Jodie Foster guest appearance?
CyberBMcD
anyone know if it's true?
Jodie Foster to make rare TV appearance
Jodie Foster is set to make a guest appearance in the US TV series Law
And Order
She will play a battered wife who murders her husband.
Foster is thought to be a close friend of the writers behind the
series.
She is expected to appear in one episode in the spring.
Foster says the drama is one of the few programs she watches on
television. She said: "It's a class act and there aren't many around.
"I have never been a snob and said television is beneath me. It is
always a question of the role."
Foster's latest movie The Panic Room, in which she plays a mum
guarding her child from violent burglars, is scheduled for release in
the UK in the summer.
Story filed: 13:27 Thursday 10th January 2002
Robert Matthews
wrote:
> Picked this up from alt.fan.jodie-foster:
> anyone know if it's true?
>
>
> Jodie Foster to make rare TV appearance
>
> Jodie Foster is set to make a guest appearance in the US TV series Law
> And Order
>
> She will play a battered wife who murders her husband.
>
> Foster is thought to be a close friend of the writers behind the
> series.
>
> She is expected to appear in one episode in the spring.
>
> Foster says the drama is one of the few programs she watches on
> television. She said: "It's a class act and there aren't many around.
>
> "I have never been a snob and said television is beneath me. It is
> always a question of the role."
Dunno if it's true, but she's already done television: a whole shitload of
appearances as a child actresses, and voice work in "Frasier" (one of the
phone-in callers) and "The X-Files" (a tattoo that goads its wearer to kill).
She'd be great on L&O if they'll give her a good script, and you have to
figure that the writers will be working very, very hard to write something that
she'll approve of.
Robert Matthews
Walt
Quite interesting. I do think if this is true, it would be the highest-rated
"Law and Order" ever. Many casual TV viewers who are NOT regular "L & O" fans
would tune in just to see that episode just to see Ms. Foster, especially since
as the article noted she would be playing a batter wife who kills her husband.
Walt
E-mail me at: Free...@juno.com
WtchyWmyn
I'm excietd! Finally, something to look forward to :)
Colin Whipple
"Keeper of the Purple Twilight" <bri...@home.com> wrote in message
news:130120020832203521%bri...@home.com...
> In article <20020113070020...@mb-cg.aol.com>, WtchyWmyn
> <wtch...@aol.comSpamBGon> wrote:
>
> > I LOVE Jodie Foster!
>
> So do I, but only as she was in "Maverick."
I loved her in "Contact".
Colin
VoxofaFox
much as a lot of them....say like Alec Baldwin or Julia Roberts. Ooops! We
did have that over hyped "girlfriend to the star" on there, didn't we.
Ugh...the memory.....
Margie
"Everyone wants a good body but no one wants to go to the gym."
CyberBMcD
One of her best roles, Anna and the King wasn't a box office smash but
was probably her best screen performance ever.
janeway
Howard
--
"The truth is dangerous, so we put our prophets in prison."
Charles Manson
"Smart and crazy. That's a hell of a pair."
Det. Lennie Briscoe (Jerry Orbach), Law & Order
"Walt" <laword...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113032358...@mb-fs.aol.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Chris Crandall
: And Alec Baldwin wrote an episode as well ('Tabloid').
No, he suggested the storyline, he didn't write the episode.
Dave Roy
laword...@aol.com (Walt) wrote:
> CyberMcD:
>
> Quite interesting. I do think if this is true, it would be the
> highest-rated "Law and Order" ever.
*snip*
Yes, Walt, but would it be higher rated than one starring Alyssa
Milano? :-)
Dave Roy
SteveR
>Yes, Walt, but would it be higher rated than one starring Alyssa
>Milano? :-)
Who the hell is Alyssa Milano? Yeah... I know. Eva Savealot. Who
the hell is Eva Savealot, and why would anyone go out of their way to
see her? Now, Jodie Foster... that's a whole other story.
SteveR
Erasmus Brown
"CyberBMcD" <cybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C4219F0...@hotmail.com...
hmmm....can't say I agree...Taxi Driver is probably her best...along with
Silence of the Lambs and The Accused...
DevilGrrl
>>>>
>>>> So do I, but only as she was in "Maverick."
