Dead Again question(*SPOILERS!*)
The Nature Boy
Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
and who does not want anything given away:
OK, remember the beginning flashback when Amanda had woke up screaming
that one time? Roman was getting his haircut and then is led down death row.
The reporter realizes that Roman has the scissors in his hands and goes to stab
someone at the end of the hallway, who looks like Margaret. Now, here is the
question. Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
PHOENIX
*******************************************************************************
*Bernard E Cana * Aka: PHOENIX * E-mail address to: *
*215 Spaulding Quad, SUNYAB* Casanova * V076...@UBVMS.BITNET *
*Buffalo, NY 14261 * Hawkmoon * V076...@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU *
*(716) 636-4903 * * *
*******************************************************************************
Ali Lemer
>
> Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
>and who does not want anything given away:
>
> OK, remember the beginning flashback when Amanda had woke up screaming
>that one time? Roman was getting his haircut and then is led down death row.
>The reporter realizes that Roman has the scissors in his hands and goes to stab
>someone at the end of the hallway, who looks like Margaret. Now, here is the
>question. Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
>not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
>
>
and did happen in it, and
B) If the audience believes that Roman did do it, the
surprise ending will be that much more of a surprise.
-- Ali.
Ali Lemer | "'The desk and chair in the living room
Columbia University | are from the same period.' What an
a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | asshole!" -- Mike Church, DEAD AGAIN
Barbara Hlavin
>
>and who does not want anything given away:
>
> OK, remember the beginning flashback when Amanda had woke up screaming
>that one time? Roman was getting his haircut and then is led down death row.
>The reporter realizes that Roman has the scissors in his hands and goes to stab
>someone at the end of the hallway, who looks like Margaret. Now, here is the
>question. Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
>not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
First of all, I want to thank those who have discussed Dead Again
and who were conscientious about putting spoiler warnings in their
articles. I didn't see the movie until this weekend, and the warnings
made it possible to avoid reading about it.
I'm now going back and recapturing previous articles about Dead Again,
and I'm amazed at the number of people who claim to find the script
unconvincing and the plot full of holes. I for one was impressed by
how well all the intricate plot elements fit together, and what a
good job the script did at maintaining a delicate balance of the
multiple complexities.
As for Grace/Amanda/Roman's opening dream, as someone else has said,
it is important to distinguish the distortions of dreams from the
revelations of reincarnate lives. I have no trouble believing that
a person who was tried and executed for a murder he did not commit
would carry with him into the next incarnation bad dreams about
being accused of committing the murder. I saw the dream as a
nightmare, not a memory.
I also would like to address the poster who concluded that anyone
who believes in reincarnation is "ignorant, superstitious, and
stupid." There are several important world religions that hold as
a central tenet the reality of reincarnation, Hinduism and Buddhism
for two. And there are many people in this world who find the
events described in the Christian religion and that form the
foundation for Christian beliefs incredible.
--Barbara
--
Barbara Hlavin <sputtering> "This is just an exercise
tw...@milton.u.washington.edu in fertility!"
Gail Richards
>
> Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
> and who does not want anything given away:
> Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
> not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
>
Yea. And why does Amanda have flashbacks of things only Margaret could
know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
there? How does she know this is she is Roman? And why, when she is first
put under hypnosis does she say, "Roman and I were so happy?" Derek Jacobi
tells her to distance herself and then she says, "Roman and Margaret were
so happy." Hmmmm. Good movie, but when you get home and start adding
things up you wannna go "HEY...."
grichard.DPW.COM
Gail Richards
David DeBry
> Yea. And why does Amanda have flashbacks of things only Margaret could
> know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
> there? How does she know this is she is Roman?
Roman actually did see this whole episode -- from the balcony
at the top of the stairs that lead down to the terrace. (Confusing
directions... sorry.)
> And why, when she is first
> put under hypnosis does she say, "Roman and I were so happy?" Derek Jacobi
> tells her to distance herself and then she says, "Roman and Margaret were
> so happy."
I believe she actually said "We were so happy," but I could be
wrong. (I don't think I am, though.)
> Hmmmm. Good movie, but when you get home and start adding
> things up you wannna go "HEY...."
What, "HEY.... what a great flick!" ? :)
>
> grichard.DPW.COM
> Gail Richards
--
"When you've got it, you've got it. When you don't got it, you'll
end up on the floor in a lot of liver and onions." -- Parker Lewis
David DeBry /// Home: 801/272-3094 /// Work: 801/582-5847 x4721
dde...@dsd.es.com <- Flaky email address! Mail again if it bounces!
Ali Lemer
>In article <11SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>, v076...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Nature Boy) writes:
>>
>> Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
>> and who does not want anything given away:
>
>> Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
>> not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
>>
>
>
>know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
>put under hypnosis does she say, "Roman and I were so happy?"
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Never does Grace say, "Roman and I were so happy." She says, "The
day we first met."
>Derek Jacobi
>tells her to distance herself and then she says, "Roman and Margaret were
>so happy."
THEN, she says, "The day Roman and Margaret first met."
> Hmmmm. Good movie, but when you get home and start adding
>things up you wannna go "HEY...."
I think you should check your constants and variables before adding them.
>
>grichard.DPW.COM
>Gail Richards
-- Ali.
Ali Lemer | "'The desk and the bookcase in the living room
Columbia University | are from the same period.' What an asshole!"
a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | -- Mike Church, DEAD AGAIN
Gail Richards
> >Yea. And why does Amanda have flashbacks of things only Margaret could
> >know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
> >there? How does she know this is she is Roman? And why, when she is first
> >put under hypnosis does she say, "Roman and I were so happy?"
> Never does Grace say, "Roman and I were so happy." She says, "The
> day we first met."
>
> >tells her to distance herself and then she says, "Roman and Margaret were
> >so happy."
>
> THEN, she says, "The day Roman and Margaret first met."
Thank you for correcting me. I have only seen the movie once so far so
that was how I remember it. (the mind plays tricks ... hey, maybe that is
the point of the movie ...) However, you did not answer the first part of
my question: Why is Amanda privy to things only Margaret should know (ie.
the terrace scene)? Just curious. If you could give me a sensible answer
I would be grateful because I would like to see Kenneth Branaugh with a
classic under his belt in addition to Henry V.
Gail Richards
grichard.DPW.COM
Roy Spannbauer
>... I'm amazed at the number of people who claim to find the script
>unconvincing and the plot full of holes. I for one was impressed by
>how well all the intricate plot elements fit together, and what a
>good job the script did at maintaining a delicate balance of the
>multiple complexities.
Barbara, you echo my thoughts exactly. I was very impressed by the
plotline and the script. I thought the story wrapped up all its loose
ends by the end of the movie, in a very elegant, closed-loop dance of
narrative. Tight and clean!
People like Ali Lemer have gone thru considerable bandwidth to explain
the finer points of DEAD AGAIN to posters who misunderstood or
mis-remembered (did I just coin a new word?) scenes or lines of dialog
in this movie. So far, all questions or potential plot holes have been
cleared up IMHO as they are posted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy Spannbauer :: Bell-Northern Research :: Ottawa, Canada |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Lemer
Well, there are a few reasons possible:
A) The dead learn things between lives about the last one, but it
is subverted into the subconscious in the next one (remember, you
learn things from life to life), and can only be drawn out with
hypnosis.
B) Margaret, later on, told Roman (after they made up) exactly what
Baker said to her, so he wouldn't doubt her.
C) It's only a film. Branagh's using poetic licence to get the story
rolling.
Ali Lemer
Why, thanks, Roy. I appreciate that. One of the nice things about DA is
that every time I've seen it (three to date) I see something new, something
that I didn't notice before...such as the goof I mentioned a while ago,
new Hitchcock allusions, parts of the music (which I think play a definite
role in heightening the suspense; I also love some of the themese, which is
why I bought the CD), certain actors in certain roles (i.e. Jo Anderson
as nun and starlet), and dialogue that clears up a situation.
I have to admit, I was envious of the people in the theatre who hadn't seen
the movie before, since they had so much unknown ahead of them...one person
actually screamed when Baker tells Church what kind of store you-know-who
opened up!
I've been recommending this film to so many people that I've ended up
going again just to make sure they see it (and everyone whom I've taken
also loves it). Also, I have a crush on Kenneth Branagh. So sue me. :-)
Michael E. Wolf
>Thank you for correcting me. I have only seen the movie once so far so
>that was how I remember it. (the mind plays tricks ... hey, maybe that is
>the point of the movie ...) However, you did not answer the first part of
>my question: Why is Amanda privy to things only Margaret should know (ie.
>the terrace scene)? Just curious. If you could give me a sensible answer
>I would be grateful because I would like to see Kenneth Branaugh with a
>classic under his belt in addition to Henry V.
Just as Margaret and the reporter begin to talk, you see Roman come up
from behind, put his mask on and listen in on their conversation from
a safe distance.
>Gail Richards
>grichard.DPW.COM
Michael
Gail Richards
> In article <1...@esquire.dpw.com>, gric...@DPW.COM (Gail Richards) writes:
> > Yea. And why does Amanda have flashbacks of things only Margaret could
> > know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
> > there? How does she know this is she is Roman?
>
> Roman actually did see this whole episode -- from the balcony
> at the top of the stairs that lead down to the terrace. (Confusing
> directions... sorry.)
Thank you for correcting me on the dialogue of Amanda's flashback. It in-
deed was "we were so happy"; however I do not believe that Roman witnesses
the whole terrace scene. And furthermore, when Margaret catches Frankie
stealing from her draw she is alone, and when she tells Roman of it he
doesn't believe her. So why does Amanda/Roman recollect this under
hypnosis?
And I think "Hey ... that doesn't make sense ... "
----the grichard---
Gail Richards
> Barbara, you echo my thoughts exactly. I was very impressed by the
> plotline and the script. I thought the story wrapped up all its loose
> ends by the end of the movie, in a very elegant, closed-loop dance of
> narrative. Tight and clean!
I indeed liked this movie, but you must admit that the vast numbers of
people who are slightly confused show evidence that this is not great
cinema. It is good script writing, yes, but excellent or even great, no. The
script definetly needed tightening. If a movie seems confusing when you
are watching it, but later after analysis fits together, then the viewer
has caught up with the complexities of the script. However, if
the movie makes sense when you are watching it, but falls apart after
analysis, then the script never caught up with the viewer.
What I thought was, "Hey ... that doesn't make sense ... "
The grich.
Ali Lemer
>In article <1991Sep17.2...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
>
>[some inconsistencies in POV and knowledge are raised]
>
>> Well, there are a few reasons possible:
>>
>> A) The dead learn things between lives about the last one, but it
>> is subverted into the subconscious in the next one (remember, you
>> learn things from life to life), and can only be drawn out with
>> hypnosis.
>
>
>outside the parameters set up in the story.
To the contrary: we are INDEED given evidence, in the form of a declaration
by one of the characters. Cozy Carlisle says, "You learn from one life to use
in the next." "But what's the use, if we're going to be with different people
every time," says Grace. "Ah, but you're not," replies Carlisle. "You are with
the same people every time. Someone burns you in one life, you get a chance
to burn them in the next....It's the Karmic Credit Plan. Buy now, pay forever."
>> B) Margaret, later on, told Roman (after they made up) exactly what
>> Baker said to her, so he wouldn't doubt her.
>
>Possible, but never explained. Has the same problem as A (but lesser).
Does EVERYTHING have to be explained to you? Use your imagination. Or
don't you have one?
>> C) It's only a film. Branagh's using poetic licence to get the story
>> rolling.
>>
>
>Major cop out. This is not an explanation. Either it's a screwup
>(which was the original implication), in which case you're disagreeing
>by agreeing, or it wasn't, in which case you're not giving a
>counter-argument.
>
>jas
>--
Sure it's an explanation. Just because it doesn't satisfy YOU doesn't
mean it's not an explanation.
Jeff Sullivan
>In article <1...@esquire.dpw.com> gric...@DPW.COM (Gail Richards) writes:
>>In article <11SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>, v076...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Nature Boy) writes:
>>>
>>> Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
>>> and who does not want anything given away:
>>
>>> Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
>>> not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yea. And why does Amanda have flashbacks of things only Margaret could
>>know, like what the reporter said to her on the terrace when Roman was not
>>there? How does she know this is she is Roman? And why, when she is first
>>put under hypnosis does she say, "Roman and I were so happy?"
>
> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
>
> Never does Grace say, "Roman and I were so happy." She says, "The
>day we first met."
>
>>Derek Jacobi
>>tells her to distance herself and then she says, "Roman and Margaret were
>>so happy."
>
> THEN, she says, "The day Roman and Margaret first met."
>
>
>> Hmmmm. Good movie, but when you get home and start adding
>>things up you wannna go "HEY...."
>
> I think you should check your constants and variables before adding them.
>>
Right, but the original question remains:
How did *Roman* know the dialog of Margaret and Baker's talk when he
was inside with the starlet?
My only problem with this movie was that it was a little too neat, and
that many red herrings were used to manipulate you into being
surprised. I was, however, somewhat surprised by the movie, since I
try not to analyze movies when they've got my attention.
jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer
j...@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute
j...@isi.edu | University of Southern California
Jeff Sullivan
[some inconsistencies in POV and knowledge are raised]
> Well, there are a few reasons possible:
>
> A) The dead learn things between lives about the last one, but it
> is subverted into the subconscious in the next one (remember, you
> learn things from life to life), and can only be drawn out with
> hypnosis.
Cop out. We're given no evidence of this, so to infer it is to leap
outside the parameters set up in the story.
> B) Margaret, later on, told Roman (after they made up) exactly what
> Baker said to her, so he wouldn't doubt her.
Possible, but never explained. Has the same problem as A (but lesser).
> C) It's only a film. Branagh's using poetic licence to get the story
> rolling.
>
Major cop out. This is not an explanation. Either it's a screwup
(which was the original implication), in which case you're disagreeing
by agreeing, or it wasn't, in which case you're not giving a
counter-argument.
jas
Jeff Sullivan
When does the starlet ask him if he's "somebody", then? I recall
those two conversations being partially intercut. Am I wrong?
sturg...@dofasco.uucp
> In article <11SEP199...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> v076...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Nature Boy) writes:
>>
>> Let me place a ctrl-l in here for those who have not seen the movie yet
>>and who does not want anything given away:
>>
>> OK, remember the beginning flashback when Amanda had woke up screaming
>>that one time? Roman was getting his haircut and then is led down death row.
>>The reporter realizes that Roman has the scissors in his hands and goes to stab
>>someone at the end of the hallway, who looks like Margaret. Now, here is the
>>question. Why did Amanda have that flashback when we all know that Roman did
>>not kill Margaret?? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.
>>
>>
> Two reasons: A) It was all a dream of Grace's, so anything could
> and did happen in it, and
>
I suppose, however, there were events in that dream sequence that
happened. ie. Roman whispering to the reporter--rather kissing the
reporter.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Craig Sturgeon Dofasco Inc. 100 Lyons Ave.,
(sturg...@dofasco.uucp) 1330 Burlington St East Brantford, Ontario
Hamilton, Ont. L8N 3J5 Canada Canada N3R 4R4
(416) 548-4420 (519) 756-3385
____________________________________________________________________________
Roy Spannbauer
>I indeed liked this movie, but you must admit that the vast numbers of
>people who are slightly confused show evidence that this is not great
>cinema.
DEAD AGAIN is great cinema! Every bit as good as Hitchcock's greatest
movies. Chuck's rating of 8.3/10 so far for DEAD is an early indicator
this movie will go down in r.a.m history. (OK, I really like this movie,
and it shows. But almost everybody else raves about it too.)
Vast numbers of people being confused show evidence only that vast numbers
of people don't pay enough attention during movies like DEAD. Gail, your
own questions have been cleared up by Ali Lemer (he corrected your misquotes
from the dialog), and David DeBry & Michael E. Wolf (pointed out that Roman
observed the terrace scene, and learned of Frankie's thievery from Margaret).
Fine performances by all the actors and the script's clever trickery lulled
us along, playing on our normal human assumptions, only to spring the real
plot twists (Mike == Margaret && Amanda == Roman, and the hypnotist =
Frankie) on us towards the end. (Apologies for rambling sentence.)
> It is good script writing, yes, but excellent or even great, no. The
>script definetly needed tightening.
I found it to be an outstanding and extremely entertaining story. IMHO,
the adjective "great" fully applies to this movie. People like John Locke
have pointed out ways in which DEAD might have been tightened up even
further. But DEAD is already a wonderful piece of work! Any further
tinkering might upset its balance of plot, acting, pacing, romance, score,
character dualities, and past-present interplays.
Any screenwriter who can juggle all the elements included in DEAD and
get such a result up there on the screen must know a thing or two about
his craft.
> If a movie seems confusing when you
>are watching it, but later after analysis fits together, then the viewer
>has caught up with the complexities of the script.
Upon CAREFUL later analysis (more than one viewing is required), every
poster so far has marvelled over how well DEAD hung together.
> However, if
>the movie makes sense when you are watching it, but falls apart after
>analysis, then the script never caught up with the viewer.
Gail, don't blame your faulty memory on the movie itself. The people I
mentioned above have already amplified how the detailed plot of this
movie is self-consistent. Far from falling apart, DEAD gets stronger
and more impressive under ACCURATE later analysis.
I suggest you have your next big winner for Kenneth Branagh in DEAD AGAIN!
Gail Richards
> DEAD AGAIN is great cinema! Every bit as good as Hitchcock's greatest
> movies. Chuck's rating of 8.3/10 so far for DEAD is an early indicator
> this movie will go down in r.a.m history. (OK, I really like this movie,
> and it shows. But almost everybody else raves about it too.)
> >has caught up with the complexities of the script.
> Upon CAREFUL later analysis (more than one viewing is required), every
> poster so far has marvelled over how well DEAD hung together.
> > However, if
> >the movie makes sense when you are watching it, but falls apart after
> >analysis, then the script never caught up with the viewer.
> Gail, don't blame your faulty memory on the movie itself. The people I
> mentioned above have already amplified how the detailed plot of this
> movie is self-consistent. Far from falling apart, DEAD gets stronger
> and more impressive under ACCURATE later analysis.
I have a fine memory, and here at the offices of Davis Polk and Wardwell,
the general concensus is this: Fine movie, great premise, but the script
does not work logically within the premise it has set up. As for the
"explaination" offered me here they were all unsatisfactory.
This is my OPINION and I am sticking by it. I'm not saying this is a bad
movie. I would even go see it again. All I am saying is that the script
raised too many questions in my mind for me to walk away totally satisfied.
END OF STORY.
geez , I hate to see how upsetyou would get if I criticized Citizen Kane
...
Ali Lemer
>
>Vast numbers of people being confused show evidence only that vast numbers
>of people don't pay enough attention during movies like DEAD. Gail, your
>own questions have been cleared up by Ali Lemer (he corrected your misquotes
No! SHE! I'm a SHE!
>from the dialog), and David DeBry & Michael E. Wolf (pointed out that Roman
>observed the terrace scene, and learned of Frankie's thievery from Margaret).
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Roy Spannbauer :: Bell-Northern Research :: Ottawa, Canada |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh! Hasn't anyone on the net ever heard of the name Alison?! Why do
people always think I'm a guy?! AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!
-- Ali.
