MovieChat Forums > The Age of Adaline (2015) Discussion > What do you think of the sister refusing...

What do you think of the sister refusing to use cellphones?


Really? Is that going to hurt cellphone companies or the government --- or the military? She seemed too old to be doing something so juvenile. The only one who would ever suffer would be her. So stupid.

Otherwise, I thought it was a good movie. I think Blake Lively is gorgeous. I always have ever since Gossip Girl. I also thought she did a good job portraying an older, wiser woman in a young woman's body. It is a romance movie so you have to be a romantic or mature to enjoy it. I gave it a rating of 8.

I knew before it happened she was going to get hit by a vehicle because she didn't look before turning around. What a jerk that truck driver was not stopping to see if he/she could help, huh? They were not even at fault. I hope they, at least, called the police.

reply

I love Blake too, ever since The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants! She is awesome and I too give this an 8.

Ya, that truck driver who kept going, I couldn't believe it. I take it they did call someone because she was found.

Great movie.

reply

2 reasons: One is that cellphone radiation is not good for the human body. You are basically holding a mini microwave to your head. How much damage it is doing is a subject of debate, but there are plenty of people who don't use cells for health reasons.

Second, the new smart phones are now basically tracking/surveillance device. They can pinpoint your exact location with your cell, and FB just announced they're going to be spying on you by listening to your cellphone microphone. Of course, the NSA tracks every phone call made in the world, records them and stores them on supercomputers in Pine Gap Australia to avoid breaking any US laws.

So, if you are anti-government, not using a cell is justified.

reply

Well, thank you for the information. But there doesn't seem to be any good evidence that cellphone usage causes brain cancer in humans. So, it seems paranoid to avoid the efficiency, effectiveness and convenience just because you are afraid that there is some miniscule and obscure risks. And the sister never said anything about risk. She said it was an anti-government and anti-big business protest.

If you have nothing to hide, who cares if you can be tracked by your cellphone? Many people see that as a benefit. Because if they are ever lost or in need of help, the cell phone would help them be found. Once again, she never complained about loss of privacy. She complained about cellphones fueling unjust and unnecessary war.

But thank you for valid information explaining the motives behind those who would be irrational and paranoid. Kind of proved my point, huh? She was a ridiculous moron for taking such a stance.


reply

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." --E. Snowden


Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you.

Nothing to hide? Fine. So you're okay with having your identity stolen and used for ill purposes, right? You're okay with being the fall guy, right?

Its a slippery slope.


I can't hear you over the volume of my hair.

reply

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." --E. Snowden

But I have something to say. So, that is a right (free speech) I care not to give up.

Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you.

But cell phones are useful to me. So, to everyone except the most extreme lunatic, the benefits outweigh the imagined consequences.  

Nothing to hide? Fine. So you're okay with having your identity stolen and used for ill purposes, right? You're okay with being the fall guy, right?

There are ways to protect oneself from being a victim of stolen identity. So, going back to the age of bird calls and signal fires seems a tad bit over reactionary.

Its a slippery slope.

Most things are a slippery slope. Very few things are black and white. Most things are a shade of grey. To the sophisticated man and woman, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I draw the line of too dangerous way after cell phone use.



reply


But I have something to say. So, that is a right (free speech) I care not to give up.

Debatable. But I'd fight for your right to say it-see this is just (YOU) my cell phone rights be damned versus I need my cell phone and have it remain protected by my right to privacy and my right that protects me against unreasonable search and seizure.

Well I believe in the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments particularly the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime.
And its not even the point that anything you do is illegal - things you do can be captured to use and leverage you particularly if you are in a position with any power.

The Founders were concerned about the rights of the people to be secure in their property and daily activities living without intrusive governmental intrusions. So they put in a warrant requirement before the government spies on you. So if the government can track you using your daily routine then they will do so. I am more than willing to bet that if a law enforcement agent followed you around for a few weeks you could be charged with numerous traffic infractions , at least 3 misdemeanors and quite possibly at least one felony for actions you regularly participate in. And the men and women doing it are human after all and for the most part the work they do is boring as hell. So when they catch you doing something stupid or scandalous or possibly suspicious they will share that information with other law enforcement - either because it might lead to a criminal investigation or because it is amusing.
Cops do it now.
Cops have image sensing equipment which is amazingly detailed. They can point it at the side of your house and see you walking around inside. The images are highly sensitive so they can see you for example sitting on the toilet or having sex. Those cell phone signals at issue here can tell an analyst if you are cheating on your wife, are being treated for a specific medical issue or any other a number of personal details you might not wish to broadcast to the public simply because it is your personal life.
And now since I have veered off the original topic just responding to the natural flow of the thread I am done with this. The movie if I am being generous was a "4" (and I am aware its subjective -my 14 year old self would have loved it) so I can't believe I spent this much time on it already.

