:20:28 PM »

I disagree with your bland understanding of the 14 pointer stag.

It's not about what the Queen saw as a character, the stag was written for the audience, not the players.  We know this because  the stag showed up after the princess had died, we know this because of the semi magical way the stag arrived and let himself be seen, we know this because there is no other reason for the stag to be in the story, and made more so in that the queen rode off to see the dead deer.

How obscenely twisted would the queen  need to be to be more interested in a deer's wellbeing (and lack thereof) than her own ex daughter in law? She's queen, but she is a human being too.

Further, thank you for agreeing that these type of movies get stale fast.

Other than that, thanks anyway but I'm well aware of who is whom and why in the royal family.
Logged
obertray
Guest

« Reply #1655 on: August 24, 2007, 06:22:07 PM »

Oh, and thanks all the same but I'm not in need of the benefits of your doubt.
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1656 on: August 25, 2007, 06:54:58 PM »

"It's not about what the Queen saw as a character, the stag was written for the audience, not the players.  We know this because  the stag showed up after the princess had died, we know this because of the semi magical way the stag arrived and let himself be seen, we know this because there is no other reason for the stag to be in the story".

Pardon moi, but it is about what the character saw; it is Peter Morgan's script.  We all know about the princess having died. The Stag does not know anything of the kind. Morgan includes  this as an episode, in order to shoot an episode of the Balmoral sort, in order to take the Queen out of London whatever they did with the flag up or down. The stag does not therefore arrive in some semi-magical way to let himself be seen, nor do "we  know this because there is no other reason for the stag to be in the story".  If you had written another story and somebody bought it for filming, perhaps your version would fly like the flag which does not when the Queen is not in residence. Morgan's point is they go to the country to shoot, the Queen's vehicle does not navigate those rocks and cross the river, she is reduced to a small crise de nerves until she is shocked to see the quarry with head aloft on a small rise. 

He is emblematic of her station in life. She is the Queen and she must forge on, no matter what the common people's emotions about her prerogative and protocol. The Stag's "14 point rack" (if you say that you counted every one of them) is emblematic of her crown). Coinciding with the period of time, for the main Blair interpretation of what is taking place in the public reaction to the conduct of the Royals following the death of Diana in Paris, this is the season when these stags will viciously attempt to wound each other in charges head-on because it is rutting season and they compete to develop their herd.  I watch it where I live, on a lesser scale of action a couple of months after, when the first snow begins to precipitate just as the roadside weeds take on the same seed-scattering appearance as the white snow flakes. The deer will cross the road directly in front of you and flick their white tail as they head through the empty field toward the forested range.  In fact, I have been observing this for about 20 years now, keeping an eye on the deer brought from Scotland to Rockingham by Lord Stirling(William Alexander).

http://www.historicalsocietyofsomersethills.org/localinterest.php#Bernards

That was in the 18th.century and they have multiplied to be a distinct danger to travel at night by the late 20th.century pattern of traffic anywhere between Basking Ridge,N.J. and Longwood,Pa.
But you know there is an old song, "My heart's in the Highland a Chasing the Deer". Robert Burns, I should think. Morgan needed it in the scenario; if you don't like his take on The Queen, watch something else.
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1657 on: August 25, 2007, 07:02:51 PM »

Yipes, obertray, I get it now; you are equating Artemis,the Huntress, with Diana, Princess of Wales. Good god, so her children didn't revenge her by shooting the stag, and some American bagged it. Artemis/Diana accompanied by her hounds as you know was capable, as was her third aspect, of turning human males who displeased her into male deer(stags) for offending her chastity while she was mistress of wild things.
Logged
obertray
Guest

« Reply #1658 on: August 25, 2007, 10:24:57 PM »

Madupont,

Please. Diana died  August 31, the rut is still two months off http://tinyurl.com/3ap6nj
Although you do bring up a good point, the deer had cleared the velvet off his antlers which make him actual anachronistic to the end of August. In reality his antlers would just now be starting to rot and shed the bones beneath hardening for the fights ahead.

The deer was a plot device. Whether it happened as such or not is less material  than the usage of the deer in the story. In the movie they said it was 14 points, and they said he just showed up and they said they hadn't had a stag of that stature on the estate in umptyump years.

