The English Patient - a stupid movie (spoilers)
Matt Beckwith
Not all the fabulous acting and cinematography in the world can mask
the fact that the plot of The English Patient is insipid. This is a
movie about a man who has an affair with a married woman and
experiences the consequences. The husband finds out and attempts to
kill them and himself; he succeeds in killing himself and fatally
wounding his wife. The protagonist in order to keep a promise to the
dying adulteress aids the Nazis, thereby facilitating the deaths of
thousands of innocent people.
Neither of the lovers is a particularly interesting person. The woman
has adultery on her mind from the outset, so she's little better than
pond scum. The man has schzoid personality disorder and about as much
emotion as a toad.
Why must these master movie makers and world-class actors make movies
about such mundane matters?
The only character even mildly interesting in this film is the nurse.
Binoche is a fabulous actress; though to see Binoche you would be
better to rent "Blue", a much better vehicle for her talents.
There have been so many movies in the past 10 years apparently
sympathetic to adultery. As far as I'm concerned, adultery is wrong.
I like to identify with the protagonist of a story. When he commits
adultery it spoils the experience.
This movie is a tragedy in the Greek sense: the main character makes
a mistake due to a flaw in his character, and this ends up being his
downfall. But there's nothing in his personality which prompts us to
be sympathetic to or interested in him. He's a recluse who doesn't
like people.
There's one really wonderful scene in the film. It almost makes the 2
1/2 hours worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the plot. It's
when Binoche is hoisted up to view the murals.
James Keivom
are you one of those crazy christians?
>There's one really wonderful scene in the film. It almost makes the 2
>1/2 hours worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the plot. It's
>when Binoche is hoisted up to view the murals.
>
--
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
|James Keivom - Photojournalist | To see my portfolio, set your browser to: |
|Boulder, Colorado | http://rtt.colorado.edu/~keivom/Home.html |
o-------------------------------o-------------------------------------------o
Xich Lo
Matt Beckwith wrote:
> There have been so many movies in the past 10 years apparently
> sympathetic to adultery. As far as I'm concerned, adultery is wrong.
> I like to identify with the protagonist of a story. When he commits
> adultery it spoils the experience.
It seems to me that you are allowing your personal opinions regarding
adultery to influence your opinions on the film. So you think adultery
is wrong. Well so do I. But I also think that when you are unhappy in
a relationship and the person you should have been with all along comes
along, there's not a whole lot you can do to control your impulses.
>
> This movie is a tragedy in the Greek sense: the main character makes
> a mistake due to a flaw in his character, and this ends up being his
> downfall. But there's nothing in his personality which prompts us to
> be sympathetic to or interested in him. He's a recluse who doesn't
> like people.
That is what makes the tragedy more tragic. Fiennes character shuns
humanity throughout his life. He is Moliere's Misanthrope. But then he
finds love, and he will do anything and everything for that love. It
is, like the morphine in his later life, a drug to which he quickly
becomes addicted. That is the tragedy, that a man can shun his fellow
human beings for so long only to come within reach of having a
fulfilling life, then to have it stripped away from him. Have you ever
been in love, found the person that you want to spend the rest of
eternity with only to have that person torn away from you? What makes
it more tragic for Fiennes' character is that he finds it only once in
his life, then he is left emotionally and physically scarred by it. It
is through his angelic nurse that he finally finds some kind of
forgiveness and redemption.
> There's one really wonderful scene in the film. It almost makes the 2
> 1/2 hours worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the plot. It's
> when Binoche is hoisted up to view the murals.
A great scene. But the real tragedy is that you have completely missed
the point of the movie.
Kolaga
>Neither of the lovers is a particularly interesting person. The woman
>has adultery on her mind from the outset, so she's little better than
>pond scum. The man has schzoid personality disorder and about as much
>emotion as a toad.
I agree. Their affair is portrayed as a standard English tea-party
sort of thing. The humping in front of the regiment was totally
uncalled for.
Matt Beckwith
kei...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (James Keivom) wrote:
>are you one of those crazy christians?
You see? Adultery is so commonly accepted these days that by
criticizing it I'm automatically branded a Jesus freak.
Trister K
>You see? Adultery is so commonly accepted these days that by
>criticizing it I'm automatically branded a Jesus freak.
Oh Please. . .
Jun Yan
> I don't mind the theme of adultery though,if more psychological insight to
> the minds of the 'lovers' is given. However apparently, the characters
> are very shallow and we are provided with no clue to 'true love ' except
> that Almasy sacrificed and risk all to save his love.
I second that.
"sacrificed all"! Examine what he really sacrificed. The Canadian
thief's thumbs, some insignificant civilians' lives due to the Nazi
invasion of the city, his expedition English friend, etc. What is it in
himself that he sacrificed? Ehhh... Look, if the filmmakers want me to
sympathize with this Hungarian guy who is a Nazi collaborater, they've
gotta give me something more than *that*. When Almsay's plane crashed at
least 2 years later (what's he been doing in between?), the allied army
suspect he was Nazi collaborater (and indeed he was!). What did he say?
I must be blind to all his greatness and romantic qualities, or most
people equals romance to sex. That's OK. Just show a little remorse when
you decide to help the Nazi, will ye?
jun
Teng Siao See
hey, i definitely agree about TEP being a film of lust rather than love.
I don't mind the theme of adultery though,if more psychological insight to
the minds of the 'lovers' is given. However apparently, the characters
are very shallow and we are provided with no clue to 'true love ' except
the expense of so many people, including his partner, a redeemable one,
especially when it is an 'unlawful' one ?
What disturbs me is that there are actually many people who are crazy
about the movie, thinking that it is the most 'romantic' movie they ever
watched. Oh dear, am I living in a dream world ?
Binoche was good, no doubt about that. She is aboutthe only figure who can
arouse sympathy in the show .Her character,in contrast to the 'lovers', is
more self-sacrificing and more humane....weird that TEP fans hardly
remembered that Binoche was in the cast.
s.s
Donna Anstey
In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.970312...@hsc.usc.edu>,
jy...@hsc.usc.edu says...
>
>gotta give me something more than *that*. When Almsay's plane
crashed at
>least 2 years later (what's he been doing in between?),
Huh? The plane crashed and he was burned with Katherine's body IN THE
PLANE. It happened IMMEDIATELY after he picked her body up from the
cave. He didn't go anywhere for two years. In those missing years (the
war years) he was suffering from his burns somewhere, eventually making
his way to where he finally settled--with Hannah in the Italian
monestary.
Pay attention.
>the allied army
>suspect he was Nazi collaborater (and indeed he was!). What did he
say?
Uhhhh, nooooo. The allied army suspects he's a Nazi spy BEFORE he gives
the maps to the Nazis. He gives the maps to the Nazis BECAUSE the
allied army refused to listen to him, labelled him "Fritz" and sent him
off on that train.
Pay attention!
>I must be blind to all his greatness and romantic qualities, or most
>people equals romance to sex. That's OK. Just show a little remorse
when
>you decide to help the Nazi, will ye?
And you wouldn't do absolutely everything in your power to save the
person you loved? Good lord. In 1997 it's easy to look back and say
that Nazi sympathizing is bad bad bad. But think for a second about the
time in which the movie was set--how was this man, in this time, at
this place, to know the consequence of his actions?
And when Caravaggio told him people died because of what Almasy did,
Almasy rightly pointed out that only *different* people died. Almasy
had no ties to either side in this war.
Almasy was a person with no allegiences to countries (maps, borders,
possession--didn't you get it???). That's why he was so thrown by his
love for and devotion to Katherine. And it was also why he gladly gave
up those maps to whoever could help him get back to the one thing on
earth that he WAS allied to. That he DID love. That he WOULD gladly die
for--Katherine.
>
>
>jun
>
Guglielmo
>Matt Beckwith wrote:
>
>> There have been so many movies in the past 10 years apparently
>> sympathetic to adultery. As far as I'm concerned, adultery is wrong.
>> I like to identify with the protagonist of a story. When he commits
>> adultery it spoils the experience.
Adultery is only a void term indicating a result of a course of action,
here.
What matters most is passion. Almasy and Katherine are swept away in a
long, winding stream of passion from the moment they meet.
She suggests directly to him the possible outcome of their encounter as she
tells of the classic tragedy to the group around the fire. Meaning: in
front of passion nothing else counts.
Their story, the story of their lives and of their love, though "punished
by destiny" for the sake of a commercial twist of narration, is a story of
passion never lived, never exploited and suddenly uncovered.
What is surrounding, little matters...the civilians, the war, the English,
the Germans, borders, charts, honor, revenge and pride.
The sole survivor of the film in the end is the symbol of their passion,
the plane sequence at the end; love gliding above anything else.
This is the only truly moving significance in a film which, on the other
hand, is full of plot inconsistencies and deliberatedly tear-inducing.
The limit of TEP is that the director's overloaded it with side-plots and
charachters, with a parallel love story (Hana-Kip) which nothing has to do
with the emotional engine of the entire movie, although moving in itself
(the paintings scene...etc...).
Had Minghella treated Ondatjee's book like Scott treated, for instance,
Dick's (in BR's case), he would have picked out the passion element making
it the very core of the narration. All other elements would have just been
decorative.
Ciao.
Guglielmo Pizzinelli.
Italy.
"I think you made your point, Goldfinger. Thanks for the demonstration."
"Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond: it may be your last."
(GF, 1964)
Matt Beckwith
oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>Adultery is only a void term indicating a result of a course of action,
>here.
>What matters most is passion.
This is exactly the sort of attitude that I object to. Passion should
always be secondary to morality.
>Almasy and Katherine are swept away in a
>long, winding stream of passion from the moment they meet.
>She suggests directly to him the possible outcome of their encounter as she
>tells of the classic tragedy to the group around the fire. Meaning: in
>front of passion nothing else counts.
Right. This is the essence of evil.
>Their story, the story of their lives and of their love, though "punished
>by destiny" for the sake of a commercial twist of narration, is a story of
>passion never lived, never exploited and suddenly uncovered.
>What is surrounding, little matters...the civilians, the war, the English,
>the Germans, borders, charts, honor, revenge and pride.
>The sole survivor of the film in the end is the symbol of their passion,
>the plane sequence at the end; love gliding above anything else.
It's this glorification of passion above consequences that I don't
like about this film.
>This is the only truly moving significance in a film which, on the other
>hand, is full of plot inconsistencies and deliberatedly tear-inducing.
>The limit of TEP is that the director's overloaded it with side-plots and
>charachters, with a parallel love story (Hana-Kip) which nothing has to do
>with the emotional engine of the entire movie, although moving in itself
>(the paintings scene...etc...).
Isn't this parallel love story somehow related to the main love story?
For one thing, Binoche's character has an equanimity that the main
characters do not. This allows her to pick up after her beau dies,
and go on. She is even able to accept Kip's departure (and the
implied end to their relationship) in stride.
Guglielmo
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:31:52 GMT, beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt
Beckwith) wrote:
>oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>>What matters most is passion.
>
>This is exactly the sort of attitude that I object to. Passion should
>always be secondary to morality.
Then you missed the whole point of the film beacause of, allow me, a rather
extreme puritan conception of love you have got. No offense intended :)
>. Meaning: in
>>front of passion nothing else counts.
>
>Right. This is the essence of evil.
See above, but wait to have experienced sommething like that before
judging.
Also, it is that stretching the line between good and evil/pasion (if you
like) that adds a romantic tone to the film.
Kaisers
>
> Adultery is only a void term indicating a result of a course of action,
> here.
> long, winding stream of passion from the moment they meet.
> She suggests directly to him the possible outcome of their encounter as she
> front of passion nothing else counts.
whole story of western civilization is a struggle between pagan and
Judeo-Christian elements, and in a story like this one, the pagan
element prevailed. It is moving. Yet here is where the much-discussed
parallel with Casablanca becomes so interesting, since Rick and Ilsa
were if anything more in love than those two.
.
> Had Minghella treated Ondatjee's book like Scott treated, for instance,
> Dick's (in BR's case), he would have picked out the passion element making
> it the very core of the narration. All other elements would have just been
> decorative.
> Ciao.
> Guglielmo Pizzinelli.
> Italy.
> I don't recognize who Scott and Dick are and what BR is--help!--but I think, actually, that Minghella did a fine job of paring out a lot of garbage from the book, which I hated, and noticing the fabulous love story at its heart. He also highlighted the theme of art, in about six different ways, in a way that I found very effective the second time around.
David Kaiser
Te-Ming Peng
Donna....@yale.edu (Donna Anstey) wrote:
>Huh? The plane crashed and he was burned with Katherine's body IN THE
>PLANE. It happened IMMEDIATELY after he picked her body up from the
>cave. He didn't go anywhere for two years. In those missing years (the
>war years) he was suffering from his burns somewhere, eventually making
>his way to where he finally settled--with Hannah in the Italian
>monestary.
I don't agree with the original poster's opinions, such as this film
is about lust, adultery, betrayal, and asserted that most people who
appreciated this film equates romance with sex etc. (totally miss the
points of the film intended to convey and a gross underestimation of
other viewers who appreciated it). This film has a much bigger vision
other than just romantic loves, passion, and who-is-the-criminal-to-
betray-Allies.
But you both were talking about different scenes here. After Geoffery
crashed his plane in an effort to make a suicide-murder attempt,
Almasy walked three days for help. The year should be mid to late
1939 as a scene suggested that all exploration team should leave
before May 1939 under Brit gov't's order. After Almasy escaped from
the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
While the film didn't let us know it directly, we can make a litte bit
inference. Almasy's giving the maps to the German lead to the
downfall of Tobruk in 1942. So as far as film is concerned, all we
can assume is that he spent at most 3 years trying to get back and
eventually he gave the map to the German. While in the novel, he
helped a Nazi spy acrossing the desert and sneaking into Cairo to get
information during these three years, among other things. This is the
difference between the film and novel about his whereabout.
Guglielmo
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:03:13 GMT, tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng)
wrote:
> After Geoffery
>crashed his plane in an effort to make a suicide-murder attempt,
>Almasy walked three days for help. The year should be mid to late
>1939 as a scene suggested that all exploration team should leave
>before May 1939 under Brit gov't's order. After Almasy escaped from
>the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
Whaaaaaat????
I hope you are wrong, or the flaw in the plot is bigger than Sahara itself.
I had gotten that the plane crashed in '42 as the germans were battling the
english in Tobruk.
In 1939 the war had just begun and nobody had shot a round in Africa,
yet...
