MovieChat Forums > Alerra > Replies
Alerra's Replies
I don't know for sure that Dickens gives enough details that we can say for sure it was any one particular illness (and it's been a while since I've read the story). But I'm guessing some sort of chronic respiratory illness -- possibly asthma, TB, or some sort of allergy -- combined with an illness brought on by poor diet. Rickets and RTA can both cause skeletal issues and stunted growth and are now easily treated/cured with proper nutrition.
Not being Black, I can't speak for all of them. My husband, who is Black, doesn't like this movie, but it has nothing to do with the lack of cast diversity, or its portrayal of Annie.
But we do have to consider when and where this movie takes place. (not when it was made. There's a difference.) It's 1945 (and the preceding years) in small town upstate New York. Even today, the majority of the small towns in upstate New York are predominantly Caucasian. Oneida and Cooperstown are 96% White; Rhinebeck is 92%. I'm guessing those percentages were even higher in the 1940's. So there would have been very few people of color in a town like Bedford Falls to begin with. And the ones who would have lived there most likely would have been employed in menial or service positions. So the fact that Annie is a maid is not offensive. In 1945 upstate New York, that would have been one of the few respectable positions open to her. It's unfair on so many levels, but it's the way things were.
Now the fact that she is the ONLY person of color in the movie -- that's another issue.
Remember that the movie is based on a book. We don't see Rudolph there, either.
But it doesn't suit HER or the life we've been shown. Mary could have married Sam. And Clarence could have shown her living in the city in an unhappy marriage, where she is sad and lonely, missing her family in BF. She and Sam probably would have ended up living separate lives, in separate houses, and Mary wouldn't have had very many friends.
Also, we never once see Mary show any interest in the library. The only time we ever see her show any interest in academia at ALL is when she attends the school function. Adding to the fact that she would not have been the only unmarried woman in town eligible for the librarian's job, neither at the time (1945) nor when she would have been first old enough to leave home (she and George get married around 1932), the idea that being the town's spinster librarian is the only thing she could have done with her life (again, not the worst thing in the world to have done, but that's an argument for another day) doesn't work with her character.
Showing Mary as a lonely old maid proves its point -- but it's a cop-out when it comes to her character development.
Form changes over time as we become more and more knowledgeable about health and science -- that's how times get better and records fall. A hundred years from now, doctors and trainers might be telling athletes to be running in a completely different manner. The runners probably wouldn't break any records today, but as has already been pointed out, the actors were relatively accurate for the athletes they portrayed.
I know this is a super late reply, but that was his sister he was talking to, not his wife.
But yes, it is a great scene.
I attended a seminar on the science of this movie a number of years ago, in which they discussed your second question. Basically, it's not possible. The epidemiologists flat out said that developing an anti-viral medication within hours of finding the virus' host and making enough of it to go around the entire town is fantasy at best. Either that, or there's something wicked amazing about Cuba Gooding Jr's chemistry skills, in which case, they probably would have been able to figure something out by then.
And a poorly thought out idea of a spinster, too. I love this movie, but it was December of 1945. There would have been plenty of women in Bedford Falls at the time who hadn't gotten the chance to marry the man they loved. The idea that the only thing Mary could ever have been if she wasn't George's wife was a librarian falls flat, especially since we know of at least one other romantic interest of hers.
Also, as a librarian, it bothers me on a personal level -- but that's a different argument.
I'm rewatching the series right now, and I've come to the conclusion that Harry's character is there for two main reasons:
He's a foil for Paris. In later episodes, this is also taken on by Torres, but Harry is the good boy-rule follower-Renaissance man to Paris' rule bending-adventure seeking-ladies' man (before Torres). Harry is Paris' first and closest friend on Voyager, and he helps Tom become more organized, more loyal, more respectful of authority. (And in turn, Paris helps Harry become more adventurous and daring).
He represents Voyager's primary mission. *Starfleet's* primary mission is to explore, yes. But Voyager's main goal is to return to the Alpha Quadrant. And of all the crew, Harry is the one who openly mentions missing his family the most. When the ship first receives letters from home, he is the most anxious to receive one. Early in the series, he is reluctant to initiate romantic liaisons with others on the ship (although this changes), and comments about waking up in the middle of the night, saying his girlfriend's name. Whether conscious on the part of the writers or not, Harry is the physical representation of Voyager's need to return home.
I wish they had covered the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the UK, and they don't even mention it.
And I find that a lot of plot points are picked up, discussed for an episode, and then never talked about again. (This is not just in Season 4). The one that really sticks with me is the Irish unrest and the IRA. That was such a huge part of S4E1. Thatcher even tells the Queen that she won't rest until the IRA is completely defeated (or words to that effect). But then it's never brought up again. Once we were shown the effect of Dickie's death on Charles, it wasn't important anymore.
Yes, there is a Godswood, but it doesn't contain a weirwood tree. The heart tree in the Red Keep's Godswood is an oak tree.