I can't hear you over the volume of my hair.

reply

Debatable. But I'd fight for your right to say it-see this is just (YOU) my cell phone rights be damned versus I need my cell phone and have it remain protected by my right to privacy and my right that protects me against unreasonable search and seizure. 

Well I believe in the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments particularly the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. 
And its not even the point that anything you do is illegal - things you do can be captured to use and leverage you particularly if you are in a position with any power. 

The Founders were concerned about the rights of the people to be secure in their property and daily activities living without intrusive governmental intrusions. So they put in a warrant requirement before the government spies on you. So if the government can track you using your daily routine then they will do so. I am more than willing to bet that if a law enforcement agent followed you around for a few weeks you could be charged with numerous traffic infractions , at least 3 misdemeanors and quite possibly at least one felony for actions you regularly participate in. And the men and women doing it are human after all and for the most part the work they do is boring as hell. So when they catch you doing something stupid or scandalous or possibly suspicious they will share that information with other law enforcement - either because it might lead to a criminal investigation or because it is amusing. 
Cops do it now. 
Cops have image sensing equipment which is amazingly detailed. They can point it at the side of your house and see you walking around inside. The images are highly sensitive so they can see you for example sitting on the toilet or having sex. Those cell phone signals at issue here can tell an analyst if you are cheating on your wife, are being treated for a specific medical issue or any other a number of personal details you might not wish to broadcast to the public simply because it is your personal life.

Do you realize how paranoid most of this is?

In the U.S. majority rules. Most people feel the benefits of having a cell phone far outweigh the risks of having a "Big Brother" governmental intrusion on one's life. Because most people are sane and not paranoid.

If a "Big Brother" type intrusion ever did occur, the governmental agency would be fully aware of its going to far. To this day, law enforcement is constantly hampered by judges who throw out incriminating evidence against obviously guilty criminals because its obtainment treaded dangerously close to privacy infringement. So, for now, your fears are not at risk.

You say they are doing it now. Well, how come I have not been harassed by law enforcement? Maybe they have more pressing things to do than harass a law abiding citizen?

Everybody goes to the bathroom and has sex. So what if some perverted law enforcement official wants to watch me do those things? That is not my problem. And what is so special about the way I go to the bathroom and have sex that anyone would want to focus on my activities? Do see how paranoid this is?

Adultery is wrong. Although it is not illegal. If anyone is committing adultery, they are asking for consequences. Not to mention probably hurting others, some who are completely innocent. Anybody so stupid not to realize that adultery is consequential is too stupid to avoid obvious cause and effect results. Nobody will ever be charged with adultery because it is not illegal. So they don't have to worry about that consequence. But, if they are risking other consequences, they shouldn't be doing it. Because with or without modern technology, they were always at risk of being caught.

So, if you think adultery is not wrong, regardless of your moral persuasion, history indicates otherwise. Don't cry about modern technology just because it hampers your ability to do wrong. You shouldn't be doing wrong in the first place.

I will support any fear of a risk of modern technology that infringes on the rights of others. But committing adultery was never a right.

Otherwise, society and the law is trying to figure out how to prevent privacy infringement through modern technology. Any law enforcement official who was caught spying on law abiding citizens for his own perverted entertainment would be guilty in the eyes of society, his profession and maybe already the law. So, his or her consequences would already be great.

Anybody who rails against privacy infringement brings logical suspicion upon themselves as being someone who is doing wrong and doesn't want to get found out. And/or someone who wants to do wrong and doesn't want to be found out. Otherwise it is just crazy, loony paranoia.



reply

If you live in the US I highly recommend you watch 60 minutes tonight 4/17/16 CBS @ 7pm EST although your naivete is refreshing its just not how the world works anymore.

I can't hear you over the volume of my hair.

reply

The health reason was never proven correct. As for 2nd reason I can understand people who refuse to use phones because of this, which is why I found reason mentioned by his sister stupid, something like boycott because they share also something with some oil companies crap. Not sure why they came up with such stupid reason, if she would just say she doesn't like to be reachable all the time or distracted by notifications and other stuff or heck even your paranoid reason I would buy it, but they came with some stupid ecological reasons which are way too far stretched even for hipsters not to use mobile phones.