If the movie, against history, places the shooting-down of the plane in '39
then Minghella's an asshole...the corpse should have decomposed in 3
years...
Ciao.
Guglielmo Pizzinelli.
Italy.
"I think you made your point, Goldfinger. Thanks for the demonstration."
Te-Ming Peng
oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>Whaaaaaat????
>I hope you are wrong, or the flaw in the plot is bigger than Sahara itself.
>I had gotten that the plane crashed in '42 as the germans were battling the
>english in Tobruk.
>In 1939 the war had just begun and nobody had shot a round in Africa,
>yet...
>If the movie, against history, places the shooting-down of the plane in '39
>then Minghella's an asshole...the corpse should have decomposed in 3
>years...
Don't be so excited :). Neither I was wrong, nor there is a big plot
flaw larger than Sahara. Of course Minghella is not an "asshole"
either :).
If you read my post carefully (shouldn't be that hard :), you'll learn
that I did *not* say Almasy's plane was shot down in 1939. What I
said was *Geoffery's* plane crash in 1939 and three years later Almasy
got back to the Cave. This automatically implied Almasy's plane was
shot down in 1942 (do I need to write down everything? O.K., O.K, I'll
write a new post on the time frame of that film :).
Guglielmo
On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:14:52 -0400, Kaisers <toa...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> I don't recognize who Scott and Dick are and what BR is--help!--
Scott is Ridley Scott, Dick is Philip Kindred Dick (btw: Kindred's not his
middle name but the last name of his mother) the guy whor wrote BR (Blade
Runner) novel (Do androids dream....)
Tingli Pan
In article <332ae7ef...@news.interbusiness.it>,
Guglielmo <oh...@ares.omninet.it> wrote:
|On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:03:13 GMT, tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng)
|wrote:
|> After Geoffery
|>crashed his plane in an effort to make a suicide-murder attempt,
|>Almasy walked three days for help. The year should be mid to late
|>1939 as a scene suggested that all exploration team should leave
|>before May 1939 under Brit gov't's order. After Almasy escaped from
|>the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
|
|
|I hope you are wrong, or the flaw in the plot is bigger than Sahara itself.
|I had gotten that the plane crashed in '42 as the germans were battling the
|english in Tobruk.
|In 1939 the war had just begun and nobody had shot a round in Africa,
|yet...
|If the movie, against history, places the shooting-down of the plane in '39
|then Minghella's an asshole...the corpse should have decomposed in 3
|years...
|
there.
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Brian M Williams
Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
:Almasy's giving the maps to the German lead to the downfall of Tobruk in
:1942.
This is not ture, either historically or even, in this movie,
fictitiously. The maps (fictitiously) allowed german spies to enter
Cairo, which in turn exposed some members of the british spy orginization
(i.e. Caravaggio). Tobruk fell (historically and fictitiously) by force of
arms, no secret way was needed (and no secret way was needed into Cairo,
but suspension of disbelief and all).
--
You can get blood | Brian Williams
from a stone; | bwil...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
you just have to | Temple University
throw it hard enough. | Department of Religion
Trister K
You suffer from the classic nitwits confusion of morality with sexual
behavior.
Te-Ming Peng
bwil...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Brian M Williams) wrote:
>Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>:Almasy's giving the maps to the German lead to the downfall of Tobruk in
>:1942.
>This is not ture, either historically or even, in this movie,
>fictitiously. The maps (fictitiously) allowed german spies to enter
>Cairo, which in turn exposed some members of the british spy orginization
>(i.e. Caravaggio). Tobruk fell (historically and fictitiously) by force of
>arms, no secret way was needed (and no secret way was needed into Cairo,
>but suspension of disbelief and all).
No, I was based on the film to draw inference, which I mentioned it in
my previous post, not based on the novel nor historical fact.
In the film, Caravaggio told Almasy on the bed that before Almasy went
to the German and before Almasy got German's spy across the desert and
inside the HQ, the spy took some photographs on him and he saw his in
the torture room. This conversation appeared before Caravaggio told
Almasy that Madox shot himself (you can check the film again).
However, earlier Caravaggio also told Hana that Almasy indirectly
caused his thumbs being cut off.
So a reasonable explanation of those Caravaggio's photos is that some
were shot before Alamsy met the German, and some were after.
Caravaggio learned that Almasy gave out the maps to the German when
the British commander in Tobruk told him so. So it happened before
Tobruk was attacked. Of course I conjectured that it lead to the
downfall of Tobruk, which can be wrong.
Triskele 1
The world would be very dull if movies only showed what ought to be. To
put passion above all else may very well cause problems, but isn't that
"the story that follows the human race"? (to quote Irish singer Fiona
Joyce)? Isn't that the story of many compelling films this year? Think
about Shine (passion for music is put above love for family in the first
half); Breaking the Waves (passion for God and her husband drives the
heroine to commit 'adultery' with other men) and any number of others.
Guglielmo
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:27:29 GMT, crai...@magg.net (Craig Hamilton) wrote:
>In article <19970316055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, tris...@aol.com (Trister K) wrote:
>>You suffer from the classic nitwits confusion of morality with sexual
>>behavior.
Was this real kind reply directed to me ? Looks like I can't get all the
posts in this ng...
Only saw the reply by Craig.
(Well said, Craig!)
Pamela T. Pon
Jun Yan <jy...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>"sacrificed all"! Examine what he really sacrificed. The Canadian
>thief's thumbs, some insignificant civilians' lives due to the Nazi
>invasion of the city, his expedition English friend, etc. What is it in
>himself that he sacrificed? Ehhh... Look, if the filmmakers want me to
>sympathize with this Hungarian guy who is a Nazi collaborater, they've
>suspect he was Nazi collaborater (and indeed he was!). What did he say?
The fictional Almasy was NOT a "Nazi collaborator." He aided the GERMANS.
He did not aid the NAZIS. "German" does NOT automatically equal "Nazi."
He probably had no idea what a "Nazi" was. I doubt he was concerned with
the domestic political party affiliations of each of the *German* *soldiers*
-- NOT Nazi Party leaders or SS officers -- with whom he interacted.
Would he be considered a "Liberal Party collaborator" or a "Conservative
Party collaborator" for aiding the British, depending on which Party held
a majority in Parliament and/or the office of Prime Minister at that given
point in time?
Almasy, therefore, is NOT choosing between loyalty to the
oh-so-noble and altruistic Royal Archaeological Society and the heinously
evil Nazis, but simply between the British and the Germans. People in
these threads have condemned him for being a "traitor" to the British.
Almasy is Hungarian. How can he be a traitor to a country which is not his
own? He owes loyalty to neither Britain nor Germany. He has possession of
maps which are at least partly his own creation and which both sides want.
He belongs to neither side; he has sworn oaths to neither army. He is a
civilian. Selling the maps to the Germans rather than returning them to
the Brits (or leaving them to rot in his apartment) makes him a *mercenary*
-- not a *traitor*. Being a mercenary is not a good thing, but it is not
a betrayal. However, not keeping his promise to return to Katherine in
the cave *would* be a betrayal, and would make him more of a traitor than
selling some maps ever could.
Caravaggio stayed loyal to the British (as far as we know),
and did not betray his country's allies. He could in no way be called a
*national* traitor. However, he completely ABANDONED the woman with whom
*he* had been having an affair -- no doubt also adulterous, or at the very
least pre-marital -- to certain torture and probable death. I would
consider him far more worthy of being called a "traitor" than Almasy,
since he *directly*, deliberately, and callously betrayed another human
being to whom he personally owed some measure of loyalty.
>I must be blind to all his greatness and romantic qualities, or most
>people equals romance to sex. That's OK. Just show a little remorse when
>you decide to help the Nazi, will ye?
Almasy and Katherine spend the majority of the film NOT having sex,
and, in fact, doing their utmost to avoid it. *That's* the part that's
"romantic": the lengths to which they go to *deny* their feelings ... good
ol'reliable U.S.T.. And why exactly is he obligated to "show" his remorse?
I can understand condemning him for not *feeling* remorse for helping the
Germans, but why require him to put such remorse on public display? If he
doesn't feel it, doing so would be hypocritical and an outright lie; if he
does feel remorse/guilt/self-hatred over this or over anything else he has
ever done, it's nobody's business but his own and God's. As if permanently
suffering from the effects of Nth-degree burns over his entire body isn't
enough of a constant reminder and public declaration of his guilt.
(BTW: to forestall anyone assuming that my liking THE ENGLISH
PATIENT means that I condone adultery: no, I don't believe in extra-marital
sex, and disapprove of pre-marital sex. However, this does not preclude
empathizing with those who do, and it certainly doesn't justify condemning
every movie, tv show, or book which has ever portrayed a character engaging
in such activities in [Heaven forbid!] a positive light. Perhaps those who
condemn TEP for this reason should focus on avoiding not just movies which
portray *fictional* adultery positively, but should also avoid all movies
in which any of the *real-life* cast or crew members have ever engaged in
sex outside of marriage. Think of all the money you could save on movie
tickets! Not to mention cable bills, tv sets, books, stereo equipment, etc.
if you further impose your morals on tv show casts and crews, authors,
publishers, songwriters, singers, composers, musicians, artists, et al..
Hey, all the more money to spend on morally-correct John Tesh CDs ...! >;-)
*** pamela pon, p...@best.com {very behind on e-mail; please POST replies} ***
DUE SOUTH rides again! Season 3 filming begins March 17; see alt.tv.due-south
A Mountie always gets his canceled show back -- and Marines never lose faith!
Rise to the call: help save SPACE: ABOVE & BEYOND! www.planetx.com/space:aab
***** RIDE FOREVER **** Do or Die ***** Thank you kindly **** SEMPER FI *****
Pamela T. Pon
Craig Hamilton <crai...@magg.net> wrote:
>oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>>Then you missed the whole point of the film beacause of, allow me, a rather
>>extreme puritan conception of love you have got. No offense intended :)
>
>Almasy because of the betrayals they commit. I think it's simplistic to
>assume that this is due to a puritanical conception of love or sex held by
>the viewer, because many of the people I know who feel this way are clearly
>not puritans or starry-eyed romantics. Rather, their dislike for the
>characters appears to be the result of a high value these critics place on
>the concept of loyalty.
Strangely enough, both of the people with whom I saw TEP *are* puritanical,
celibate, staunch conservatives born before World War II -- one of them an
active evangelical Christian -- and yet they both liked the movie and
sympathized with the protagonists.
>It may be a quaint notion to some, but many still live by the axiom,
>"My word is my bond."
Hmmm. The only time I recall Almasy giving his "word" is when he promised
Katherine that he would come back for her ... which he did. He never made
any promises to the British army. He never swore loyalty to the British
government. He never vowed not to covet another man's wife -- there's no
indication that he is a professed Christian.
>For love or sexual passion, Katherine betrays her
>wedding vows, Almasy disrespects them, and he betrays countless others as
>well; both violate oaths that were given explicitly or tacitly. To some who
>consider concepts like "loyalty" and "fidelity" to be the glue that holds
>civilization together, these are grave offenses. In fact, the filmmakers,
>in being unforgiving of the lovers, metting out the ultimate punishment to
>them, abide by this ethical code.
Yup. Which makes one wonder why some people think that the movie
(and anyone who dares to enjoy it) is wholeheartedly condoning their
behaviour, since they are so thoroughly punished for it!
> Perhaps it can be said that those who sympathize easily with the
>doomed lovers do so because they themselves place a lesser value on loyalty
>and consider the concept to be secondary to the fulfillment of their own
>selfish desires? And what might this say about the characters of such
>viewers? Just speculating. :)
Touche. ;-) Clearly all those unsympathetic to Katherine and Almasy are
heartless self-righteous puritans, while all those sympathetic to the pair
are selfish hedonists unable to grasp the concepts of loyalty or fidelity.
Maybe we should all go see LARRY FLYNT instead. ;-D
Eugene Zhu Xia
Pamela T. Pon (p...@best.com) wrote:
: Strangely enough, both of the people with whom I saw TEP *are* puritanical,
: celibate, staunch conservatives born before World War II -- one of them an
: active evangelical Christian -- and yet they both liked the movie and
: sympathized with the protagonists.
Here is a concept I never quite understand. Why do people need to
sympathize with the protagonists in order to like a movie?
Eugene
Eugene Zhu Xia
: *national* traitor. However, he completely ABANDONED the woman with whom
: *he* had been having an affair -- no doubt also adulterous, or at the very
: least pre-marital -- to certain torture and probable death. I would
: consider him far more worthy of being called a "traitor" than Almasy,
: since he *directly*, deliberately, and callously betrayed another human
: being to whom he personally owed some measure of loyalty.
If I remember correctly, the German officer said that Caravaggio was
married and mockingly accused him of committing adultery and then
cut off his thumbs.
Eugene
Guglielmo
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:06:35 GMT, crai...@magg.net (Craig Hamilton) wrote:
>In article <332a8904...@news.interbusiness.it>, oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>>Then you missed the whole point of the film beacause of, allow me, a rather
>>extreme puritan conception of love you have got. No offense intended :)
> It may be a quaint notion to some, but many still live by the axiom,
>"My word is my bond." For love or sexual passion, Katherine betrays her
>wedding vows, Almasy disrespects them,............
We are dealing here with a film that tells a forceful story of betrayal (of
marriage vows, at least) and passion.
It seemed obvious to me that every consideration on the morality of the
characters would have been pointless, since betrayal and passion stories
trespass the boundaries of bonds and vows.
It's like seeing "Abslute Power" and criticize Eastwood because he's a
thief, for (stupid) instance...
In TEP it's obvious the audience end to be fans of Almasy and Katherine.
The whole film is constructed with the intent of making you cry for their
unhappy love and ending.
Hundreds of films and novels have been portraying betrayal and stolen love.
Most of the times the authors punish their characters with death or defeat
ultimately. But almost never the public ends thinking:"yeah, that was
right! They deserved to be punished! There goes supreme Justice."
When we see a story like that, we should leave any kind of "judging
morality" behind us, as the nature of the film probably requires. The
nucleus of the story is love, not righteousness.
In real life I am sure almost nobody of us has betrayed a country (yet
Almasy was neither English, nor German) or killed a man for love.
In the "fictional reality" of the movie such actions often become
legitimate.
More: being human means to make mistakes.
You remember "The bridges of Madison County" ? Francesca chooses (SPOILER)
not to leave with Robert (the passional, suddenly-discovered love and
promise of happiness) to remain with her husband, in her grey and dull
marriage.