>>>
>>> I loved her in "Contact".
>>>
>>> Colin
>>
>> One of her best roles, Anna and the King wasn't a box office smash but
>> was probably her best screen performance ever.
>
> hmmm....can't say I agree...Taxi Driver is probably her best...along with
> Silence of the Lambs and The Accused...
Hey1 What about 'Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore'?
Scottyfield4
>>>>
>>>> So do I, but only as she was in "Maverick."
>>>
>>> I loved her in "Contact".
>>>
>>> Colin
>>
>> One of her best roles, Anna and the King wasn't a box office smash but
>> was probably her best screen performance ever.
>
> hmmm....can't say I agree...Taxi Driver is probably her best...along with
> Silence of the Lambs and The Accused...
>Hey! What about 'Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore'?
'Nell'! 'Little Man Tate'! 'The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane'! I've
had a crush on Jodie since 'Freaky Friday' way back in '77. (And no, I've never
had the urge to shoot the President! Nor even the Prime Minister.)
(
)
(
)
"Exactly what ARE reindeer games?"
Ktcloe
She was very talented as a child, and had a tough quality about her then, and
that crooked, wry smile.
Terry
Game 6 E3
>see her?
I can think of two good reasons. :)
SteveR
>I can think of two good reasons. :)
Ohhhhhhhh.... I get it now.
SteveR
Erasmus Brown
"DevilGrrl" <nos...@hades.net> wrote in message
news:B868DF3A.BD44%nos...@hades.net...
to ask Martin Scorsese a question at his talk at City University of New York
:)))
Erasmus Brown
"Game 6 E3" <gam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115071724...@mb-cd.aol.com...
What, her fake knockers?
Connemara
"Dave Roy" <davi...@ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:david.roy-5F4F9...@news.interchange.ubc.ca...
comparing jodie foster with alyssa milano is tantamount to saying the food
at the waldorf astoria is the same as what you get at mcdonalds!! or the
same as saying that angie harmon was as good as an assistant da as carey
lowell or jill hennessey........sorry but milano's acting ability is no
where near foster's! (and i actually do like "charmed" although holly marie
combs and shannen doherty--and the new one rose mcgowan--are all better
actresses than milano!)
alyssa milano is merely set dressing!
michelle
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
There are far too many people in the world....
And NOT enough HUMAN BEINGS!!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Scottyfield4
"Sucked?!?!" Them's fightin woids! OK, "Nell" did kinda suck a bit, but
"Silence of the Lambs"? Just because a movie wins the "Best Picture" Oscar
doesn't necessarily guarantee that it sucks! (Yes, you read that right!)
MSey
The Accused was her best. I've always thought that the "rape" scene was
completely unnecessary, in fact in light of Foster's performance and
ability, it was gratuitous. She was superb in the part.
I've seen a lot of her work from *way* back, but that's always been my
favorite. She was stunning!
Murielle
Murielle
MSey
"Scottyfield4" <scotty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115003848...@mb-mt.aol.com...
Not even Mulroney? (Oh dear, did I spell that right?--Like I care!
LOL!)
Murielle
MSey
"Erasmus Brown" <hot...@mofo.com> wrote in message
news:mQ318.41110$Zh1.7...@news02.optonline.net...
Don't tease! What did you ask? What did he answer? Huh? Huh? :-))
Murielle
Ktcloe
did.
Terry
Chris Crandall
: The Accused was her best. I've always thought that the "rape" scene was
: completely unnecessary, in fact in light of Foster's performance and
: ability, it was gratuitous. She was superb in the part.
I disagree. The unclarity of what happened that night, and all the
conflicting accounts and information, make the viewer quite confused and
concerned. Actually seeing what happened, at the end, clears up the
confusion, and allows the viewer to go back over the course of the movie,
and take an actual point of view. It's essential, and awful.
Dave Roy
"Connemara" <justice_...@spam.medscape.com> wrote:
> comparing jodie foster with alyssa milano is tantamount to saying
> the food at the waldorf astoria is the same as what you get at
> mcdonalds!! or the same as saying that angie harmon was as good
> as an assistant da as carey lowell or jill hennessey........sorry
> but milano's acting ability is no where near foster's! (and i
> actually do like "charmed" although holly marie combs and shannen
> doherty--and the new one rose mcgowan--are all better actresses
> than milano!)