P.S. I was afraid that would happen; that's why I mentioned I have a
crush on Kenneth Branagh (I know, I know, that doesn't mean I couldn't
be a gay male, but I was hoping you'd think of a girl first!).
Ali Lemer |
Columbia University | "It's gettin' a little weird around here,
a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu | you know?" -- Laszlo Hollyfeld, REAL GENIUS
John Locke
> geez , I hate to see how upsetyou would get if I criticized Citizen Kane
Chug, chug, chug, chug, chug... :-)
John
Jeff Sullivan
>In article <19...@venera.isi.edu> j...@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>>In article <1991Sep17.2...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
>>
>>[some inconsistencies in POV and knowledge are raised]
>>
>>> Well, there are a few reasons possible:
>>>
>>> A) The dead learn things between lives about the last one, but it
>>> is subverted into the subconscious in the next one (remember, you
>>> learn things from life to life), and can only be drawn out with
>>> hypnosis.
>>
>>
>>Cop out. We're given no evidence of this, so to infer it is to leap
>>outside the parameters set up in the story.
>
>To the contrary: we are INDEED given evidence, in the form of a declaration
>by one of the characters. Cozy Carlisle says, "You learn from one life to use
>in the next." "But what's the use, if we're going to be with different people
>every time," says Grace. "Ah, but you're not," replies Carlisle. "You are with
>the same people every time. Someone burns you in one life, you get a chance
>to burn them in the next....It's the Karmic Credit Plan. Buy now, pay forever."
Nowhere in this speech does it imply that we are given any knowledge
*that we didn't have* in our previous life, simply that we can
remember the information we did have. (Perhaps it helps to use the
"imagination" you accuse me of not having.)
>
>>> B) Margaret, later on, told Roman (after they made up) exactly what
>>> Baker said to her, so he wouldn't doubt her.
>>
>>Possible, but never explained. Has the same problem as A (but lesser).
>
> Does EVERYTHING have to be explained to you? Use your imagination. Or
>don't you have one?
Hmm. How to respond to this? How about this. If it's too tough for
you to understand, try a beginner's cinema course.
A movie sets up a universe where certain of the laws in our own "real"
universe may or may not apply. Some movies set up universes where all
and only our real rules apply.
However, if a movie sets up a universe where some rules that don't (or
are believed not to) apply, then they must establish this fact *in the
movie*. They don't necessarily have to explain it, but they have to
establish it.
This is also true of actions within the movie. While for most plot
holes in most movies (perhaps all of them), I could come up with some
convoluted explanation as to why these things happened, the very fact
that I have to "make excuses" for the film is one that detracts from
my enjoyment of it.
If I am the only one who has a problem with a specific point in a
film, it's no big thing. But if plenty of people have the problem,
then maybe, just maybe, the film is flawed in getting whatever action
they wanted to portray through to the viewer.
You're maing excuses for things that are unexplained. Your excuse is
outside the film, and has no particular merit to another person except
if they believe it. But you seem to have the opinion that if others
aren't satisfied by your excuses that they suffer a lack of
imagination.
>>> C) It's only a film. Branagh's using poetic licence to get the story
>>> rolling.
>>>
>>
>>Major cop out. This is not an explanation. Either it's a screwup
>>(which was the original implication), in which case you're disagreeing
>>by agreeing, or it wasn't, in which case you're not giving a
>>counter-argument.
>>
>
> Sure it's an explanation. Just because it doesn't satisfy YOU doesn't
>mean it's not an explanation.
>
Let me get this straight. You believe that saying "it's only a film"
is an explanation of the logic of the film? Or are you saying that
"poetic license" absolves a filmmaker of having logical consequences
to real-world-like situations without mitigating circumstances?
Roy Spannbauer
> Sheesh! Hasn't anyone on the net ever heard of the name Alison?! Why do
>people always think I'm a guy?! AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
> -- Ali.
My apologies Ali. I just assumed you were Lebanese or something and
that your first name was male, as in Ali Baba.
Sorry again,
Roy