A right choice, under a moral point of view. But in that case she did a
mistake in marrying her husband, it would seem.
Meaning ?
We humans can have no right to put remedy to the mistakes of our lives for
the sake of morality? Morality and bonds have the right, in themselves, to
condemn us forever to an unhappy life, like sentences from juries ?
A hard question...
Ciao, Guglielmo Pizzinelli
Italy.
"I'd appreciate its return, along with the rest of your equipment, INTACT
for once, when you return from the field."
(Desmond LLewellyn, GF)
Jason B. Barone
x...@Glue.umd.edu (Eugene Zhu Xia) wrote:
>Pamela T. Pon (p...@best.com) wrote:
>: Caravaggio stayed loyal to the British (as far as we know),
>: and did not betray his country's allies. He could in no way be called a
>: *national* traitor. However, he completely ABANDONED the woman with whom
>: *he* had been having an affair -- no doubt also adulterous, or at the very
>: least pre-marital -- to certain torture and probable death. I would
>: consider him far more worthy of being called a "traitor" than Almasy,
>: since he *directly*, deliberately, and callously betrayed another human
>: being to whom he personally owed some measure of loyalty.
But this woman did not die. She is the one driving the truck with
Caravaggio at the end of the film. Whatever happened to her since the
scene in which we saw that she had been beaten, it looks like she had
forgiven Caravaggio for it.
Jeffrey Davis
Eugene Zhu Xia wrote:
>
> Here is a concept I never quite understand. Why do people need to
> sympathize with the protagonists in order to like a movie?
>
protagonist share the same POV.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
Paula Mickevich
>: least pre-marital -- to certain torture and probable death. I would
>: consider him far more worthy of being called a "traitor" than Almasy,
>: since he *directly*, deliberately, and callously betrayed another human
>: being to whom he personally owed some measure of loyalty.
But this woman did not die. She is the one driving the truck with
Caravaggio at the end of the film. Whatever happened to her since the
scene in which we saw that she had been beaten, it looks like she had
forgiven Caravaggio for it.
Duh!? NOT! It's a different woman. He did like brunettes I guess.
--
Jeffrey Davis
Craig Hamilton wrote:
> I think that Almasy's agreement to be loyal to the British government,
> as far as keeping their secrets is concerned, was a tacit and implicit
> condition in the service he agreed to render to it. He betrayed the trust
> they placed in him when he gave the Nazis the maps that belonged to the
> British.
Anything "tacit" in a work of art deserves a 2nd look. Especially
something
as loaded as this. Almasy wasn't British and wasn't in the employ of the
British goverment; Clifton was. Moreover, Clifton was spying for the
government on his "friends." His frequent trips back to Cairo were to
report on what they were doing out in the desert.
As for Almasy betraying their trust, I'm sure, within the context of the
movie, that he felt that they had betrayed him & so he owed them
nothing.
In a sense, the correct "answer" about who owed what loyalty to whom
is one of the themes of the movie/book, so it's hardly a failure of the
book/movie if one of the character's actions can be called into
question.
What do people think the function of character is within a work of art?
J. Richard J.
tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng) wrote:
>After Almasy escaped from
>the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
What? Three years? Catherine would have been decomposing. This
can't be.
J. Richard J.
"would it kill a tree if she wore a bra?"
Te-Ming Peng
"J. Richard J." <JANOW...@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU> wrote:
>tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng) wrote:
>>After Almasy escaped from
>>the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
>What? Three years? Catherine would have been decomposing. This
>can't be.
Katharine died in the Cave of Swimmer. In the film, this cave still
contained prehistorical paintaings vividly drawn by the ancient people
when at that time Sahara was filled with greens and water. The Cave
was probably near a river since there was a shape like a human palm
inscribing on the rock. The rock can be just mud of the river side
then.
For some reason (maybe because of some radical geological changes),
Sahara became desert. Those paintings had been preserved and intact
for many years because of the extreme dry climate there and it was
very cold inside the Cave as revealed by Katharine (no tourists to
erode either :). These conditions also kept Katharine's body from
decomposition. This is the inference we can draw based on the film.
Besides, do you want to see a human skeleton in the Cave after Almasy
came back? :)
On the other hand, three-year was what I inferred from the film. When
Tobruk was under attack in 1942, the British commander there told
Caravaggio that Almasy had given out the maps. In this sense,
Almasy's returning can happen in '41 or '42. But then it would be
pointless to argue whether it was two years or three years.
In the novel, Almasy spent three years to get back and the special
natural materials in the Cave kept her body intact, in addition to the
climate conditions.
Matt Beckwith
x...@Glue.umd.edu (Eugene Zhu Xia) wrote:
>Here is a concept I never quite understand. Why do people need to
>sympathize with the protagonists in order to like a movie?
It isn't necessary, you're right. But so many of the movies made and
books written are geared toward just this sort of experience. The
most typical is the plot where there's a hero who can do no wrong. In
novels, you sometimes get to experience the protagonist's point of
view directly via first person. It's interesting to me that among the
higher quality literature there's a higher prevalence of books in
which the narrator is obviously outside of and looking bemusedly at
the characters. Having grown up enjoying taking the protagonist's
viewpoint, I do not enjoy such literature.
Doing the right thing in the face of conflicting conventional wisdom
is the sort of moral choice I admire the most in heroes. This may
have come from being raised Catholic, where martyrdom is the highest
achievement--that is, speaking the truth of one's convictions in spite
of the threat of torture and death.
I think that The English Patient is probably not meant to be
experienced from the point of view of any single character (though the
number of responders to my original post who laud Almasy's behavior
make me wonder about this). It has occurred to me that there is a way
to enjoy this movie while at the same time disapproving of the actions
of the protagonists. It just isn't the way I usually watch movies.
Are there any readers of this thread who enjoyed the movie and
disapproved of the actions of the main characters?
Caroline Pruett
a
>: *national* traitor. However, he completely ABANDONED the woman with
whom
>: *he* had been having an affair -- no doubt also adulterous, or at the
very
>: least pre-marital -- to certain torture and probable death. I would
>: consider him far more worthy of being called a "traitor" than Almasy,
>: since he *directly*, deliberately, and callously betrayed another
human
>: being to whom he personally owed some measure of loyalty.
>
>If I remember correctly, the German officer said that Caravaggio was
>married and mockingly accused him of committing adultery and then
>cut off his thumbs.
The officer said this b/c Carravaggio as part of his story had said that
he was married. We dont' know if this is true or not... he was also
saying that he was not a spy, which we know to be a lie.
As to the girl in the end being the same one as in the North Africa scene,
I don't know. I thought that she was an Italian.
Carrie
Te-Ming Peng
crai...@magg.net (Craig Hamilton) wrote:
>In article <5gf62q$b...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng) wrote:
>>If you read my post carefully (shouldn't be that hard :), you'll learn
>>that I did *not* say Almasy's plane was shot down in 1939. What I
>>said was *Geoffery's* plane crash in 1939 and three years later Almasy
>>got back to the Cave.
> I don't care how dry and cool that cave was, after 3 years that corpse
>would have been decomposed and eaten by insects. Leave a pound of hamburger
>in the fridge for 3 years and see what it looks like.
In recent years, mainland China had discovered a corpse placed in a
very simple coffin in the desert of Western China (Xinjiang). That
body was a female and is named as "Lou Lan beauty" by archeologists
(Lou Lan was a city and a country in that area in ancient time).
Because the extreme dry climate condition, the body is still preserved
in a very good condition after one or two thousand years. The flesh
is still there although it turned dark and was decayed in some areas
of her body. As it isn't just a skeleton and her clothes is intact,
it has provided more clues and evidences to the people who once lived
there. I have seen it from a PBS program last year. Its completeness
is astonishing consider she has been through so many years.
wal...@dnvn.com
> In article <332a8904...@news.interbusiness.it>,
oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
> >Then you missed the whole point of the film beacause of, allow me, a rather
> >extreme puritan conception of love you have got. No offense intended :)
>
>
> I've noticed that many people have trouble sympathizing with
Katherine
> and Almasy because of the betrayals they commit. I think it's simplistic to
> assume that this is due to a puritanical conception of love or sex held
by the
> viewer, because many of the people I know who feel this way are clearly not
> puritans or starry-eyed romantics. Rather, their dislike for the characters
> appears to be the result of a high value these critics place on the
concept of
> loyalty.
>
> It may be a quaint notion to some, but many still live by the axiom,
> "My word is my bond." For love or sexual passion, Katherine betrays her
> wedding vows, Almasy disrespects them, and he betrays countless others as
> well; both violate oaths that were given explicitly or tacitly. To some who
> consider concepts like "loyalty" and "fidelity" to be the glue that holds
> civilization together, these are grave offenses. In fact, the filmmakers, in
> being unforgiving of the lovers, metting out the ultimate punishment to them,
> abide by this ethical code.
>
> Perhaps it can be said that those who sympathize easily with the
> doomed lovers do so because they themselves place a lesser value on loyalty
> and consider the concept to be secondary to the fulfillment of their own
> selfish desires? And what might this say about the characters of such
> viewers? Just speculating. :)
My God. The man loses his love in a horrible way due to his actions;
his friends die; he is burned to a crisp and suffers horribly for years;
he is taunted when moribund by a man he betrayed and teased by a
sexy nurse. What more retribution do you want a movie to dish out
for adultary? Only the end suffered by William Wallace was more
horrible.
k
Maggie R
G. Pizzinelli
>When we see a story like that, we should leave any kind of "judging
>morality" behind us, as the nature of the film probably requires. The
>nucleus of the story is love, not righteousness.
>In real life I am sure almost nobody of us has betrayed a country (yet
>Almasy was neither English, nor German) or killed a man for love.
>In the "fictional reality" of the movie such actions often become
>legitimate.
This brings up another interesting point re: morality in wartime vs.
morality in peace. The musings Almasy jots down on the Christmas Cracker
- Betrayals in war are childlike compared to betrayals in
peace....(sorry I can't recall the exact quote) and how such concerns
pale in comparison to affairs of the heart - The heart is an organ of
fire. Do circumstances dictate our morality? To what degree?
mags
MozartK201
Matt Beckwith asked:
>Are there any readers of this thread who enjoyed the movie and
>disapproved of the actions of the main characters?
I don't know if I can say I *disapproved* of Katherine and Almasy, but I
certainly didn't see them as heroic. I thought Katherine was an
intelligent and passionate woman who was bored with her husband; Almasy
was alienated, self-involved, and very lonely. (As to why he was so
alienated, who knows? The implication of some sad past is a big part of
what's interesting about him.) I don't have any problem at all
understanding why they would indulge their passions, but that's not to say
I think they were right to do it, or that the strength of their love made
their betrayal of Geoffrey any less terrible. (Speaking of a good story
where the "heros" betray their vows and sacrifice everything for love, I
saw a trailer for "Anne Karenina" yesterday. That should be fun...)
At one point, when Maddox has been playing with his young Arab man, he
says something about how "out here" (in the desert? so far from England?)
you do things that would seem impossible at home. He was refering to his
relationship with the Arab; we also see it as a comment on Almasy's and
Katherine's behavior.
Katherine and Almasy were both lonely, they met in the weird desert world,
they put their love and passion before morality and loyalty, and they were
destroyed. I think it's possible to sympathize without approving. After
all, if all evil-doers were horrible, ugly (in spirit, I mean), completely
unsympathetic characters, what would we learn about the power of
temptation and the need to do the right thing even in the most seductive
circumstances? I mean, it's easy to say "hey, *I* would never eat a man's
liver with a nice bottle of chianti!" But not so easy to say "hey, *I*
would never surrender to an overwhelming passion for a devilishly
attractive man in the vast and romantic desert when my husband didn't stir
my blood and the world was about to go to war...."
Jeffrey Davis
Craig Hamilton wrote:
>
> da...@ca.uky.edu wrote:
> >Anything "tacit" in a work of art deserves a 2nd look. Especially
> >something
> >as loaded as this. Almasy wasn't British and wasn't in the employ of the
> >British goverment; Clifton was. Moreover, Clifton was spying for the
> >government on his "friends." His frequent trips back to Cairo were to
> >report on what they were doing out in the desert.
>
> employ of the British, since he was openly a part of a British gov't financed
> mapmaking expedition. The British gov't was paying for the maps he was taking
> money to help make, and they held the rights to them. If I hire you to
> write me a screenplay, you may have created the work, but I own the copyright
> and the work is my property, not yours to give away, show to others or destroy
> because you feel cheated, slighted, existential angst, suffer from
> indigestion, or are a foreign national. Almasy may have felt morally
> justified in giving to the Nazis maps that he knew had tremendous strategic
> value in the forlorn hope that doing so could save Katherine's life, but his
> actions, while understandable, could never be legally justified, and are
> morally reprehensible considering the resulting loss of many lives.
I missed all this back story. Where in the h in the movie does
all of the hiring/copyright owning business take place? If you're
taking a trip outside the universe of the movie then you're not
playing fair and square. Like I said, this "tacit" business is
tricky stuff.
As for the loss of lives, Almasy said, "Different lives were lost."
Javier Franco
In the book, Almasy mentions how he disturb the cobwebs around her body
as well as her weightlesness when he carried to the plane.
Terry McT.
J. Richard J. wrote:
>
> tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng) wrote:
>
> >After Almasy escaped from
> >the train, he spent about 3 years to get back to the Cave again.
>
> What? Three years? Catherine would have been decomposing. This
> can't be.
>
Perhaps in the desert, she'd become sort of mummified. Who knows?
It's not the only weak part of the story. Don't you think that ride
homeward in the airplane would have been a thing of sheer joy, even
before the Germans shot deAlmasy and the corpse down?
Terry
Guglielmo
>>Touche. ;-) Clearly all those unsympathetic to Katherine and Almasy are
>>heartless self-righteous puritans, while all those sympathetic to the pair
>>are selfish hedonists unable to grasp the concepts of loyalty or fidelity.
>>Maybe we should all go see LARRY FLYNT instead. ;-D
Pity I can't get all the messages, here, due to my server...
Sympathetic or not, looks like none of those who criticise Almasy's actions
have put themselves in his shoes for a moment...
What would you do if some asshole soldier didn't even listen to your story,
didn't send a patrol to check out and threw you on a train like a prisoner?
Especially if you were madly in love with a woman dying in the desert
because of a husband, british agent, who couldn't find a better way to
resolve the adultery than trying to kill wife and lover and himself ?
In the course of human actions there's a point that I'd call of no return.
Almasy crossed it when he first kissed Katherine. He should have stopped
before, maybe. But then, goodbye film!
Te-Ming Peng
Javier Franco <javi...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Te-Ming Peng wrote:
>> In the novel, Almasy spent three years to get back and the special
>> natural materials in the Cave kept her body intact, in addition to the
>> climate conditions.
>In the book, Almasy mentions how he disturb the cobwebs around her body
>as well as her weightlesness when he carried to the plane.
Really? What pages are you referring to so that I can check them
again?
What I was referring to is in p. 260-261 and p.174.
In p. 260-261:
"It is important to die in holy places. That was one of the secrets
of the desert. ..."
The next paragraph:
"When I turned her around, her whole body was covered in bright
pigment. Herbs and stones and light and the ash of acacia to make her
eternal. The body pressed against sacred color. Only the eye blue
removed, made anonymous, ..."
In p. 174:
"In the morning, after two hours' sleep, I carried her into the
cockpit. I started the motor and it rolled into life. We moved and
then slippped, years too late, into sky."
Matt Beckwith
mozar...@aol.com (MozartK201) wrote:
>... I mean, it's easy to say "hey, *I* would never eat a man's
>liver with a nice bottle of chianti!" But not so easy to say "hey, *I*
>would never surrender to an overwhelming passion for a devilishly
>attractive man in the vast and romantic desert when my husband didn't stir
>my blood and the world was about to go to war...."
This is exactly my point. Some of us would not see the two actions as
morally very far apart from each other.
Jeffrey Davis
> pretty sad and I guess the universities aren't doing such a
> great job teaching them either.
Maybe, but most universities teach the difference between tacit
and explicit. The _only_ reason that I'm following up your post
is that there's a great tendency here in ramc-f to supply
information for movies/books/etc that isn't there. And then to
invent some "flaw" [ramc-f's favorite word] about the movie/book/etc
based on the missing information. An art object is a pattern
of images. What isn't there [and here, unfortunately, I don't
state the obvious] isn't there. A radical notion, I'm sure,
along w/ the [unfortunately not obvious] fact that an art
object isn't a physics treatise, mathematical equation, historical
document, religious injunction, or psychological casebook.
Matt Beckwith
oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
>What would you do if some asshole soldier didn't even listen to your story,
>didn't send a patrol to check out and threw you on a train like a prisoner?
Almasy had no particular loyalty to either side. If I had been in his
shoes but an Englishman, I wouldn't have betrayed my country for any
reason whatsoever. But he wasn't English. Passion should never
supercede morality.
>Especially if you were madly in love with a woman dying in the desert
>because of a husband, british agent, who couldn't find a better way to
>resolve the adultery than trying to kill wife and lover and himself ?
It's short-sighted to see her death only as a result of her husband's
action. Her death was a result of her own actions, and of Almasy's.
>In the course of human actions there's a point that I'd call of no return.
What you're saying is that Almasy and Katharine were out of control.
I don't think they were.
Tingli Pan
In article <3335b951...@news.southeast.net>,
Matt Beckwith <beck...@pop.southeast.net> wrote:
|oh...@ares.omninet.it (Guglielmo) wrote:
|
|>What would you do if some asshole soldier didn't even listen to your story,
|>didn't send a patrol to check out and threw you on a train like a prisoner?
|
|Almasy had no particular loyalty to either side. If I had been in his
|shoes but an Englishman, I wouldn't have betrayed my country for any
|reason whatsoever. But he wasn't English. Passion should never
|supercede morality.
|
|>Especially if you were madly in love with a woman dying in the desert
|>because of a husband, british agent, who couldn't find a better way to
|>resolve the adultery than trying to kill wife and lover and himself ?
|
|It's short-sighted to see her death only as a result of her husband's
|action. Her death was a result of her own actions, and of Almasy's.
|
was accused of murdering the Cliffords.
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Caroline Pruett
All of this talk about the adultery in this movie makes me wonder a few
things..
-- I wonder how many people reacted negatively to "Zhivago" when it came
out because of the centrality of the adulterous affair. Certainly, we
are supposedly more sexually liberated now than we were in 1960 or so.
Just curious, I really have no idea. But I've certainly never heard
anyone say that he deserves what he gets b/c he slept with Lara. Does
being politically correct make a difference?
-- As long as we're comparing "Patient" to classics, I caught "Gone with
the Wind" on TNT last night. This is a story in which two people
(Scarlett and Ashley) restrain themselves from having an adulterous
affair. Yet, the Bible says that any man who looks at a woman with lust
has committed adultery in his heart and, as Rhett perceptively notes,
Ashley "can't be faithful to his wife mentally, but he won't be
unfaithful to her, technically". Or, as I think the book reads, he can't
be false to her with his body, but he can't be true to her with his mind.
Now, this brought to mind the Gyges story which Katharine reads from
Herodotus. If you're going to gaze on the forbidden, the queen tells
Gyges, you should follow through.
Any comments on the comparison with these two acknowledged classics?
Do people go around complaining about the immorality of these two films
w/o my hearing about it (or maybe, in the case of GWTW, there are so many
*other * things to object to that this doesnt' come to mind?) Or is
there something special about "Patient" that provokes such a strong
reaction from so many people?
Carrie
Guglielmo
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:07:46 GMT, tem...@u.washington.edu (Te-Ming Peng)
wrote:
>In the novel, Almasy spent three years to get back and the special
>natural materials in the Cave kept her body intact, in addition to the
>climate conditions.
Okay, I throw in the towel :) ...
I may still be skeptical about the decoposition, but if the book said 3
years, it's obvious the film goes along with it...
Ciao,
Guglielmo Pizzinelli,
Italy. "You are the wrong guy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time!!!"
"The story of my life..."
(Die Hard 2-Die Harder)
Jeffrey Davis
Caroline Pruett wrote:
>
> All of this talk about the adultery in this movie makes me wonder a few
> things..
> there something special about "Patient" that provokes such a strong
> reaction from so many people?
Cheeze-louise. There are adulteries and murders in the Bible.
Some people just act better than God.
Thomas Brenndorfer
Terry McT. <tam...@usl.edu> wrote in article <332E9A...@usl.edu>...
Well, I'm not sure the ride in the plane was meant to be just a sheer joy
-- it turns out to be a strikingly ironic moment. In the novel, the plane
spills oil, causing a fire, and basically breaks up (it was an old plane,
hidden away for a couple of years). No one shot the plane down in the book.
Tom Brenndorfer
tho...@msn.com
Te-Ming Peng
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
>Cheeze-louise. There are adulteries and murders in the Bible.
>Some people just act better than God.
Well, Jeff, no need to get upset although I also appreciate TEP :).
The opinions expressed in the threads relating to TEP is probably more
diversified than those of other threads, from good and in depth
analysis by Tom Brenndorfer, to the messages of someone who kept
claiming several times in recent weeks he didn't see it but still can
have negative opinions, and to some other posts from the netters who
like to use a lot of adjectives to bash it :).
Then in other places (not in this forum), I read messages ranging from
someone who likes to call Kristin Scott Thomas a bitch to another who
granted the "permission" that Ralph Fiennes can kiss her suprasternal
notch every night :).
Isn't that interesting? :)
Te-Ming Peng
MME...@prodigy.com (Caroline Pruett) wrote:
>Any comments on the comparison with these two acknowledged classics?
>Do people go around complaining about the immorality of these two films
>w/o my hearing about it (or maybe, in the case of GWTW, there are so many
>*other * things to object to that this doesnt' come to mind?) Or is
>there something special about "Patient" that provokes such a strong
>reaction from so many people?
Well, you never know :). People come to criticize TEP in the forum
can have a variety of reasons. Some might just for the pure purpose
of maintaining some moral principles. Some might not like it based on
their viewing criterion and preference. Some project their emotions
from the past painful life expereinces into the film (such as family
members were killed by the Nazi or having a failed relationship etc.).
Some might want to make themselves look morally "good". And some
perhaps want to pull it down from the contention of Oscar by creating
some "opinion blitz" to affect the result directly or indirectly
through newsgroup (well, what else is more effective than putting
someone or something on a moral cross to make it a public enemy? But
then Oscar's voting had already ended in Tuesday). Anything can
happen in internet newgroup posting.
Aretese
"Stupid" is certainly not the word to express one's distaste for this
movie..all of the people whom I've heard bashing it were complaining
because they didn't understand the plot at all-- some of them couldn't
even figure out who the patient was! As a film snob, I am accustomed to
complex plots so The English Patient didn't stun me, but if you can't
fathom the details that are being fought over to no end in this newsgroup,
seek refuge with Booty Call or Private Parts
Anne Conway
Aretese <are...@aol.com> wrote:
: "Stupid" is certainly not the word to express one's distaste for this
Muhahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, I have been wanting to say that for a long
time now!
Anne
Ellen B. Edgerton
Craig Hamilton (crai...@magg.net) sez:
: It may be a quaint notion to some, but many still live by the axiom,
: "My word is my bond." For love or sexual passion, Katherine betrays her
: wedding vows, Almasy disrespects them, and he betrays countless others as
: well; both violate oaths that were given explicitly or tacitly. To some who
: consider concepts like "loyalty" and "fidelity" to be the glue that holds
: civilization together, these are grave offenses. In fact, the filmmakers, in
: being unforgiving of the lovers, metting out the ultimate punishment to them,
: abide by this ethical code.
I thought the message they were (awkwardly) trying to send in the
adaptation was conveyed in the scene where Katherine recounts the story
from Herodotus about the king who tries to show off his wife by having his
friend hide in her bedroom when she is naked. The message being, Geoffrey
deserved what he got because he took Katherine to North Africa and paraded
her around in front of the other men as a trophy, and Almasy had a perfect
right to steal her.
I got the impression that this very early episode in the film was meant to
send the message that Katherine was a saintly object and that no one
should question either her morality or her psychological motivations for
having an extramarital affair. (You know, "Now that we've gotten that out
of the way, watch Almasy and Katherine have their grand affair for the
ages.") Perhaps it was a problem with the translation to film, but we
really didn't know much about her, aside from the fact she was beautiful
and bored and did watercolors. Almasy is similarly not a towering figure
of psychological interest - all we know about him is that he begins the
movie closed-off and resistant to Katherine (why?) and then she thaws his
reserve.
A pretty average love story, all poetic symbolism considered.
The same goes for Hana and her dilemma - "Everyone I love dies." I've
seen more compelling treatments of this kind of angst in one-hour TV
dramas, I have to say. I'm sure the book goes into more detail - I hope.
Not to sound TOO harsh, I didn't feel strongly either way about this film
good or bad (except maybe it was a bit overlong), but it's hardly a love
story for the ages. If this story didn't take place in a sweeping North
African landscape during a war (and the war has curiously little to do
with the love story or Hana's story, since she appears to sit out an
unspecified amount of it hiding out at a picturesque Italian monastery),
I doubt anyone would disagree.
It's interesting that the people I saw this with (also unfamiliar with the
book) later, as we were discussing the movie, were all excited about
Willem Dafoe's character and thought he was the best actor in the movie.
Possibly because they sensed that he was the only character who had any
real motivational drive that was sharply demonstrated to the audience (the
interrogation scene, though brief). Although I think they responded to
his character and this segment of the film because finally, SOMETHING
started HAPPENING.
Terry McT.
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote:
>
[snipped for space]
> >
> > Perhaps in the desert, she'd become sort of mummified. Who knows?
> > It's not the only weak part of the story. Don't you think that ride
> > homeward in the airplane would have been a thing of sheer joy, even
> > before the Germans shot deAlmasy and the corpse down?
> >
> > Terry
> >
>
> Well, I'm not sure the ride in the plane was meant to be just a sheer joy
> -- it turns out to be a strikingly ironic moment. In the novel, the plane
> spills oil, causing a fire, and basically breaks up (it was an old plane,
> hidden away for a couple of years). No one shot the plane down in the book.
>
I was being sarcastic, but not entirely clear. I was more thinking of
how disgusting it would be to ride in a biplane with a rapidly aging,
uncovered corpse in the front seat.
Terry
Jeffrey Davis
Terry McT. wrote:
> I was being sarcastic, but not entirely clear. I was more thinking of
> how disgusting it would be to ride in a biplane with a rapidly aging,
> uncovered corpse in the front seat.
>
I'm imagining you as a kid listening to Hansel and Gretel & irately
telling everyone that the story was stupid since gingerbread wouldn't
be strong enough to support the weight of a house. And rain...why one
good rain...
wl...@gems.vcu.edu
the book and the movie do not say that she was in the cave three years. WHere
do you get this idea?
william
Caroline Pruett
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
>
>Terry McT. wrote:
>
>> I was being sarcastic, but not entirely clear. I was more thinking
of
>> how disgusting it would be to ride in a biplane with a rapidly aging,
>> uncovered corpse in the front seat.
>>
>I'm imagining you as a kid listening to Hansel and Gretel & irately
>telling everyone that the story was stupid since gingerbread wouldn't
>be strong enough to support the weight of a house. And rain...why one
>good rain...
This reminds me....
Last week, partly inspired by some of the discussion on this newsgroup, I
decided to re-watch Jean Renoir's "Grand Illusion", a movie that I dearly
love. My father, who hadn't seen it before, watched it with me. One
character, not to give too much away, has a death scene which I think is
one of the most moving scenes in all of film. As he is lying on his
death bed, the man who shot him apologizes -- "I was aiming for your leg.
" "That's all right -- I was 150 meters away, and it was dark..." At
this point Dad starts snickering. "What's wrong?" "You could never kill
someone from 150 meters away with a pistol." Of course, I could have
slugged him.
Now I admit that TEP has some plot flaws that are more serious than this
but, good grief, what happened to willful suspension of disbelief? I
mean, "Hamlet" doesn't make a helluva lot of sense either, if you stop to
think about it, but the point is that you don't have to stop to think
about it. To me, TEP was such a powerful emotional experience that I was
able to let a lot of this stuff slide. I'm not telling people not to ask
questions and to accept everything that happens, I'm just saying that I
didn't let any of these details get in the way of enjoying this picture.
Carrie
Terry McT.
Caroline Pruett wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Terry McT. wrote:
> >
> >> I was being sarcastic, but not entirely clear. I was more thinking
> of
> >> how disgusting it would be to ride in a biplane with a rapidly aging,
> >> uncovered corpse in the front seat.
> >>
> >I'm imagining you as a kid listening to Hansel and Gretel & irately
> >telling everyone that the story was stupid since gingerbread wouldn't
> >be strong enough to support the weight of a house. And rain...why one
> >good rain...
LOL, not quite. I don't usually think along such killjoy lines.
This movie really brought it out in me, though. While other people,
such as the lady responding below, were happy to suspend their
disbelief in the face of *numerous* inconsistencies and frankly
idiotic plot turns, I couldn't do it this time. If The English
Patient had been played as a no-brainer, perhaps. The filmmakers,
though, had illusions in this case of making an art film of some sort.
It fits in the same catagory with The Bridges of Madison County. You
are supposed to overlook the flaws because it's supposedly a
*romance*. (Sorry about replying to a reply, but I never saw Mr.
Davis' post.)
>
> This reminds me....
>
> Last week, partly inspired by some of the discussion on this newsgroup, I
> decided to re-watch Jean Renoir's "Grand Illusion", a movie that I dearly
> love. My father, who hadn't seen it before, watched it with me. One
> character, not to give too much away, has a death scene which I think is
> one of the most moving scenes in all of film. As he is lying on his
> death bed, the man who shot him apologizes -- "I was aiming for your leg.
> " "That's all right -- I was 150 meters away, and it was dark..." At
> this point Dad starts snickering. "What's wrong?" "You could never kill
> someone from 150 meters away with a pistol." Of course, I could have
> slugged him.
This says that the writers should have done just a little bit of
research about the topic they were covering. It's a basic error to
leave your readers or viewers saying "Come on, it/they/he/she/etc
*can't* do that!". No one expects a writer to become an absolute
expert in a topic tangentially covered in his or her writing, but a
little basic knowledge can go a long way in allowing your
viewers/readers to easily suspend disbelief.
>
> Now I admit that TEP has some plot flaws that are more serious than this
> but, good grief, what happened to willful suspension of disbelief?
When the *number* of obvious flaws start to pile up, the willing
suspension of disbelief converts to "Oh, yea, *that's* likely!"
> I
> mean, "Hamlet" doesn't make a helluva lot of sense either, if you stop to
> think about it, but the point is that you don't have to stop to think
> about it.
Actually, Hamlet *does* stand up to scrutiny pretty darn well. In
Shakespeare's day, the actors would have been pelted in vegetables if
things got stupid in a drama.
>To me, TEP was such a powerful emotional experience that I was
> able to let a lot of this stuff slide. I'm not telling people not to ask
> questions and to accept everything that happens, I'm just saying that I
> didn't let any of these details get in the way of enjoying this picture.
>
Wouldn't it be nice if a writer could provide a powerful emotional
experience without including a large number of continuity/plot/etc
flaws in his or her work? Many writers *can* do this. The English
Patient missed the mark in a major way. A good movie can move you
without requiring you *not* to think.
Terry
Jeffrey Davis
Terry McT. wrote
> Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
> >Terry McT. wrote:
> >
> >> I was being sarcastic, but not entirely clear. I was more
thinking
> >> of how disgusting it would be to ride in a biplane with a rapidly
> >> aging, uncovered corpse in the front seat.
> >>
> >I'm imagining you as a kid listening to Hansel and Gretel & irately
> >telling everyone that the story was stupid since gingerbread
wouldn't
> >be strong enough to support the weight of a house. And rain...why
one
> >good rain...
LOL, not quite. I don't usually think along such killjoy lines.
This movie really brought it out in me, though. While other people,
such as the lady responding below, were happy to suspend their
disbelief in the face of *numerous* inconsistencies and frankly
idiotic plot turns, I couldn't do it this time. If The English
Patient had been played as a no-brainer, perhaps. The filmmakers,
though, had illusions in this case of making an art film of some sort.
It fits in the same catagory with The Bridges of Madison County. You
are supposed to overlook the flaws because it's supposedly a
*romance*. (Sorry about replying to a reply, but I never saw Mr.
Davis' post.)
In the movie, you can see that she isn't a disgusting, rotting
corpse. So, why would you stop mid-stream and say, "But she's
*supposed to be* a disgusting, rotting corpse"? Think of the
possible *supposed to be* items you could tick off:
characters flat and 12 ft high
POV switches about 10-15 times a minute
music plays, but no musicians evident
I was here before the lights went out
and I would have noticed if there was
a desert there....
Who told you it was a *romance*?
Te-Ming Peng
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
> In the movie, you can see that she isn't a disgusting, rotting
> corpse. So, why would you stop mid-stream and say, "But she's
> *supposed to be* a disgusting, rotting corpse"? Think of the
> possible *supposed to be* items you could tick off:
[deleted]
Well, Jeff, for some people if they don't like something, they would
always be picky endlessly :). For example, earlier Terry said the
British shouldn't give the plane to Almasy to justify what the Brits
did is right. But the fact is what Almasy asked for was a jeep from
them. After another netter pointed it out, Terry still managed to say
it again :). He also claimed Almasy should calm down in that outpost,
but didn't realize Almasy had been walking in the desert for three
days. Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
Terry was also meant to be sarcastic when he said it is disgusting to
carry a corpse. Well, I wouldn't feel disgusting at all if one day I
have to carry the corpse of my most love to the place she wished to
be. Maybe Terry would :).
Tingli Pan
In article <5hccvn$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Te-Ming Peng <tem...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
|Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
|
|> In the movie, you can see that she isn't a disgusting, rotting
|> corpse. So, why would you stop mid-stream and say, "But she's
|> *supposed to be* a disgusting, rotting corpse"? Think of the
|> possible *supposed to be* items you could tick off:
|
|[deleted]
|
|Well, Jeff, for some people if they don't like something, they would
|always be picky endlessly :). For example, earlier Terry said the
|British shouldn't give the plane to Almasy to justify what the Brits
|did is right. But the fact is what Almasy asked for was a jeep from
|them. After another netter pointed it out, Terry still managed to say
|it again :). He also claimed Almasy should calm down in that outpost,
|but didn't realize Almasy had been walking in the desert for three
|days. Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
|Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
|some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
|supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
|
at least in the movie, had been against his wish and principals all the
time. He had been attracted to Katherlyn in the beginning, but he tried
in vain in resisting the tempetation to have an affair with her. He
declared he didn't like possession, but he was the very one could not
give up the possesion. He betrayed his British friends by trading the
map to the Germans. Although he had promised Katherlyn to go back to the
cave, yet it took him three years to do so. While Katherlyn's last
request was to bury her in her childhood garden. And we all know what
happened afterward.
But those are the very things to make a movie good.
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Te-Ming Peng
tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu (Tingli Pan) wrote:
>When thinking it over, I consider Almasy a person of tragedy. His life,
>at least in the movie, had been against his wish and principals all the
>time. He had been attracted to Katherlyn in the beginning, but he tried
>in vain in resisting the tempetation to have an affair with her. He
>declared he didn't like possession, but he was the very one could not
>give up the possesion. He betrayed his British friends by trading the
>map to the Germans. Although he had promised Katherlyn to go back to the
>cave, yet it took him three years to do so. While Katherlyn's last
>request was to bury her in her childhood garden. And we all know what
>happened afterward.
Well, I have no problem with your interpretations on the character
Almasy although mine would be different from yours.
The lead characters in this film are Almasy and Hana. The director
seems to give them different multi-dimension traits to reflect the
dilemma and struggles of human minds that while there are always
something insurmountable, they nevertheless tried to make their own
lives fulfiled and completed in different ways, and they manifested
their emotions, passions, and feelings differently. It would take too
much time for me to write something about Almasy in detail. But I
would agree that Almasy is a person of tragedy. But the sources of
tragedy did not all come from himself.
Speaking of the belief of ownership, this could be Almasy's unsolvable
dilemma. Others also have their own inner dilemma even in some minor
characters. For example, Madox believed in boundless country, but
unconsciously paid more concern to his mother country since he was a
British. Geoffery struggled between his obsessive love in Katharine
and maintaining his own English pride, eventually choosing mutual
destruction to relieve his own pain. The fact that differences in the
beliefs and feelings in conscious and unconscious level coexisted and
acted in opposite way should be one of the main themes in this film.
It also appears in the main characters of David Lean's films, which I
believe influenced Minghella's work.
Like David Lean, Minghella also uplift the irony and inner dilemma
from the individual level to the country level. While it is true that
Germany started WWII, England was not that moral either concerning the
fact that at the same time she was still a colonist who occupied Egypt
and Indian then, collecting the metal from Indian people as tax,
melting them into guns and shooting back at the people, as addressed
by the bomb disposal officer Kip. There are also some other scenes
questioning the essence of war and the nationality issue.
There are two things in your interpretations I would like to point
out. First of all, in the film the International Sand Club was
composed by members from different countries. At one time the Club
was almost disbanded because of lacking funding until Geoffery raised
the funds for it. Both Almasy and Madox did not realize Geoffery was
working for the British government. So strictly speaking what Almasy
really betrayed was his friend Madox. Secondly, as the Cave was too
far way and Almasy was put on a train toward a sea port, it is
understandable he spent three years to get back to the Cave until
perhaps the German took Tobruk in Libya.
>But those are the very things to make a movie good.
This is quite true.
Matt Beckwith
Many people discussing this film seem to be of the opinion that
there's a certain quality of life which is entirely missed out on if
you don't allow yourself to be unfaithful to your spouse--given
sufficiently erotic circumstances. Is this true? Or could we
experience similar passion in the contexts of our marriages?
Terry McT.
Te-Ming Peng wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> Well, Jeff, for some people if they don't like something, they would
> always be picky endlessly :).
Do you always put a smiley when you are being rude?
> For example, earlier Terry said the
> British shouldn't give the plane to Almasy to justify what the Brits
> did is right. But the fact is what Almasy asked for was a jeep from
> them. After another netter pointed it out, Terry still managed to say
> it again :).
Actually, I never saw the post where someone corrected me. Jeep or
plane regardless, the British soldier shouldn't have given it to a
raving man who might be a agent of an enemy force.
>He also claimed Almasy should calm down in that outpost,
> but didn't realize Almasy had been walking in the desert for three
> days.
Two points. First, in the environment of the internet, you cannot tell
the gender of the person you are responding to or discussing. Names
such as mine are appropriately used by either a man or a woman. If
you do not know from my writing that I'm a man, you shouldn't jump to
conclusion. In this case, you did jump to a conclusion and made a
mistake.
Second, I know darn well that deAlmasy had been walking through the
desert for days. I stand behind my comment that if he would have
taken a moment to calm himself and explain who he was to the soldiers,
he would have had better luck with them.
>Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
> Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
> some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
> supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
Again, you smile when you are rude. Is this supposed to make it more
acceptable?
The film wasn't actually clear on the length of time it took for
deAlmasy to return to the cave. You know how long it took because you
read the book.
How does my assertion that the makers of The English Patient intended
it not to be a "no-brainer" fit with what you were discussing?
You are frustrated with me because I didn't like a movie that you
obviously adore. If you don't want to hear criticism of this movie,
perhaps you shouldn't read posts about it in an open form such as this
newsgroup.
>
> Terry was also meant to be sarcastic when he said it is disgusting to
> carry a corpse.
I meant to be sarcastic when I said riding in a biplane with a corpse
would be a lovely experience. Sarcasm (in part) is when you say the
opposite of what you actually mean.
>Well, I wouldn't feel disgusting at all if one day I
> have to carry the corpse of my most love to the place she wished to
> be.
Someone would certainly do it out of love or a sense of duty, but that
does not negate the disgusting nature of handling a rotting corpse.
>Maybe Terry would :).
You've totally missed the point of my posts and have taken this to a
personal level. Get up from your terminal, take a walk, smell a few
flowers, and gain some perspective. Again, if you don't want to hear
criticism of the movie you adore, then don't read commentary on it in
an open forum.
Terry
<a gender neutral name>
Te-Ming Peng
"Terry McT." <tam...@usl.edu> wrote:
>Do you always put a smiley when you are being rude?
That is rude? I haven't even started yet :).
>Actually, I never saw the post where someone corrected me. Jeep or
>plane regardless, the British soldier shouldn't have given it to a
>raving man who might be a agent of an enemy force.
Ah, you don't even know what he asked for is a jeep :). Hey, it is in
the scene and dialogue :).
>Two points. First, in the environment of the internet, you cannot tell
>the gender of the person you are responding to or discussing. Names
>such as mine are appropriately used by either a man or a woman. If
>you do not know from my writing that I'm a man, you shouldn't jump to
>conclusion. In this case, you did jump to a conclusion and made a
>mistake.
Nope, you are wrong. If I don't know someone's gender when I "talk"
to another, I use the pronoun "he" because in writing a post one
cannot always throw netter's name into the article too many times. Do
you want me to use "it"? :) Very neutral. Right? :). Sigh! You are
the one jumping into conclusion.
>Second, I know darn well that deAlmasy had been walking through the
>desert for days. I stand behind my comment that if he would have
>taken a moment to calm himself and explain who he was to the soldiers,
>he would have had better luck with them.
Now change your outfit, put on your jogging shoes, pick some nice days
based on weather forcast (no desert heat is needed), and bring some
water. You then go out and march three days continuously as if you
are seeking help to save your family. Then you come back and tell me
what you feel if you still can type. I was in the military service
before.
>>Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
>> Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
>> some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
>> supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
>Again, you smile when you are rude. Is this supposed to make it more
>acceptable?
Gee.., are you some self-claimed psychic? :) I was laughing and I
used a smiley to express my feeling :).
>The film wasn't actually clear on the length of time it took for
>deAlmasy to return to the cave. You know how long it took because you
>read the book.
Sigh! I never take the book as the reference to write my thoughts on
the film. In my posts, I usually use the words "in the film" and "in
the book" to distinguish them. Not long ago, I made a time frame on
the film in the forum. That was not based on the book either since
there are so many different scenes. Just because you can't see it
from the film, so you "jump into the conclusion" that I can't see it
either? :)
>How does my assertion that the makers of The English Patient intended
>it not to be a "no-brainer" fit with what you were discussing?
Ah, the answer is in the last paragraph of this post :).
>You are frustrated with me because I didn't like a movie that you
>obviously adore. If you don't want to hear criticism of this movie,
>perhaps you shouldn't read posts about it in an open form such as this
>newsgroup.
You are wrong again. I am not frustrated. I was laughing and I still
am :).
>I meant to be sarcastic when I said riding in a biplane with a corpse
>would be a lovely experience. Sarcasm (in part) is when you say the
>opposite of what you actually mean.