>
> alyssa milano is merely set dressing!
I hope you don't think I disagree with you. I was just contrasting
Walt's statement about the Foster episode being the highest rated
ever with a similar statement he made about a hypothetical episode
with Alyssa Milano.
Jodie Foster could die tomorrow and still put on a better performance
than Milano could.
Dave Roy
MSey
"Chris Crandall" <cran...@lark.cc.ku.edu> wrote in message
news:a24clc$vmg$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu...
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)
I will never believe it was put in there for any other reason than pure,
unadulterated prurience. I have come to accept that is the nature of the
film business. Sex sell. Even violent sex sells, and to a mainstream
audience. It always has, and it always will. I know they didn't need that
scene, Foster is a strong enough actress to have brought that jury and the
audience "home" without it. It was exploititive. The jury didn't get to
see that scene, so it wasn't "needed" to clear up anything in the court
case--which is what the film was about . . . we the audience got to see it
because it would sell more tickets.
Let's not pretend otherwise. Violent sex in film is a staple, been
around for a very long time, and it sells.
Murielle
Walt
In an earlier post, Dave Roy did note in seperate cases I thought that episodes
involing Jodie Foster and Alyssa Milano could both have the potential to be the
highest rated "L & O" ever, and of course much before that I mentioned the one
that I think also could be, a "not-so-Charming reunion" of Shannen Doherty and
Holly Marie Combs. There are different reasons for each one:
First, a Jodie Foster appearence would not need much hype (though NBC probably
would overdo it anyway) in getting the #1 slot for an "L & O" episode. "L & O"
is far more popular now than when Julia Roberts made her appearence three years
ago, and Ms. Foster has many fans who would likely tune in blind to an episode
she did it, with many of those NOT regular "L & O" viewers.
Second, in the case of the "not-so-Charming reunion" idea, I've mentioned many
times that shows on the WB Network don't get the best ratings of all time,
however, they also have among the most loyal followings I have ever seen for
ANY network in my lifetime (this is why I think Elisabeth Rohm, coming from
"Angel" has been a big factor in "L & O's" ratings going up this year, 9/11 or
not). When "Oceans 11" premiered last December, a large percentage of "Charmed"
fans did not care on bit the film had Matt Garcia, Bradd Pitt, George Clooney,
Andy Garcia or Julia Roberts in it. They only cared that Holly Marie Combs was
in it, even though she only appeared (as herself) at the beginning of the film!
That's why unless the Jodie Foster episode happens, in my opinion an episode
with Shannen Doherty and Holly Marie Combs in it would very likely be the
highest rated "Law and Order" ever, especially given the way NBC would almost
certainly in my opinion overhype the "not-so-Charming reunion" angle.
Third, in the case of Alyssa Milano, the idea of an episode with her in it
would strictly be (if I were Dick Wolf) for one based on her real-life problems
with the web. That is a situation that could happen to ANYONE who is famous
(not just actors), and I'm sure if it had been Chris Noth this happened to
instead of Alyssa Milano, the Noth fanatics would be howling bloody murder, and
rightfully so. To me, such an episode would go far beyond any ratings it got,
as it has the potential to be the kind of "message sending" episode of "L & O"
that "Sweeps" was in 1993 (for those who may be new, "Sweeps" was an episode
where Robert Klein played a sleazy tabloid TV talk show host who triggered a
murder to happen LIVE on his show, and sent a warning that something like what
actually happened two years later on "Jenny Jones" could if the producers were
not careful).
Erasmus Brown
It doesn't make "the viewer" confused, concerned, etc. It may have made YOU
confused...please do not presume to speak for others...
Erasmus Brown
"MSey" <ML...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:a23hau$1ets$1...@nserve1.acs.ucalgary.ca...
in film on society, and vice-versa...I was pretty much babbling at the end
because I was so nervous! He understood what I meant and basically said in
his films he stays true to the subject matter and shows things as they are,
and that they are not made for children...
Aren't you a poster in the OZ newsgroup as well?
T. G.
> I didn't say that Silence of the Lambs sucked; I said that "Nell" and "Contact"
> did.
I liked all of these.
Although I admit that it took awhile for me to like Nell, and it is a
bit slow moving.
