"I've never had that happen to me before. It's supposedly random... My registration was expired because I had been out of town, and it was my first day back. I'd been in Israel and Berlin for the shooting. They wouldn't let me go in. But he said to take the bridge instead. And I didn't understand that logic. If you're a suspect, don't take the tunnel, take the bridge?"So the police must have targetted her because of her shaved head, she tells Newsweek.
You know Natalie, just shut up and deal with it. Don't use it as an occasion for disrespecting the police and -- oh, just by chance! -- promoting your damned movie.
And you "don't understand the logic" that relates to car bombs in tunnels as opposed to on bridges? You were a straight-A Harvard student and you can't run that through your head and come up with anything?
पोस्ट्स
१५ टिप्पण्या:
And her film is about blowing up the British Parliament as a good thing.
Nice, huh?
"She said she had not yet concluded what she thought about the destruction of Parliament, set in motion in large part by her character. In the context of the film, she said, the grand old building no longer represents democracy and openness, but rather repression and corruption."
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=571#comments
Kathleen,
The movie's an obvious allegory for today -- like most films set in the future. The subtext is obvious. Read the article I linked to. The director wants to "raise questions about the legitimacy of terrorism."
Why not just raise questions about the legitimacy of Nazism? Decent people don't see a difference between the two.
Straight A's...so I suggest Althouse (a college prof) assume some portion of the blame for rampant grade inflation. I am speaking as one who had a measly 2.6 GPA from TU in 1977 (and that school was easy so I won't disclose its actual identity).
AJ: I'm not a college prof. I'm a law school prof. And here in law school we have pretty strictly enforced grading guidelines that control inflation. As for Harvard grade inflation, I think you probaby realize that getting INTO Harvard is a pretty damned difficult feat. Maybe movie starts get some extra "diversity points," but still...
Well, since Natalie's a hottie, let me do the chivalrous thing and come to her defense: I don't understand the cop logic either. Why is someone with an expired registration more likely to be a terrorist? And if a terrorist with a car bomb powerful enough to collapse a tunnel is stopped and told to take the bridge instead, what's she going to do? Give up terrorism? Or take the bridge? (Manhattan has lots of juicier targets than tunnels and bridges, you know.) Or just wait till tomorrow and wear a wig?
If I were living in Manhattan, I don't think this story would make me feel a lot safer.
Does anyone really believe this film will be based on themes and metaphors relevent to 1982? That's absurd.
There is absolutely no excuse for terrorism regardless of the cause. Attacking innocent civilians is evil. So, no, it's not worth exploring.
You guys debate it, I'm gonna take the director and his star at their word.
I don't know anything about the book, the movie, the director, or the underlying motives, so I have no opinion on "V" being about blowing up the Parliament.
I would, however, point out that when a filmmaker adapts a book or story for the screen, it makes absolutely no difference what the writer of the book or story intended. When it comes to the message of the movie, all that matters is what the director intends to say and whether or not the director manages to say it clearly.
As for Natalie Portman, I would guess that Leland is right, and that Natalie just didn't know that you can (and will) get pulled over for expired tags.
Exactly Freeman. Look at War of the Worlds ot Invasion of the Body Snatchers, each remade with a current theme to match current times. Who would do anything different.
Kathleen, I'll join any resistence not engaged in terrorism. This movie's about terrorism, not resistence.
As a New York State resident, let me clarify something: In New York plates don't expire; you have a little dated registration sticker in your window, but it's almost impossible to read on a moving car. So a cop will not find out your registration is expired unless he's already stopped you for something else.
V for Vendetta the book was written with a 1984-ish / The Prisoner version of London with the title character being a modern day version of Guy Fawkes. It's very English and actually revelled in exploring the gray areas of morality. It wasn't presented as a story in bright primary colors where the heroes were unmistakably pure and good and their were no redeeming qualities to the villains. The lead inspector, Finch, of the government is a pretty sympathetic figure throughout and V does some reprehensible things. It asks what's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And, some of V's tactics to "awaken" Portman's character Evey border on brainwashing.
Of course, it's reasonable to expect that all of that interesting material is going to be lost in the movie version and we'll get a slick, good looking movie with pat answers. And that it will be an even more specific political tract than the original book.
In New York plates don't expire; you have a little dated registration sticker in your window, but it's almost impossible to read on a moving car.
Here the little sticker is on the plate. Ours are color-coded by month, so they only have to read the 05 or 06 or whatever. I've been stopped for expired tags at night on the freeway going 70mph. Are the NY tags color-coded like that? That might make it easier for the cop.
No, there's nothing on the plate. The stickers are color coded by year, with the month represented by a punched out dot that would be virtually impossible to see through the windshield on a moving car. So you won't be stopped for expired registration unless it's been expired since last year, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
She was stopped as she was approaching the tunnel, not speeding by just anywhere. If they were on the alert to the point described, I think they were slowing cars down and looking at them, so they'd see the sticker.
Kathleen writes: "the movie is based on the book, not the creation out of the mind of the director. Therefore, you cannot take an act from the book and then say, see it means this because of today's times, when the book was written decades ago." I couldn't disagree more. The choice of which old book to remake is influenced by whether it has current relevance and how it can be transformed into a vehicle for whatever the current filmmakers would like to say. Just look at any given Shakespeare play made into a movie: it's always connected to its own time. I've certainly seen productions of "Richard III" that were about Richard Nixon. And "Krapp's Last Tape" became a play about Nixon too.
People unfamiliar with the book might want to check out http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/comics101/35.html for a basic introduction.
I expect that there's going to be a "controversy" over the movie when it comes out. And, I expect the choice to make it at this time does have something to do with current politics, although I do know the Wachowskis had been contemplating making it in the late 90s. Current events seem to have overtaken them and the book to an extent. And, if it's at least somewhat faithful, it's still an allegory to prompt discussion not a political tract.
However, as much chest thumping pro and con as the film may generate, I'm actually not that interested in the American and English reaction to it. What will interest me is the Chinese reaction to it. I expect it will be banned and I expect in the age of Internet piracy and DVD bootlegging the banning won't make a bit of difference. And I definitely got a Tiananmen Square vibe out of the shots of the production I saw in front of Parlaiment.
Kathleen,
I can say it because the director said it. He said "terrorism" not me. I'm just taking him at his word. If he had said "resistence" we wouldn't be debating this.
And Ann said what I wanted to just more articulately. A few days ago I saw "The Sea Hawk." It's an old 1941 Errol Flynn pirate movie (and a great one! Johnny Depp-who?)based on a novel. They turned the film into an allegory about the Brits and WWII -- which they were fighting at the time even though we weren't.
The bad guys were the French but it was obviously about Hitler. That's what directors do time and again. Only in 1941 they opposed fascism. Now they want to explore the "legitimacy" of the methods of our savage enemies.
It's disgusting. Why not just explore the legitimacy of concentration camps? Same difference.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा