Last film I saw

eddie wrote:Hunger is not easily borne, and- volatile though I might be on occasions, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person- I'm not going to forgive her for that.

Nobody forgave the evil twin either, but the factory prospered even while people starved. That's why I'm still trying to figure out what killed the manufacturing sector.

^

We're in Bob Dylan territory here:

It's much cheaper down
In the South American towns
Where the miners work almost for nothing

If global events since 2008 have proved nothing else, it's that the present global economic model doesn't work.

eddie wrote:
It's much cheaper down
In the South American towns
Where the miners work almost for nothing

In other words, break the unions and manufacturing should prosper.

And, based on Bob's reasoning (which was also Brecht's), factories should be joyfully humming away in England.

But evidently those factories are not humming. Does that mean that both Bob and Brecht had it all wrong? Is their model the present economic model of which you speak?

^

Crikey! Now you're asking. I'm not an economist, so this is way beyond my field of expertise.

I know enough to be aware that previous attempts to create economic utopia have all ended in tyranny. At the same time, something has to be terribly wrong with a system that rewards CEOs with millions for failure, while at the same time half the world lives on the breadline.

Andy might be able to provide some answers.

pinhedz wrote:In this film, it's her colleagues in her own party that come off the worst. Were they really such whining, vacillating pipsqueaks?

For the most part, the so-called "wets" in Thatcher's first cabinet were old-style 'one nation' MacMillanite conservatives, decent enough people by their own lights and open to compromise. That's why she got rid of them.

eddie wrote:^

Crikey! Now you're asking. I'm not an economist, so this is way beyond my field of expertise.

I know enough to be aware that previous attempts to create economic utopia have all ended in tyranny. At the same time, something has to be terribly wrong with a system that rewards CEOs with millions for failure, while at the same time half the world lives on the breadline.

Andy might be able to provide some answers.

The dilemma is presented very starkly (albeit simplistically) in "The Good Woman of Szechuan."

When the good woman runs the factory, she treats the workers with compassion, and the enterprise goes into debt (Bob would point out that the cost of employee benefits and salaries drives up the price of the products, so oversees producers can make the same products cheaper--tariffs are supposed to alleviate this problem).

Then the evil cousin takes over, oppresses and exploits the workers, and the factory prospers.

I was waiting to see "How is Brecht going to get us out of this?" He then presented his solution just as simplistically as he presented the problem--and what a disappointment it was. He assumed that with collective ownership all human greed would magically disappear.

I just saw this movie about common human folly--all the more depressing for being so realistic:

The mystery and suspense part was not bad, but then it turned into a stinker by getting are righteous and moralistic. The hero does "The Right Thing," which any hollywood writer knows means taking the story to the press.

I just saw Madonna's movie about Wallis and Edward--"W.E." The actress who plays Wallis is so perfect she's indistinguishable from the real Wallis in the newsreels. Bertie comes off as a dithering milquetoast.

But the real main characters are a fictional modern-day researcher (named Wally by her parents after the duchess), and Wally's Russian boyfriend Evgeniy Prokopov, a refugee intellectual and pianist working as a security guard.

Wally sometimes intrudes herself into the flashbacks to Wallis and Edward's time, which always annoys Wallis.

In the Library of Congress recording of this song, Willie McTell explains to Alan Lomax that he composed it in honor of "The redoubtable, the notable Edward Duke of Windsor:"

If you check out the "Memoirs of a Hollywood sex fixer" thread in the Cinema section, it is suggested by the eponymous pimp that the whole "Grand romance" was a sham. She a lesbian and he was gay.

I get it--the reason for the sham was to both cover up Edward's gayness and to help him shed the King job.

But it's much more romantic the way Willie McTell tells it.

Wait a minute--Scotty Bowers says he was #3 in a series of threesomes with Wallis and Edward.

That doesn't sound like their romance was a sham.

Of course the guy is a fabricator anyways.

'Amor, Dolor y Vice Versa'




Storyline
Chelo is an architect, withdrawing from her social life because of realistic dreams she's having of a romance with a strange man. She's convinced the man is real, out there, destined to be with her. She reports a rape to the police, describing the man of her dreams to a sketch artist. The police find a suspect: he's Marcos, a physician. Chelo tells the police this is not the man who raped her, but now she has Marcos in her sights. Her plan for him to fall in love with her is complicated by his having a fiancée. What can Chelo do? Meanwhile, Marcos has violent dreams about an unfamiliar woman. Chronologies overlap, glass breaks. Can a mind lie to itself? Written by <jhailey@hotmail.com>


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032764/








Yeah, this is a good one...