I also liked Maverick, but it's somehow not really Jodie. I like The
Accused, even if it is a bit rough. I disliked Summersby. I liked
Taxi Driver. I didn't much care for Anna and the King. I like the old
version, Anna and the King of Siam, with Rex Harrison. Anyway he's
got the right name for the role although, Siam no longer does.
I also like Jodie.
Anyone like her directing? I think I saw parts of Home for the
Holidays(?) and liked it. I never cared for Little Man Tate, perhaps,
because it may have partially seemed like wishful thinking?
Maybe it's a little like Citizen Kane, which I think is one of the
best autobigraphical films ever made, even if its director didn't know
it at the time.
Just felt that I had to get my two cents in.
Theget.
Where there is peace there is no compulsion.
Where there is no compulsion there is no submission
janeway
"DevilGrrl" <nos...@hades.net> wrote in message
news:B868DF3A.BD44%nos...@hades.net...
Contact is the one I like the most, followed by Silence of the Lambs. I'm
also eagerly awaiting "The Panic Room". The trailers look great.
Howard
--
"The truth is dangerous, so we put our prophets in prison."
Charles Manson
"Smart and crazy. That's a hell of a pair."
Det. Lennie Briscoe (Jerry Orbach), Law & Order
>
janeway
"T. G." <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:899194be.02011...@posting.google.com...
> ktc...@cs.com (Ktcloe) wrote in message
news:<20020116064617...@mb-ft.news.cs.com>...
> I also like Jodie.
>
> Anyone like her directing? I think I saw parts of Home for the
> Holidays(?) and liked it.
I love that movie! I just ended up watching it one day on cable without
knowing what is was or who directed it. Very enjoyable.
Howard
--
"I'll bet that Klingon bitch killed her father!"
Montgomery Scott (James Doohan), Star Trek VI
I never cared for Little Man Tate, perhaps,
> because it may have partially seemed like wishful thinking?
>
> Maybe it's a little like Citizen Kane, which I think is one of the
> best autobigraphical films ever made, even if its director didn't know
> it at the time.
>
>
> Just felt that I had to get my two cents in.
> Theget.
>
> Where there is peace there is no compulsion.
> Where there is no compulsion there is no submission
MSey
> > Don't tease! What did you ask? What did he answer? Huh? Huh?
:-))
> >
> > Murielle
> >
> I asked him, more or less, what he thought about the influence of violence
> in film on society, and vice-versa...I was pretty much babbling at the end
> because I was so nervous! He understood what I meant and basically said in
> his films he stays true to the subject matter and shows things as they
are,
> and that they are not made for children...
Thanks! That must have been tres cool. I envy you the experience. I
admire Scorsese very much.
> Aren't you a poster in the OZ newsgroup as well?
I was, but right now I'm not. I will be again in the fall after we've
seen season five here in Canada. What can I say, I'm a sucker for good
tv/film. :-)
Murielle
MSey
news:<20020116064617...@mb-ft.news.cs.com>...
> > I didn't say that Silence of the Lambs sucked; I said that "Nell" and
"Contact"
> > did.
>
> I liked all of these.
>
> Although I admit that it took awhile for me to like Nell, and it is a
> bit slow moving.
I quite liked Nell. Mainly because if Liam Neesom though. ;-) But, it
was a gentle story, well told and nicely acted.
> I also liked Maverick, but it's somehow not really Jodie. I like The
> Accused, even if it is a bit rough. I disliked Summersby. I liked
> Taxi Driver. I didn't much care for Anna and the King. I like the old
> version, Anna and the King of Siam, with Rex Harrison. Anyway he's
> got the right name for the role although, Siam no longer does.
I've never seen Maverick--not much for oaters, myself. As I've said, I
liked The Accused and thinks it's Foster's best work. I liked
Summersby--thought it was well done. It didn't do too well, if I recall
correctly, but it wasn't awful or anything. I like Geer, so there was
plenty of eye-candy. I remember watching The Little Girl Who Lives Down the
Lane--in fact I have a video of it--way back when it was first on TV,
enjoyed it, and Taxi Driver, though I'm not sure enjoyed is the right word.
I've never seen Anna and the King. For me it's Deborah Kerr and Yul
Brynner, forever!
>
> I also like Jodie.
She's an excellent actress, and seems a really down-to-earth-sensible
human being.
> Anyone like her directing? I think I saw parts of Home for the
> Holidays(?) and liked it. I never cared for Little Man Tate, perhaps,
> because it may have partially seemed like wishful thinking?
I think I've seen Home for the Holidays, but don't remember much about
it, which probably says a lot about what I thought of the film. :-) But I
did enjoy Little Man Tate. I thought it was tenderly told, very well acted
and nicely directed.
When I first saw Contact I was so stunned by the film I didn't even
consider Foster's performance. But, it was on again recently and though I
chose not to watch it I did end up watching the last part of the film.
Foster's performance just seemed really overwrought in the scenes where she
is supposedly seeing the worm-holes etc. She is a brilliant interactive
actress, but she leaves a lot to be desired on the visualizational side of
things. I concede, however, that it's a very difficult thing to do and not
everyone can do it well, or even adequetly. She was very good in the final
scenes before . . . was it "congress"?
> Maybe it's a little like Citizen Kane, which I think is one of the
> best autobigraphical films ever made, even if its director didn't know
> it at the time.
Citizen has got to be the all-time American Film, don't you think? It's
an excellent work.
> Just felt that I had to get my two cents in.
> Theget.
And I added my two . . . do I hear four? ;-)
Murielle
Scottyfield4
>sucked!
>I didn't say that Silence of the Lambs sucked; I said that "Nell" and
"Contact"
>did.
>Terry
>
Yeah, I noticed that about 4 minutes after I replied. Sorry! Strange stuff,
this punctuation: Remove the semicolon you added to the word "Lambs" and THEN
you'd be saying that "Silence" sucks! I didn't see the semicolon until
afterwords...
Hated "Contact" too, eh? O well, different opinions make the world go
'round...
Scott
Ktcloe
Jodie Foster is as "Clarice", I'd never watch it again, because I suffered
many sleepless nights after ward!
Terry
Chris Crandall
: We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)
: I will never believe it was put in there for any other reason than pure,
: unadulterated prurience. I have come to accept that is the nature of the
: film business. Sex sell. Even violent sex sells, and to a mainstream
: audience. It always has, and it always will. I know they didn't need that
: scene, Foster is a strong enough actress to have brought that jury and the
: audience "home" without it. It was exploititive. The jury didn't get to
: see that scene, so it wasn't "needed" to clear up anything in the court
: case--which is what the film was about . . . we the audience got to see it
: because it would sell more tickets.
: Let's not pretend otherwise. Violent sex in film is a staple, been
: around for a very long time, and it sells.
I'm not pretending. The whole point of the picture was to start with
something pretty straightforward, and make it grey, and dim, and
difficult. Just like it is to the jury.
But our point of view was *very* different from the jury's, and the film
clears up the question that most of the film created--and it ends up
selling us on the idea that cheering on a rape is downright evil and
certainly criminal, and it's a damnably difficult thing to prosecute, even
when the actual act is so straightforward.
By holding off the showing of the rape until the end, the picture serves
its artistic and political purpose better.
Chris Crandall
: > I disagree. The unclarity of what happened that night, and all the
: > conflicting accounts and information, make the viewer quite confused and
: > concerned. Actually seeing what happened, at the end, clears up the
: > confusion, and allows the viewer to go back over the course of the movie,
: > and take an actual point of view. It's essential, and awful.
Erasmus Brown (hot...@mofo.com) wrote:
: It doesn't make "the viewer" confused, concerned, etc. It may have made YOU
: confused...please do not presume to speak for others...
I don't know what "it" refers to in your sentence. Much of the movie is
spent showing us how flawed, foolish, recalcitrant, and less-than-perfect
Jodie Foster's character is. The prosecutor repeatedly looses faith in
her--she holds back damaging information, she dresses provocatively, she
danced provocatively, witnesses contradict her every statement. This is
the entire point of the middle third of the movie.
It is only until the rape scene, that clarity returns.
MSey
"Chris Crandall" <cran...@lark.cc.ku.edu> wrote in message
>
> I'm not pretending. The whole point of the picture was to start with
> something pretty straightforward, and make it grey, and dim, and
> difficult. Just like it is to the jury.