Wow! start teaching me the meaning of "sarcasm" as if I don't know :).
Sigh! you cannot even tell the differece between "plane" and "jeep"
from the scene and dialogue :). Do you know why I like to put a
smiley now? :)
>Someone would certainly do it out of love or a sense of duty, but that
>does not negate the disgusting nature of handling a rotting corpse.
Of course it negates. If someone is willing to carry a rotting corpse
of his most love, he doesn't care whether it is disgusting at all. I
don't feel disgusting if I have to. Do you?
>>Maybe Terry would :).
>You've totally missed the point of my posts and have taken this to a
>personal level. Get up from your terminal, take a walk, smell a few
>flowers, and gain some perspective. Again, if you don't want to hear
>criticism of the movie you adore, then don't read commentary on it in
>an open forum.
Ah, you should get up from your terminal and take a three-day walk to
get some feeling first :).
You got it all wrong. I read negative criticism all the time. Do you
realize my previous post was a sarcasm when I read someone who cannot
tell the difference between "plane" and "jeep" from the scene and
dialogue, yet like to blame something as "no-brainer" ? :)
Bill Bixby
are...@aol.com (Aretese) writes:
| "Stupid" is certainly not the word to express one's distaste for this
| movie..all of the people whom I've heard bashing it were complaining
| because they didn't understand the plot at all-- some of them couldn't
| even figure out who the patient was! As a film snob, I am accustomed to
| complex plots so The English Patient didn't stun me, but if you can't
| fathom the details that are being fought over to no end in this newsgroup,
| seek refuge with Booty Call or Private Parts
Or read the book.
Guglielmo
>Many people discussing this film seem to be of the opinion that
>there's a certain quality of life which is entirely missed out on if
>you don't allow yourself to be unfaithful to your spouse--given
>sufficiently erotic circumstances. Is this true?
I don't know about the other "many" (which didn't seem SO many to me)
people's lust for betrayal...
Doubtless, an experience like betraying our partner, whether positive or
negative, ethical or not, is something very intense to be proven in one's
life. From an abstract POV it might be something worth trying once.
Pity that it makes the partner suffer as well as ourselves, in the end,
becoming, from a sensible POV, something to be avoided when possible.
But if you just have to do it, at least DO have the balls (cojones,
coglioni, whatever) to keep it to yourself.
The very ultra mega super most stupidest (!) thing to do is the classical
"confession" to relieve oneself from his sense of guilt.
That's my opinion.
I think what most people missed in TEP was that Kate and her husband didn't
seem a very happy couple. I take pleasure in thinking, albeit maybe in too
a romantic, old fashioned way, that if you are really happy and in love
with whom you married, you feel no desire to mess around.
Maybe we allow ourselves to enjoy fictional passions which in real life
would make us be unloyal and others suffer. So the reaction is:"Well, if I
cannot just be sympathetic with a movie character, then the hell with
it..!"
IRL many fundamental things add up in the end to the happiness of one's
marriage or just union. One is certainly a fair degree of passional
attraction.
As all of you know, when you miss something deadly important in your
relationship, you naturally end up looking for it in someone else.
Whether this be passion or communicative dialogue, what's the difference ?
As for this line of yours,
>Or could we experience similar passion in the contexts of our marriages?
well, I hope sincerely you can. :)
p.s. happy to have started a successful thread :)
Michalle S Gould
.edu> <332e9a...@usl.edu> <01bc3650$538f11e0$1d2c70cf@thomasb> <3336aa...@usl.edu> <3337d1...@ca.uky.edu> <5ha5cm$13...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com> <333931...@usl.edu> <3338ED...@ca.uky.edu> <5hccvn$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
Distribution:
Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
:
: > In the movie, you can see that she isn't a disgusting, rotting
: > corpse. So, why would you stop mid-stream and say, "But she's
: > *supposed to be* a disgusting, rotting corpse"? Think of the
: > possible *supposed to be* items you could tick off:
:
: [deleted]
:
: Well, Jeff, for some people if they don't like something, they would
: always be picky endlessly :). For example, earlier Terry said the
: British shouldn't give the plane to Almasy to justify what the Brits
: did is right. But the fact is what Almasy asked for was a jeep from
: them. After another netter pointed it out, Terry still managed to say
: it again :). He also claimed Almasy should calm down in that outpost,
: but didn't realize Almasy had been walking in the desert for three
: days. Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
: Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
: some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
: supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
:
: Terry was also meant to be sarcastic when he said it is disgusting to
: carry a corpse. Well, I wouldn't feel disgusting at all if one day I
: have to carry the corpse of my most love to the place she wished to
: be. Maybe Terry would :).
:
Spoiler for the Book
You know, these people who keep harping on how disgusting it would be to
carry a corpse and sit in a plane with it are going to be REALLY freaked
out if they read the book, because there was an implication that Almasy
did something a hell of a lot more intimate with Katherine's dead body.
Michalle
Te-Ming Peng
msg...@is6.nyu.edu (Michalle S Gould) wrote:
>.edu> <332e9a...@usl.edu> <01bc3650$538f11e0$1d2c70cf@thomasb> <3336aa...@usl.edu> <3337d1...@ca.uky.edu> <5ha5cm$13...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com> <333931...@usl.edu> <3338ED...@ca.uky.edu> <5hccvn$m...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
>Distribution:
>Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> wrote:
>: Well, Jeff, for some people if they don't like something, they would
>: always be picky endlessly :). For example, earlier Terry said the
>: British shouldn't give the plane to Almasy to justify what the Brits
>: did is right. But the fact is what Almasy asked for was a jeep from
>: them. After another netter pointed it out, Terry still managed to say
>: it again :). He also claimed Almasy should calm down in that outpost,
>: but didn't realize Almasy had been walking in the desert for three
>: days. Accordingly, I doubt he can infer from the film to know that
>: Almasy went back to the Cave two or three years later if not because
>: some netters indicated it later in the forum. Now he said the film is
>: supposed not to be a no-brainer :).
>Spoiler for the Book
Spoiler for the book? You mean Almasy went back to the Cave two or
three years later? Actually it is spoiler for the movie. You can
infer it from the film. If strictly according to the book, it is
three years.
Caroline Pruett
"Terry McT." <tam...@usl.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Last week, partly inspired by some of the discussion on this newsgroup,
I
>> decided to re-watch Jean Renoir's "Grand Illusion", a movie that I
dearly
>> love. My father, who hadn't seen it before, watched it with me. One
>> character, not to give too much away, has a death scene which I think
is
>> one of the most moving scenes in all of film. As he is lying on his
>> death bed, the man who shot him apologizes -- "I was aiming for your
leg.
>> " "That's all right -- I was 150 meters away, and it was dark..."
At
>> this point Dad starts snickering. "What's wrong?" "You could never
kill
>> someone from 150 meters away with a pistol." Of course, I could have
>> slugged him.
>
>
>This says that the writers should have done just a little bit of
>research about the topic they were covering. It's a basic error to
>leave your readers or viewers saying "Come on, it/they/he/she/etc
>*can't* do that!". No one expects a writer to become an absolute
>expert in a topic tangentially covered in his or her writing, but a
>little basic knowledge can go a long way in allowing your
>viewers/readers to easily suspend disbelief.
Sure, Renoir (or whoever wrote the script) goofed, I won't argue with
that. But no matter which way I look at it, I don't see how this
detracts one iota from the quality of his film or the impact of this
scene. *WHO CARES* whether the firearms stuff is exactly right?
>> I
>> mean, "Hamlet" doesn't make a helluva lot of sense either, if you stop
to
>> think about it, but the point is that you don't have to stop to think
>> about it.
>
>Actually, Hamlet *does* stand up to scrutiny pretty darn well.
Like the fact that the players have a play in their repertoire about a
queen who marries the man who had killed her husband by pouring poison in
his ear?
Actually, the plots of quite a few of Shakespeare's plays don't make too
much sense, partly because he was adapting (often flawed) source material.
But Shakespeare fans don't care -- or we point out the inconsistencies
out of affection, which doesn't radically change our conception of the
plays or Shakespeare as a dramatist, because the plays aren't about what
happens so much as how it happens and who it happens to.
Now, TEP certainly isn't Shakespeare -- it isn't even Renoir, or anything
close to it. But I don't think I'm making such a bad analogy. Let me
repeat, I'm not saying "Ignore the flaws in the plot" (which are numerous,
although not as many as I think you think, and partly result from an
imperfect attempt to adapt an imperfect book). I object to the attitude
from certain posters that *because* of this inconsistency, I should not
like the movie as much and admit its inferiority to something like
"Fargo". (I don't know what films you favor, so I'm using this as an
example) I'll willingly admit that the plot of "Fargo" was more or less
flawless, but, since not once in the movie did I care what was going to
happen, it didn't matter to me. I liked TEP because it was a gorgeous
movie, because I loved the actors and felt like I got to know the
characters. I didn't think it was the best movie I saw this year
("Trainspotting") or the one I enjoyed most ("Cold Comfort Farm"). But
of the choices on Oscar night, I thought it was clearly the best.
> In
>Shakespeare's day, the actors would have been pelted in vegetables if
>things got stupid in a drama.
>
Boy oh boy. I trust you haven't read that many Elizabethan Dramatists
who Arent' Shakespeare. Check out the enormously popular works of Thomas
Heywood if you want to confirm this.
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if a writer could provide a powerful emotional
>experience without including a large number of continuity/plot/etc
>flaws in his or her work?
Watch "Grand Illusion" and, if you can get over a guy being shot from 150
meters away with a pistol you might like it.
Carrie
Te-Ming Peng
Michalle, I am sorry I only noticed "spoiler for the book" in my
previous followup without paying attention to your subsequent
paragraph below to avoid netters who don't want to read it. Therefore
I misunderstood the meaning and though you were refering to Almasy's
coming back to the Cave.
But since you mentioned a section on the book, I would like to add my
opinion.
Spoiler for the book
I believed what you were refering to is p. 248 in the book (please
indicate me if I am worng). I am very touched by the delicate
description of how Almasy touched her body, while in the film he only
touched her face tenderly. Well, those people would certainly freak
out :).
The film chose a very sensitive issue with regard to the love affair
between Almasy and Katharine, and Almasy's giving the maps to the
German. It triggered some controversy. The controversy reminded me
David Lean's film Ryan's Daughter in 1970 when adultery and suspected
betrayal by the daughter were the obvious plots. Lean didn't receive
good reviews and was criticized. He then retreated for 14 years. But
to me that film is really about the conflict between social stricture
and individuality. If not because of his retreat, we can see more
films directed by him. Alas such a great director in film history.
Michalle S Gould
Te-Ming Peng (tem...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Michalle, I am sorry I only noticed "spoiler for the book" in my
: previous followup without paying attention to your subsequent
: paragraph below to avoid netters who don't want to read it. Therefore
: I misunderstood the meaning and though you were refering to Almasy's
: coming back to the Cave.
:
: But since you mentioned a section on the book, I would like to add my
: opinion.
:
:
: Spoiler for the book
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: msg...@is6.nyu.edu (Michalle S Gould) wrote:
:
: >You know, these people who keep harping on how disgusting it would be to
: >carry a corpse and sit in a plane with it are going to be REALLY freaked
: >out if they read the book, because there was an implication that Almasy
: >did something a hell of a lot more intimate with Katherine's dead body.
: >Michalle
:
: I believed what you were refering to is p. 248 in the book (please
: indicate me if I am worng). I am very touched by the delicate
: description of how Almasy touched her body, while in the film he only
: touched her face tenderly. Well, those people would certainly freak
: out :).
Nope - I'm referring to p. 170-1, where the implication seemed fairly
clear to me that he was intimate with her dead body. The last paragraph
on p. 170 especially seemed to make it fairly clear to me. I thought it
was moving, as sort of the ultimate depiction of the depth of his
obsession, but if just *carrying* her body freaked people out, I can't
imagine how they'd feel about this.
: : The film chose a very sensitive issue with regard to the love affair
: between Almasy and Katharine, and Almasy's giving the maps to the
: German. It triggered some controversy. The controversy reminded me
: David Lean's film Ryan's Daughter in 1970 when adultery and suspected
: betrayal by the daughter were the obvious plots. Lean didn't receive
: good reviews and was criticized. He then retreated for 14 years. But
: to me that film is really about the conflict between social stricture
: and individuality. If not because of his retreat, we can see more
: films directed by him. Alas such a great director in film history.
:
I think, actually, it's somewhat interesting that The People vs. Larry
Flynt got heavily ripped off in terms of Oscar nominations (I never
thought it should have WON anything, but it should have had more
nominations, in my view), largely because of this backlash for the
supposed whitewashing of Larry Flynt's character, when both Shine and The
English Patient managed to make it much farther until the controversy
about their historical accuracy came to light.
Anyway, it never fails to amaze me how profoundly knowledgeable people can
claim to be about what they would do in such a situation. I doubt I would
do much better than Almasy, and I suspect I'd probably do worse. People
are inherently selfish, because we see the world from our perspective. The
only heads we can live inside of are our own.
Michalle
Te-Ming Peng
msg...@is6.nyu.edu (Michalle S Gould) wrote:
>Nope - I'm referring to p. 170-1, where the implication seemed fairly
>clear to me that he was intimate with her dead body. The last paragraph
>on p. 170 especially seemed to make it fairly clear to me. I thought it
>was moving, as sort of the ultimate depiction of the depth of his
>obsession, but if just *carrying* her body freaked people out, I can't
>imagine how they'd feel about this.
Yes, there is indeed a description more than I indicated earlier :).
It was largely done through the thoughts of Almasy with enough
implication until the last sentence of P. 170.
>I think, actually, it's somewhat interesting that The People vs. Larry
>Flynt got heavily ripped off in terms of Oscar nominations (I never
>thought it should have WON anything, but it should have had more
>nominations, in my view), largely because of this backlash for the
>supposed whitewashing of Larry Flynt's character, when both Shine and The
>English Patient managed to make it much farther until the controversy
>about their historical accuracy came to light.
I think one of the reasons is that there was a lot of politics in
those controversies. Competition in Oscar is always severe and the
Award has global box office implication. By pushing one film into
some extreme, they believe they can move the voters since there is
always an assumption that Academy people are "conservative". How come
I didn't see blaming about the film Crash in the forum? :)
>Anyway, it never fails to amaze me how profoundly knowledgeable people can
>claim to be about what they would do in such a situation. I doubt I would
>do much better than Almasy, and I suspect I'd probably do worse. People
>are inherently selfish, because we see the world from our perspective. The
>only heads we can live inside of are our own.