What problem your explication has is here: "He is emblematic of her station in life. She is the Queen and she must forge on, no matter what the common people's emotions about her prerogative and protocol." Because as you'll recall she left the very next day to break with her prerogative and protocol. The newscasters where commentating that this was the first time the royals had done anything like this since VE Day. I'm not saying that, they did and the writer and the director put those particular sound clips in so the even the squarest peg would fit into the round hole of their vision.

The director couldn't have been plainer if he hired goons to beat the audience with one of the stag's limbs as they watched the movie. I'm astonished that a woman of your obvious insight and experience and capacity to connect seemingly completely disparate facts together could not see through this gossamer thin disguise. Really astonished.

As for Artemis et al. No, I'm not that smart by half.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 10:28:03 PM by obertray » Logged
Donotremove
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1068


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #1659 on: August 26, 2007, 12:05:15 AM »

Ober, I am your's and Maddy's audience--I haven't seen the movie--and you say there are goons coming to beat me with stag's limbs?  By the gods, movie going has certainly changed for the worse since the last time I went to a theatre.  If Ido go I shan't buy any pop corn as surely it would be spilled during my beating and, as you are aware, pop corn is too expensive, the price paid in a theatre lobby, for that kind of waste.
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1660 on: August 26, 2007, 12:54:22 AM »

That's a bit strange, as their weather isn't quite as balmy as ours in the last week until Sept.1. I remember the day well, as people showed up from Jersey all in a tither about it,English descent will do that. It was Summery. Your Scotland link gives this date clearly Date: Saturday October 13 2007.

The deer as a plot device is rather good, I think. But I think less of the cult of personality regarding Diana. Tonight, tv devoted a couple of hours to the idea that she was murdered, not documentary, just the usual Lifetime trash, proceeded and then again followed by another  hour on each end of the "mystery" also "Diana-ed". Why? It's the tenth anniversary.

Thus I really don't get your point, plus the gratuitous yet condescending insults. Don't be too astonished that I went to see Helen Mirren act. I figured it out when she did a production of Elizabeth I, with Jeremy Irons; and when, in the finale, she rode out to encourage her troops facing an invasion from the Spanish armada,"the Queen herself, in white with a silver cuirass and mounted on a grey gelding",pronounced the speech at Tilbury: "My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general [Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester] shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people."

My response to all the rousing drama, on a par with anything Shakespeare included in his Histories,(and,by the way, just like today,there have been at least two quite differing speeches found stashed away, one at least by a speech-writer, the other may perhaps be the memory of a recorder), I took a good look and thought Mirren certainly has the present Queen's look about her so why doesn't she just get on about it.  Apparently a few more people thought the same,and it became a job well done -- of acting.  

So, no, I don't buy your claim that the stag was  Lady Diana or represented her, figuratively, or any other such rot.  I must have said it before, or I said it somewhere else, it is like whether the cat photo on the wall at the Bada-Bing office in the last episodes of The Sopranos was Christopher Moltisanto or Adrianna. It takes all kinds.


 
  
Logged
madupont
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5413


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1661 on: August 26, 2007, 01:00:11 AM »

Oh, donotremove. I can't eat that stuff at the movies, and that is so frustrating. They put extra salt in the fake butter.   So I make it, but back, in about 2 and 1/2 minutes and watch movies at home; noticing that I just missed catching up with the Gong Li movie I intended to watch and never got around to because of something like this.

I really dropped by to say There Is a New David Cronenberg coming up!

Eastern Promises.      Vigo Mortensson,having been ruthlessly aged for the part.  Armin Stahl-Mueller. Naomi Watts. (and, somebody I have left out...?)
Logged
Donotremove
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1068


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #1662 on: August 26, 2007, 01:16:17 AM »

Maddy, never fear.  I don't eat pop corn at the movies any more, either.  The last movie I saw in a theatre was Midnight Cowboy.
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2412


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1663 on: August 26, 2007, 02:17:11 AM »

Yeah, I seem to remember buying a ticket to "Benji" and sneaking over.
Logged
jbottle
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2412


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #1664 on: August 26, 2007, 02:22:03 AM »

Except they were separated by a few years, I thought I would take a shot at a tried and true joke. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078924/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080569/

Maybe that was it...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 109 110 [111] 112 113 ... 303
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!