>
> But our point of view was *very* different from the jury's, and the film
> clears up the question that most of the film created--and it ends up
> selling us on the idea that cheering on a rape is downright evil and
> certainly criminal, and it's a damnably difficult thing to prosecute, even
> when the actual act is so straightforward.
>
> By holding off the showing of the rape until the end, the picture serves
> its artistic and political purpose better.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I see what
you're saying, but I don't agree with you.
Oh, and I didn't mean *you* specifically were pretending . . . just the
general pretense that's "out there" about violent sex in film.
Murielle
T. G.
> "Chris Crandall" <cran...@lark.cc.ku.edu> wrote in message
> news:a24clc$vmg$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu...
> > MSey (ML...@calcna.ab.ca) wrote:
> > : The Accused was her best. I've always thought that the "rape" scene
> was
> > : completely unnecessary, in fact in light of Foster's performance and
> > : ability, it was gratuitous. She was superb in the part.
> I will never believe it was put in there for any other reason than pure,
> unadulterated prurience. I have come to accept that is the nature of the
> film business. Sex sell. Even violent sex sells, and to a mainstream
> audience. It always has, and it always will. [snip] we the audience got to see it
> because it would sell more tickets.
>
> Let's not pretend otherwise. Violent sex in film is a staple, been
> around for a very long time, and it sells.
I'm not certain that these things are in movies simply because they
sell, although of course, they do sell.
I was wondering if any of you have seen the uncut for TV version of
Hitchcock's Frenzy, and if so, what you think of the violence/sex in
that film, and possible reasons for it being in there.
Theget
Where there is peace there is no compulsion.
Where there is no compulsion there is no submission.
Scottyfield4
>did enjoy Little Man Tate. I thought it was tenderly told, very well acted
>and nicely directed.
>
Totally agree. Only saw it once, 10 yrs ago, but two inexplicably poignant,
near-heartbreaking moments in particular - the overhead shot of the birthday
invitations scattered on the playground; Fred's attack on the telephone near
the end - have haunted me ever since. And to ensure that I'm not drifting OT,
note that "Little Man Tate" also starred Dianne Weist!
> When I first saw Contact I was so stunned by the film I didn't even
>consider Foster's performance. But, it was on again recently and though I
>chose not to watch it I did end up watching the last part of the film.
>Foster's performance just seemed really overwrought in the scenes where she
>is supposedly seeing the worm-holes etc. She is a brilliant interactive
>actress, but she leaves a lot to be desired on the visualizational side of
>things. I concede, however, that it's a very difficult thing to do and not
>everyone can do it well, or even adequetly.
You're right - it really must be difficult to pull off that Steven
Spielberg-type stuff which requires actors to stare slackjawed & awestruck into
space, at nothing at all, pretending to see spaceships or dinosaurs that won't
be added until later. I thought Jodie did this better than anyone else I've
ever seen, though. And tho she had absolutely nothing to do with it, that
opening shot in "Contact" was incredible! Best part of the movie; just as the
closing shot was the best thing in the same summer's "Men in Black". And to
ensure AGAIN that I'm not drifting OT, note that "Men in Black" also starred
Vincent (sp?) D'inofrio!
> Citizen has got to be the all-time American Film, don't you think? It's
>an excellent work.
To call Citizen Kane the alltime best is a cliche. But this cliche happens to
be the truth! And to ensure YET AGAIN that I'm not drifting OT, note that both
Steven Hill and Orson Welles appeared in a movie with Harry Oliver (whoever the
hell HE is)!
>
>> Just felt that I had to get my two cents in.
>> Theget.
>
> And I added my two . . . do I hear four? ;-)
>
>Murielle
>
Okay...I'll see your four, and raise you two!
Scott
(
)
(
)
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he
doesn't exist" - Keyzer Soze
Scottyfield4
>never
>> had the urge to shoot the President! Nor even the Prime Minister.)
>
>
> Not even Mulroney? (Oh dear, did I spell that right?--Like I care!
>LOL!)
>Murielle
LOL indeed! Shooting's too excessive, but I wouldn't've minded slapping him
around a bit. And his former buddy Lucien Bouchard even more so! (Sorry,
non-Canadians, if we're getting too arcane).