Very well said. Almasy's marching in the desert for three days was
undaunting. Although it was just a film, few in real life can really
do that espcially it is not for themselves. But perhaps some
audiences saw too many times Indiana Jones movies that they don't feel
walking in the desert is that a big deal. So to them it is Almasy
should calm down :). Another thing is to them Almasy was not in the
"right" side in the film. If he was, then they probably would not
think he can do better :). I am interested to know if they also blame
William Wallce in Braveheart for his "stupidity" to fall into the trap
or condemn the Princess' act was amount to treason :).
Pamela T. Pon
Terry McT. <tam...@usl.edu> wrote:
>Jeep or plane regardless, the British soldier shouldn't have given it to a
>raving man who might be a agent of an enemy force.
I'd agree that handing over a jeep to a raving man would be unwise,
and that handing one over to a possible enemy agent would also be unwise.
But how could anyone possibly conclude that he WAS an enemy agent BECAUSE
he was raving? Wouldn't a *real* enemy agent be a bit more circumspect?
Not to mention be smart enough not to go by a name which so obviously
sounds like an enemy's? At the very least, they could have re-questioned
him after he regained consciousness and had (presumably) calmed down.
>Second, I know darn well that deAlmasy had been walking through the
>desert for days. I stand behind my comment that if he would have
>taken a moment to calm himself and explain who he was to the soldiers,
>he would have had better luck with them.
HUH?????? The entire plot of THE ENGLISH PATIENT hinges upon the fact
that Almasy *did* truthfully explain who he was to the British soldiers --
and that they used that very explanation to condemn him! The whole point
of this movie is that Katherine died precisely *because* he had
"the wrong name," and naively *gave* that name to *these* two soldiers!
How *can* you say that he should "have taken a moment to calm
himself and explain who he was to the soldiers"??? HE HAD **ALREADY**
EXPLAINED TO THEM WHO HE WAS. He had ALREADY *calmly* given them
his full name and title, as well as the full name of the well-known
British-government-affiliated organisation for whom he was working.
But when he did this, they completely *ignored* everything he had said,
except for doggedly latching onto the fact that his name sounded German
(as if any genuine German spy would be so monumentally stupid as to
openly use a German-sounding name). Only *after* they utterly ignored
his explanations did he became visibly and audibly agitated.
How could anyone watch this scene and *not* be grinding their
teeth in frustration at the IDIOCY and unreasonableness of the soldiers,
and out of sympathy for Almasy's utter agony???? Less articulate people
(like myself) would have been reduced to speechless rage at that point,
unable to form words at all. Less healthy people would probably start
succumbing to stress-induced heart attacks or strokes when confronted
with such obstinate and deliberate obstructiveness.
Hey, maybe if Caravaggio had been more friendly and cooperative,
that German soldier wouldn't have tortured him so badly. Right? >;-)
Wishing I could afford to see TEP a dozen more times (two is not enough!),
*** pamela pon {VERY behind on e-mail * please POST replies} p...@best.com ***
DUE SOUTH rides again **** Season 3 is filming NOW! **** See alt.tv.due-south
A Mountie always gets his canceled show back -- and Marines never lose faith!
Rise to the call: help save SPACE: ABOVE & BEYOND! www.planetx.com/space:aab
***** RIDE FOREVER **** Do or Die ***** Thank you kindly **** SEMPER FI *****
Tingli Pan
In article <5hlkv5$j...@shellx.best.com>, Pamela T. Pon <p...@best.com> wrote:
|Terry McT. <tam...@usl.edu> wrote:
|>Jeep or plane regardless, the British soldier shouldn't have given it to a
|>raving man who might be a agent of an enemy force.
|
can be unreasonable. People could have been sent to firing squad for
less offence.
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Eugene Zhu Xia
Distribution:
Terry McT. (tam...@usl.edu) wrote:
: Second, I know darn well that deAlmasy had been walking through the
: desert for days. I stand behind my comment that if he would have
: taken a moment to calm himself and explain who he was to the soldiers,
: he would have had better luck with them.
This obviously has to come from someone has never walked in the desert
alone none stop under the blazing sun for three days.
Eugene
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.970312...@hsc.usc.edu>,
Jun Yan <jy...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>I second that.
>"sacrificed all"! Examine what he really sacrificed. The Canadian
>thief's thumbs, some insignificant civilians' lives due to the Nazi
>invasion of the city, his expedition English friend, etc. What is it in
>himself that he sacrificed? Ehhh... Look, if the filmmakers want me to
>sympathize with this Hungarian guy who is a Nazi collaborater, they've
>gotta give me something more than *that*. When Almsay's plane crashed at
>least 2 years later (what's he been doing in between?), the allied army
>suspect he was Nazi collaborater (and indeed he was!). What did he
>say?
Actually since Almacy was Hungarian he was enemy and such was subject to
interning. As for being "Nazi collaborator". His duty as a Hungarian
was to help the ally. I cannot imagine how there could be anything
morally objectionable in it.
>I must be blind to all his greatness and romantic qualities, or most
>people equals romance to sex. That's OK. Just show a little remorse when
>you decide to help the Nazi, will ye?
>
Grow up. Should Americans feel remorse for helping the commies?`
>
>jun
>
Osmo
Caroline Pruett
Re: historical whitewashing in TEP vs. Larry Flynt...
.. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of academy voters did not
realize Almasy was a real person or the extent of his involvement with
the Germans. Whereas even if you somehow hadn't heard of Larry Flynt
before the film came out, you have now. Besides, if Almasy was *still
alive* and actually *featured* in the movie, then I think it could less
ambiguously be taken as condoning his actions (I don't believe that
either the movie or the book *does* condone Almasy's actions, BTW).
carrie
Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> >Second, I know darn well that deAlmasy had been walking through the
> >desert for days. I stand behind my comment that if he would have
> >taken a moment to calm himself and explain who he was to the soldiers,
> >he would have had better luck with them.
>
> that Almasy *did* truthfully explain who he was to the British soldiers
--
> and that they used that very explanation to condemn him! The whole point
> of this movie is that Katherine died precisely *because* he had
> "the wrong name," and naively *gave* that name to *these* two soldiers!
> How *can* you say that he should "have taken a moment to calm
> himself and explain who he was to the soldiers"??? HE HAD **ALREADY**
> EXPLAINED TO THEM WHO HE WAS. He had ALREADY *calmly* given them
> his full name and title, as well as the full name of the well-known
> British-government-affiliated organisation for whom he was working.
> But when he did this, they completely *ignored* everything he had said,
> except for doggedly latching onto the fact that his name sounded German
> (as if any genuine German spy would be so monumentally stupid as to
> openly use a German-sounding name). Only *after* they utterly ignored
> his explanations did he became visibly and audibly agitated.
Very well put!
The only addition I would make is that he calls Katherine his "wife", which
probably means he has several conflicting emotions running through his
head. He says "wife" to relay to the soldiers what is important to him, and
why it should be important to the soldiers, but it comes out all garbled --
the soldiers probably detected a sense of dishonest desperation that only
added fuel to the fire. Remember Almasy's reasoning to Caravaggio later:
"She died because I loved her. She died because I had the wrong name."
In the novel, Almasy later realized that had he only mentioned Clifton's
name, everything would have turned out differently.
Tom Brenndorfer
tho...@msn.com
Terry McT.
[snipped description of Grand Illusion]
> >
> >This says that the writers should have done just a little bit of
> >research about the topic they were covering. It's a basic error to
> >leave your readers or viewers saying "Come on, it/they/he/she/etc
> >*can't* do that!". No one expects a writer to become an absolute
> >expert in a topic tangentially covered in his or her writing, but a
> >little basic knowledge can go a long way in allowing your
> >viewers/readers to easily suspend disbelief.
>
> Sure, Renoir (or whoever wrote the script) goofed, I won't argue with
> that. But no matter which way I look at it, I don't see how this
> detracts one iota from the quality of his film or the impact of this
> scene. *WHO CARES* whether the firearms stuff is exactly right?
>
>
If they are in the general ballpark, I agree. If something is wildly
wrong, it will detract. <general comment, not related to any specific
film, scene, etc>
> >> I
> >> mean, "Hamlet" doesn't make a helluva lot of sense either, if you stop
> to
> >> think about it, but the point is that you don't have to stop to think
> >> about it.
> >
> >Actually, Hamlet *does* stand up to scrutiny pretty darn well.
>
> Like the fact that the players have a play in their repertoire about a
> queen who marries the man who had killed her husband by pouring poison in
> his ear?
I'm not exactly a serious student of Shakespere, but I've wondered if
this didn't come from the tradition of bards in ancient England and
Ireland. They were storytellers who would also function as the
newspapers of the day. The songs, poems, etc would contain details of
recent events and an influential bard could make or break a king under
certain circumstances. The bard could spread a wonderful song about how
the King had made a fool of himself and this song might actually affect
people's image of the King. In a related trivia item, it wasn't
uncommon for bards to get their heads cut off by angry nobles.
> Actually, the plots of quite a few of Shakespeare's plays don't make too
> much sense, partly because he was adapting (often flawed) source material.
> But Shakespeare fans don't care -- or we point out the inconsistencies
> out of affection, which doesn't radically change our conception of the
> plays or Shakespeare as a dramatist, because the plays aren't about what
> happens so much as how it happens and who it happens to.
I'd argue that some of his plays *are* about "what happened to".
Richard III or Henry V, for instance. Actually, if you think about it,
Shakespeare earned his title of Bard even in the oldest sense. He
significantly affected generations of people's opinions on actual people
through his plays. Not that there was *any* evidence that Richard III
was a warm and loving guy outside of Shakespeare's play either.
>
> Now, TEP certainly isn't Shakespeare -- it isn't even Renoir, or anything
> close to it. But I don't think I'm making such a bad analogy. Let me
> repeat, I'm not saying "Ignore the flaws in the plot" (which are numerous,
> although not as many as I think you think, and partly result from an
> imperfect attempt to adapt an imperfect book).
I can't imagine how difficult a task it must have been to adapt the book
into a screenplay. Actually, it would be quite a job to adapt any book
with a large following, don't you think? If you chose to use a book
that is very well loved and has formed a strong image in it's readers'
minds, you have to work all that harder in adaptation so that the fans
of the novel aren't turned off by modifications you are forced to make.
On the other hand, a writer isn't likely to choose a book that people in
general have deemed terrible for adaptation. Perhaps an obscure, yet
good, book would be the easiest to adapt.
>I object to the attitude
> from certain posters that *because* of this inconsistency, I should not
> like the movie as much and admit its inferiority to something like
> "Fargo".
If you are referring to me, I never said that you (or anyone else)
should change your opinion of the film based on the fact that I didn't
like it. Actually, I did like the beautiful scenery in the movie,
especially those incredible images of the desert. Honestly, I thought
that deAlmasy (pre-Katherine) was a idle-rich jerk. In the course of
the affair, he betrayed everyone around him except Katherine and became
a tratorous jerk. I just didn't like him and never cared what happened
to him and wasn't drawn into the romance at all. The inconsistencies
just added to my distaste for the film. I thought it stunk (with the
exception of the gorgeous cinematography). Our differences on the
subject of this film have absolutely no bearing on either of our
intelligence (as has been suggested by another poster).
>(I don't know what films you favor, so I'm using this as an
> example) I'll willingly admit that the plot of "Fargo" was more or less
> flawless
Fargo was a really tight story, wasn't it? It has the advantage of
being pure fiction, though. The English Patient was based on a real
person and actually a fairly one sided view of one man, if we were to be
frank. I think some of the inconsistencies came, as you said, during
the adapation of a long, involved novel into a screenplay. But
inconsistencies may also have arrisen from trying to make the real
deAlmasy into perhaps a more sympathetic character.
>, but, since not once in the movie did I care what was going to
> happen, it didn't matter to me. I liked TEP because it was a gorgeous
> movie,
If they gave a "beautiful movie of the year", TEP would have certainly
deserved the award. I would have liked to have seen more desert scenes.
>because I loved the actors and felt like I got to know the
> characters.
I'm really fond of Fiennes as well. This is the first time I believe
I've seen Thomas in such a large role.
We're going to differ on character development, though. I would have
liked to know more about Katherine and why she was so quick to have an
affair. Yes, we heard (or saw) that she wasn't very happy, but I would
have like to have a better understanding of this. I think I'd have
enjoyed the triangle much better.
>I didn't think it was the best movie I saw this year
> ("Trainspotting")
Yes, I think this was the best movie I saw last year, as well. I don't,
however, think I'm going to watch it multiple times, though. It's too
emotionally draining. The movie made me laugh at some of the most
gruesome things and interspersed this funny moments with some really
horrible events. Great film, but once is enough. Did you see Shallow
Grave? It's by the same director and has Ewan MacGregor in it as well.
It's a very good mystery/psychological drama, although if gore turns you
off it might not be the film to rent.
>or the one I enjoyed most ("Cold Comfort Farm"). But
> of the choices on Oscar night, I thought it was clearly the best.
I was rooting for Fargo, but don't think TEP is the worst film ever to
win the Oscar.
>
> > In
> >Shakespeare's day, the actors would have been pelted in vegetables if
> >things got stupid in a drama.
> >
> Boy oh boy. I trust you haven't read that many Elizabethan Dramatists
> who Arent' Shakespeare. Check out the enormously popular works of Thomas
> Heywood if you want to confirm this.
I've often wished that we could express dislike for films and plays
these days in such a viceral manner. The writers wouldn't have to wait
for the reviews to be published. They'd just have to look and see how
much "gazpacho" was accumulating on the stage.
>
> >
>
> >Wouldn't it be nice if a writer could provide a powerful emotional
> >experience without including a large number of continuity/plot/etc
> >flaws in his or her work?
>
> Watch "Grand Illusion" and, if you can get over a guy being shot from 150
> meters away with a pistol you might like it.
>
Thanks for the tip. I've never seen Grand Illusion and think I'll
challenge the clerk at Blockbuster to get it for me.
Terry
OilSpirit
By insisting on imposing labels of "good" and "evil" on behavior, emotions
and daily events, we humans create suffering and pain. The events, in and
of themselves, are neither evil nor good. Our choices are neither evil
nor good. Through generations of cultural concensus, we have established
certain values which allow persons to become victims in certain
circumstances.