Upon further research, I discovered there are weirwood trees outside the Isle of Faces south of the Neck. But they're only located in gardens of older castles/houses -- Casterly Rock, Highgarden, and Riverrun all have weirwoods in their Godswoods. But the Red Keep does not.
But it's an interesting question, regardless of the damage to KL. Bran is consistently shown, throughout the final three seasons, using a weirwood tree to see things. And there are no weirwood trees in KL, not even in the royal godswood. The only place in all of Westeros, south of the Neck, where there are any weirwood trees is the Isle of Faces. So, if Bran is still planning on using the trees to see, it doesn't make much sense for him to have his seat at KL at all. Harrenhall would be a much more logical choice, location-wise.
"If a modern cruise ship sinks slowly, nobody should die"
That's the kicker, though. If the ship sinks slowly. *Titanic* sank in 2.5 hours, and they had 20 boats. Every boat launched would have been fully loaded, certainly, but would they have had enough time to launch all the boats? I was watching a documentary that covered this very topic a few months ago, and they timed exactly how long it took to load and launch one of the lifeboats. The consensus was that it would have been cut extremely close to actually get all the boats fully loaded and launched in the 2.5 hours.
Now, that's taking into consideration the fact that they were using 1912 technology. Today, launch system would probably be mechanized, so it would probably take less time to release a boat into the water. There also would have been at least one lifeboat drill, so everyone on board would presumably know what to do and where to go (presumably). So there's that. But the big unknown would be how quickly the ship goes down.
And keep in mind Bodine's line at the beginning -- when he says, "Her name was Rose Dawson [in the 1920's]."
At some point in her life, we are told, Rose had the same last name as Jack. So the inference could be made that they were married at one time. Since she was a De Witt Bukater when she boarded *Titanic,* when did they get married if Jack went down with the ship? Ship captains do preform marriage ceremonies from time to time, but somehow, I doubt Smith would have done so and not made any acknowledgement of it in the logs.
So the fact that Jack dies during the sinking is actually a pretty good twist.
"In the movie they make it appear that she didn't really love him all that much."
I didn't get that impression at all. I understood that line to mean that Jack was her first love, the man she never forgot and who taught her how to love and be herself. Many people never forget their first love, but then go on to live happily married lives with other people.
I don't think she would have married Calvert if she didn't at least feel some affection towards him.
I love Star Trek and how it has continued to stay relevant throughout the years. But this is one particular aspect that dates the show, and we are forced to remember when it was filmed. The next time you watch through the series, count how many episodes pass the Bechdal test (i.e, 2 named female characters have a conversation with each other about something - anything - other than a man). I have been observing that, in this particular series, it's so uncommon that it surprises me when an episode actually does.
Compare that to ST: Voyager, where the test is passed in nearly every episode.
Again, I love the show, but this is one aspect of it that doesn't age well.
That's how it reads in the books, too. His original request, Mars Bars, aren't available, so he buys a little of everything on the cart.
But remember also that Slytherin was the one for the most ambitious students, and Gryffindor put an emphasis on chivalry. So Gryffindor's leadership is the "lead by example" type, rather than the "upper management, be in charge" type. And Slytherin's conservatism might be more the "political right, religious" type, rather than the "family values, golden rule" type.
But to answer the original question, yes, each house is supposed to be equal. It's just that the ambitious students (the ones who end up in Slytherin) tend to become more power hungry, and let the power get to them. Hence why most of the historically "bad" wizards came from Slytherin.
*the BIG REVEAL in Empire works *better* if you don't know.*
Exactly. I'm not old enough to have seen Empire when it first came out, but I can just IMAGINE the huge collective gasps in the theaters. And I have seen home videos of kids watching Empire for the very first time, going into it knowing nothing except what they had previously seen in ANH, getting to that scene, and yelling "NO!!!!" just like Hamel does. Some even start to cry. It works THAT WELL.
If one MUST watch the prequels (a friend of mine watches them just for Ewan McGregor, and I can't say I can blame her), the best way to watch them, IMO, is to watch AOTC and ROTS in between Empire and Jedi. Watch Phantom for the mindless entertainment if you want (or for Ewan McGregor; I won't judge), or skip it all together. But it isn't critical to understanding the rest of the storyline.
I liked the world building in I-III (the Jedi temple, the different planets), but the plots, not so much. And you hit on my biggest beef with them. I don't need my villains to have a back story. Picture in your mind the moment we first see Darth Vader in ANH. He is walking into a white hallway, dressed head to toe in black (i.e, he's different from everyone/everything around him). As he enters, the music makes a dramatic "dum DUM" sound (he's important). He is making weird breathing noises (he's creepy). We recognize him INSTANTLY as the villain. Before he says one word, we know he's the bad guy. We don't know why. We don't care. It's enough that he's bad.
A bad guy's backstory can be great if it's well done. The problem is the only time I've ever seen this done well is when the person is a real person from history. And despite Star Wars taking place a long time ago, that doesn't apply to Vader.