I doubt this would impress Jodie, but I think she's gay, so it's a moot point.
MSey
Didn't make me confused either. The reality of the rape was never in
question for this viewer. Foster's character had so much screen credibility
that I'd have believed just about anything she said. The only thing I've
ever been confused about was why that scene was in there in the first place
. . . Oh yeah, money!
Murielle
Chris Crandall
: Didn't make me confused either. The reality of the rape was never in
: question for this viewer. Foster's character had so much screen credibility
: that I'd have believed just about anything she said.
It's not the rape that's at issue in the film. The rapist(s) plead
guilty. The real issue is the role of the audience and their behavior.
That's what required the scene.
Rachel's Papers
> Contact is the one I like the most, followed by Silence of the Lambs. I'm
> also eagerly awaiting "The Panic Room". The trailers look great.
meh. contact was ok. panic room looks great. wanted to hit her in "nell"
MSey
> It's not the rape that's at issue in the film. The rapist(s) plead
> guilty. The real issue is the role of the audience and their behavior.
>
> That's what required the scene.
Okay then, we're getting somewhere. The rape was not at issue, only the
behavior of the on-lookers who cheered the rapists on, right?
Well, then there was no need to show the rape, only the jerks who were
cheering.
The rape was not needed.
The rapists as you said, pled guilty. The rape was already established
in the minds of the audience. The jury didn't get to see the rape scene, so
it wasn't for their benifit, ergo, it must have been for the benifit of the
audience. But, it was unnecessary because we, the audience, already knew
the rape had taken place, therefore it was gratuitous. Based on what you
wrote above.
Murielle
Chelsea Christenson
> Didn't make me confused either. The reality of the rape was never in
> question for this viewer. Foster's character had so much screen credibility
> that I'd have believed just about anything she said.
But that's kind of the point. Even if you leave out deliberate shading of truth
to make herself look better (I'm not saying she did that; I'm saying it wouldn't
be surprising if she did), there's the question of whether her memory was
accurate and complete. It's the whole Rashomon issue.
MSey
"Chelsea Christenson" <Chelsea.C...@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:3C50A166...@oracle.com...
Well, if we're going to use Rashomon as an example then we should have
seen the rape about fifty times , as recalled by every person who was there
(don't recall how many witnesses there were--only guessing). Or not. But,
if not, then we should have had the verbal description of the rape from each
of those who were there, instead of only the victim and one witness . . .
right? Isn't that more like Rashomon?
Murielle
Chelsea Christenson
I didn't say it was like Rashomon. I said it was the Rashomon issue -- people
perceive reality differently. This is why eyewitness testimony is not the Holy
Grail, no matter what a prosecutor might say.
You trusted the character, but the character's memory might not have been
trustworthy. By showing you the "reality," the moviemakers let you measure the
character's memory against it.
MSey
"Rachel's Papers" <rachel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a524de02.02012...@posting.google.com...
That's an interesting response . . . why did you feel that way about
"nell"?
I have mixed feelings about that film. After my first viewing I thought
it was brilliant, my subsequent responses to watching it again a few times
were more critical.
Murielle
MSey
"Chelsea Christenson" <Chelsea.C...@oracle.com> wrote
>
> I didn't say it was like Rashomon. I said it was the Rashomon issue --
people
> perceive reality differently. This is why eyewitness testimony is not the
Holy
> Grail, no matter what a prosecutor might say.
My apologies, I missunderstood you.
You're right, peoples' recollections of things are based on a lot more
than what actually happened. Personal perceptions are not always completely
acurate.
> You trusted the character, but the character's memory might not have been
> trustworthy. By showing you the "reality," the moviemakers let you
measure the
> character's memory against it.
I see your point. However, I think that a less graphic account of the
rape would have more than satisfied the needs of the "story". Particularly
as Chris pointed out, the rape was never really in question, but rather the
conduct of certain witnesses. It would have been possible to show their
behavior without the graphic depiction of the rape.
By the way, I've been thinking about the Rashomon comparison (even
though I was in error) and there were certainly other witnesses whose
accounts of the scene were less than enlightening, and were finally revealed
to have known more than they initially declared. And even though I now
realized I misunderstood you, the comparison holds better than I first
thought. :-)
Murielle