Tingli Pan
In article <19970401120...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Can we think that TEP is a good place to warn people about adultery? The
three characters, Count Almazey, Caravaggio, and Katharine Clifton
all were punished for what they had done. The only think we need is to
say, "Look at those people, what they had done, and what they had got."
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Eugene Zhu Xia
Tingli Pan (tp...@norman.ssc.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Can we think that TEP is a good place to warn people about adultery? The
: three characters, Count Almazey, Caravaggio, and Katharine Clifton
: all were punished for what they had done. The only think we need is to
: say, "Look at those people, what they had done, and what they had got."
I don't think so. These are not real life characters. Those who are
touched by this film are mostly moved by the depth and the intensity of
the feelings of these characters. Emotions more intense and grand than
ordinary mortals are capable of experiencing. The "moral lessons"
(which is not really present in the film, by the way) will certainly be
lost to those who have had a glimpse of such an experience. And I
wouldn't be surprised to discover a few who would be willing to risk their
own lives for this experience. People are risking their lives for
far less, jumping out of airplanes and rock climbing, for examples.
For those who never had a glimpse of this, it is next to impossible to
explain. Whatever "moral lessons" they walk away with are not intended by
the creators and totally superficial.
Eugene
Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> >I object to the attitude
> > from certain posters that *because* of this inconsistency, I should not
> > like the movie as much and admit its inferiority to something like
> > "Fargo".
>
> If you are referring to me, I never said that you (or anyone else)
> should change your opinion of the film based on the fact that I didn't
> like it. Actually, I did like the beautiful scenery in the movie,
> especially those incredible images of the desert. Honestly, I thought
> that deAlmasy (pre-Katherine) was a idle-rich jerk.
No, the film makes it clear he was not that rich, since the expedition team
was in desperate need of finances. And no, he was not idle, as the film
makes it clear from the mind-numbing difficulty of desert exploration, and
the scientific writing on the side (with presentations to academia, hence
his Oxford English accent, even though he was born in Hungary).
> In the course of
> the affair, he betrayed everyone around him except Katherine and became
> a tratorous jerk.
From his point of view, it was the curse of nationalism that betrayed him,
since his ideals were born of the communal spirit that the desert inspires.
Much as the curse of nationalism destroys the loves of Hana's life, as it
does Caravaggio's life.
> I just didn't like him and never cared what happened
> to him and wasn't drawn into the romance at all. The inconsistencies
> just added to my distaste for the film.
Inconsistencies? Apart from some technical and historical liberties, the
film was consistent within itself. That is usually the primary article of
any honest critical approach. The film was a fiction, meant to explore
human emotions and ideals. There was no attempt to speak to the historicity
of any event, other than to have them provide a rough outline in which the
characters could appear.
> I thought it stunk (with the
> exception of the gorgeous cinematography). Our differences on the
> subject of this film have absolutely no bearing on either of our
> intelligence (as has been suggested by another poster).
The cinematography has a symbolic importance, much like a David Lean film,
although the symbolism is much more intricate and poetic in TEP. To remark
on the Hallmark card appearance of the cinematography and not to implicate
it in the nature of the characters and what THEY see as opposed to what YOU
see, is to miss the point of the film.
>
> >(I don't know what films you favor, so I'm using this as an
> > example) I'll willingly admit that the plot of "Fargo" was more or
less
> > flawless
>
> Fargo was a really tight story, wasn't it? It has the advantage of
> being pure fiction, though. The English Patient was based on a real
> person and actually a fairly one sided view of one man, if we were to be
> frank. I think some of the inconsistencies came, as you said, during
> the adapation of a long, involved novel into a screenplay. But
> inconsistencies may also have arrisen from trying to make the real
> deAlmasy into perhaps a more sympathetic character.
That is irrelevant. There was an article in the Washington Post a while
back that complained about the lack of historical accuracy (written by a
daughter of an English officer or ambassador in Cairo who followed the
movements of the real Almasy). That piece was deservedly trashed in various
editorial comments in other newspapers (as well as trashed by an excellent
article by Ondaatje, who pointed out fiction has properties and objectives
that MUST be independent of judgements of its historical accuracy).
> >I didn't think it was the best movie I saw this year
> > ("Trainspotting")
>
> Yes, I think this was the best movie I saw last year, as well. I don't,
> however, think I'm going to watch it multiple times, though. It's too
> emotionally draining. The movie made me laugh at some of the most
> gruesome things and interspersed this funny moments with some really
> horrible events. Great film, but once is enough. Did you see Shallow
> Grave? It's by the same director and has Ewan MacGregor in it as well.
> It's a very good mystery/psychological drama, although if gore turns you
> off it might not be the film to rent.
Well, if you're after accuracy, you're not going to get it from
Trainspotting, with its soft cushion blows compared to what an actual drug
addiction and recuperation would be like. (On all other counts,
Trainspotting was an excellent film).
>
> >or the one I enjoyed most ("Cold Comfort Farm"). But
> > of the choices on Oscar night, I thought it was clearly the best.
>
> I was rooting for Fargo, but don't think TEP is the worst film ever to
> win the Oscar.
Well, considering that The English Patient pushes the artistic limits on
what cinema can accomplish, I would rank it up there with one of the best
films to win the Oscar, combining the strengths of Lean and Bertolucci all
in one go.
Fargo was made with such a clinical detachment (I believe the Coen brothers
also use this expression), that, while an excellent construction because of
that, it does not come close to the reach attempt by the team that put The
English Patient together. How does one put an intricate poem on film?
Ondaatje is noted primarily for being a poet, and his prose is, in fact, an
extension of his poetic predispositions. How does one capture the intricate
complexity of myriad psychological drives and motives, using
cinematography, and facial expressions, and brief words, with a main
character who does not like using adjectives? The English Patient is meant
to provoke questions: Why does he/she say that, in that way, in that
setting? The answers are often surprising, and end up intertwining with
other moments. The audience is meant to work on the film as a reader is
meant to work on a poem (as opposed to working on a Hallmark greeting with
Hallmark art). If the viewer does not do that, then no, it is fairly easy
to predict that the viewer is not going to like the thrust of the film,
apart from some superficial appreciation of the scenery and settings.
Tom Brenndorfer
tho...@msn.com
Tingli Pan
In article <5hrk6v$1c5$2...@hecate.umd.edu>,
for a film, this way of understanding can bring a soothing comfort to
the consciousness.
--
Tingli Pan 潘廷礼
Kathleen A. Flynn
What I have yet to see mentioned is that the dear "wronged" husband
seems to be taking a kamakazi shot at his rival with his airplane, &
in the process kills himself and, eventually, his wife. Murder &
suicide are probably as offensive as adultery, don't you think?
luvvy
Terry McT. wrote:
> through his plays. Not that there was *any* evidence that Richard III
> was a warm and loving guy outside of Shakespeare's play either.
>
There's plenty of evidence, but let's not open up that discussion
here. If I can forgive Shakespeare for the Tudor propaganda
that is "Richard III", I can forgive him almost anything. Isn't
there an alt.history.richardiii newsgroup somewhere?
Matt Beckwith
x...@Glue.umd.edu (Eugene Zhu Xia) wrote:
>Those who are
>touched by this film are mostly moved by the depth and the intensity of
>the feelings of these characters. Emotions more intense and grand than
>ordinary mortals are capable of experiencing.
Jealousy? Desperation? Guilt? These are intense, I'll grant you
that. But grand? No way. Try the simple love of a devoted husband
or wife. And the resultant joy and gratitude are more intense than
any mere adulterers are going to be able to experience in a lifetime
of cruelty.
Matt Beckwith
oils...@aol.com (OilSpirit) wrote:
>By insisting on imposing labels of "good" and "evil" on behavior, emotions
>and daily events, we humans create suffering and pain. The events, in and
>of themselves, are neither evil nor good. Our choices are neither evil
>nor good. Through generations of cultural concensus, we have established
>certain values which allow persons to become victims in certain
>circumstances.
I agree with this, but the fact is that certain actions lead to
certain effects. If you marry someone and then are unfaithful to him,
then the marriage no longer works as a marriage. So instead of saying
that certain actions are wrong, we could just say that certain actions
don't work in certain contexts. In the context of a marriage,
infidelity doesn't work. In the context of a war, treason doesn't
work.
While I would not disagree with those who decry the apparent advocacy
of immorality among the audience of The English Patient, for me the
actions of the protagonists were just stupid. Why get married if
you're planning to be unfaithful? Why be unfaithful if you're
married? Heck, just get a divorce. This is a movie about stupid
people who do stupid things and hurt a lot of good people around them.
And the stupid people are the protagonists, the ones in whose story
we're supposed to take an interest!
Thomas Brenndorfer
>
> While I would not disagree with those who decry the apparent advocacy
> of immorality among the audience of The English Patient, for me the
> actions of the protagonists were just stupid. Why get married if
> you're planning to be unfaithful? Why be unfaithful if you're
> married? Heck, just get a divorce. This is a movie about stupid
> people who do stupid things and hurt a lot of good people around them.
> And the stupid people are the protagonists, the ones in whose story
> we're supposed to take an interest!
>
>
I think the point of the film is that the individuals involved were about
to do just what you say, but history and time imposes itself mercilessly.
You're blaming the characters for various external actions they have no
control over. Listen to what Katherine wrote as she laying. She recognizes
finally what she truly wants, only it's too late. That's why the story is a
tragedy and not a farce.
Tom Brenndorfer
tho...@msn.com
Matt Beckwith
Yes they are. So what?
Eugene Zhu Xia
Matt Beckwith (beck...@pop.southeast.net) wrote:
: x...@Glue.umd.edu (Eugene Zhu Xia) wrote:
: >Those who are
: >touched by this film are mostly moved by the depth and the intensity of
: >the feelings of these characters. Emotions more intense and grand than
: >ordinary mortals are capable of experiencing.
: Jealousy? Desperation? Guilt? These are intense, I'll grant you
: that. But grand?
Let me make a guess. The list of classical drama/novels/films
you dislike contains Othello, Madama Bovary, McBeth, Antony and
Cleopatra, Tristan and Isolde...
: No way. Try the simple love of a devoted husband
: or wife. And the resultant joy and gratitude are more intense than
: any mere adulterers are going to be able to experience in a lifetime
: of cruelty.
That's all fine and dandy in real life, but it does not seem to
work in drama. At the moment, I just can't seem to name one great
piece of literature about "the simple love of a devoted husband
or wife". Beethoven's Fidelio seems to fit the description. It
is a wonderful piece of music, but is really second or third rate drama.
* * *
As to why this is so, I have no idea or at least I am not able to
explain it in words. All I can describe is my own experience: One day I
decided that the way to improve my English (which is my second language)
is to start reading the classics, so I just picked one of those great
drama and sat down and read. I didn't get it the first time and I didn't
get it the 10th time, but eventually, I did. In other words, I had a
"glimpse" of the emotional realm those great dramatist were projecting
through their work and my "vision" is made far richer as a result.
One thing not to do when reading/experiencing these great works is to
project ourselves into these ficticious characters. That is the way to
frustration and it says more about our self-absorption with our own lives
than anything else.
* * *
I will leave the others to deal with the historical accuracy of TEP.
To me it is totally irrelevant for the same reason that nobody is
upset over the historical inaccuracy of Antony and Cleopatra.
What if the director of TEP decides to move the German invation of
Africa a few years ahead of schedule? You think two hundred years
(assuming TEP surviving that long) from now, movie critics are going
to get upset over this? For the same reason, my reading of the film
is that Almasy traded his maps for petrol a few days after he jumped out
of the train.
Eugene
Anne Conway
: While I would not disagree with those who decry the apparent advocacy
: of immorality among the audience of The English Patient, for me the
: actions of the protagonists were just stupid. Why get married if
: you're planning to be unfaithful? Why be unfaithful if you're
: married? Heck, just get a divorce. This is a movie about stupid
: people who do stupid things and hurt a lot of good people around them.
: And the stupid people are the protagonists, the ones in whose story
: we're supposed to take an interest!
I don't think anyone "plans" to be unfaithful. I don't believe there is
one great love relationship for each person. I love Katherine's comment in bed
with Almasy, "Here I'm a different wife." Apologies if that quotation is
incorrect. I think most of you will get the gist. I also don't give much
credit to those that describe things with the word "stupid." Maybe you could
be a little more specific?
Anne
Jeffrey Davis
Matt Beckwith wrote:
>
> >What I have yet to see mentioned is that the dear "wronged" husband
> >seems to be taking a kamakazi shot at his rival with his airplane, &
> >in the process kills himself and, eventually, his wife. Murder &
> >suicide are probably as offensive as adultery, don't you think?
>
> Yes they are. So what?
Out of curiosity, do you have all these "immoral protagonist"
problems with, say, Rabbit Angstrom, Adam (from Paradise Lost),
Michael Corleone, Heathcliff, Pip, Richard III, Harry Lime, or
MacBeth? [for starters] Or is it something peculiar to TEP that
gets your dander up?
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Thank you, Madam, the agony is somewhat abated.
Paula Mickevich
In article <334422...@ca.uky.edu> Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> writes:
Matt Beckwith wrote:
>Kathleen A. Flynn wrote:
>
> >What I have yet to see mentioned is that the dear "wronged" husband
> >seems to be taking a kamakazi shot at his rival with his airplane, &
> >in the process kills himself and, eventually, his wife. Murder &
> >suicide are probably as offensive as adultery, don't you think?
>
> Yes they are. So what?
Out of curiosity, do you have all these "immoral protagonist"
problems with, say, Rabbit Angstrom, Adam (from Paradise Lost),
Michael Corleone, Heathcliff, Pip, Richard III, Harry Lime, or
MacBeth? [for starters] Or is it something peculiar to TEP that
gets your dander up?
Matt has already posted that he likes to identify with the protagonist
and he likes the protagonist to be of high moral fiber, doing the
right thing against all kinds of odds. Being brought up a Catholic
he was raised with stories of Christian martyrs and views this
as the highest achievement.
I think it's important to know where people are coming from when they
post and Matt was open about it. I am glad he explained himself.
I was raised Catholic too, but tend to see another theme in the movie.
That of redemption. Several of the characters have faced tragedy in
their lives but are healed in the course of the movie. That's
the beauty of TEP to me.
As to the adultery angle, this is very much a factor in many lives whether
we approve or not. I'd rather not be judgemental. If one can believe the
surveys it happens to most of us. Blessings on those who have not
experienced it. I don't think most of us go into marriage planning on
it as Matt feels Katharine did. I don't think she did either. As a matter
of fact, it was she who ended the affair.
--