The best - Fight Club, American Beauty & Falling Down.

reply

[deleted]

That's also not including that some people have a moral dilemma with the where/how cellphones are actually made and might consider that they may not want to support such labor practices.
It is going to make you seem weird to society at large but I have a certain respect for people who understand that their purchase choices can make a difference.
Unfortunately, when it comes to most things, not enough other people are going to support the cause and numbers is what will really make difference to the big companies.
You need 100s of people, or more, to participate in these kinds of 'protests' in order to create a big change.
However, it's still honorable to do be only 1 of a few. At least you are being true to yourself and that's pretty important. Even if everyone else does think you're a loon.

reply

What was the purpose of the sister character? Was her "activism" intended as political "messaging" of some kind (yes folks, filmmakers do it all the time)? Or, was the comment that she "went to Berkeley" meant to poke fun of the indoctrination that occurs at universities, something of which Adaline's is too experienced and wise to fall for?

I have never seen Lively in anything. I agree, she's lovely.

reply

I don't think the sister's character had any agenda behind it. It was just your standard "kooky hippie" character, and a relatively mild version at that. And UC Berkeley is known for its hippie culture. It was ground zero for the hippie movement in the 1960s and '70s. It may be a stereotype, but from all reports I've heard it's grounded in reality.

http://www.movoto.com/guide/berkeley-ca/berkeley-stereotypes/

Know your history!

Honestly, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of Adaline's reaction to Kikki. I'd be fascinated to know what a 107-year old woman's thoughts on that culture would be!

reply

Ain?? Its just a movie. The characters are fictional. Calm down woman!

reply

You might agree with the extent of it or not, but there is definitely a link between cell phones and civil war, because of rare minerals used in those phones. She mentions nothing about health or tracking, so no need to get either upset or defensive of it... then again, some people want to use every single opportunity I guess to show they know it all best...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-your-cell-phone-helping-to-fund-a-civil-war-7654/?no-ist

reply

...Sure it's 'Big Brother', but unless you're a CRIMINAL or doing something IMMORAL, why should you care that your whereabouts are tracked? That information is only useful to anybody if you're a CRIMINAL.


I'm sorry, but I disagree with that false assertion. Who is it that make the rules that define whether you're a "criminal" or doing something "immoral"? Usually it's the government! So as you admitted, it's very "Big Brother"-ish indeed and wasn't Orwell's intent to warn us about that kind of society not hold it up as some kind of an ideal?! So while we're all "sleepwalking" through our lives the government is increasingly using technology against us turning the country into "One nation under CCTV" and presuming we're all "guilty until proven innocent" (e.g. speed and traffic light cameras, etc.) And as the ongoing case between Apple and the FBI demonstrates we are within our rights to be concerned over increasing government and now corporate surveillance and intrusion into our private lives. I'm not guilty of criminal behavior so why should my right to privacy be infringed? I'm not even suspected of committing a crime so why should my movements be tracked and traced? It's incredible that we're heading towards a "Brave New World" where no privacy will be left and if, heaven forbid, TPTB decree you an "enemy of the State" on account of whatever rhyme or reason they propose (e.g. color of your skin, the God you worship, the political party you voted for, the comment you posted on Facebook, the purchase you made at the local mall, the people you associate with, or how much cash you have on hand, etc.) what recourse will you have when none will be left?

reply

[deleted]

And so a little debate has formed about the sister's beliefs. This was my point.

I don't exactly know why this is, but many in the ticket-buying public are quick to deny that filmmakers include messages and content in their films that have absolutely nothing to do with story and everything to do with their own personal & political agendas. In a way, it must seem rather easy from a filmmaker perspective to manipulate because much of the audience doesn't (or won't) ask questions and are completely unsuspecting and therefore impressionable/malleable. I'm always reminded of "Jerry Maguire." There's a scene where one of the characters makes a joke about Clarence Thomas. It's strange because it seems to just come out of nowhere. Much of the time, films are far more subtle with these types of messages.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a right to do it. I'm just saying that it is, right or wrong. As audience members, we also have the right to discuss whether or not this type of expression works in any given instance. We should be asking ourselves "why?"

reply

The public makes the rules that define what is criminal dakowill. They elect the law makers and the law makers represent the public.

If members of the public are sleep walking through their lives --- and not paying attention --- they have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of responsibility.

Nobody is guilty until proven innocent.

The courts got it right. Apple does not have to develop a back door. The consequences are too great to the public.

If you are so paranoid that you are threatened by cell phones, don't use them. You can be stupid just like the sister in this movie. Many privacy crazies go out of their way to hide. Just be like them.


reply

The public makes the rules that define what is criminal dakowill. They elect the law makers and the law makers represent the public.

If members of the public are sleep walking through their lives --- and not paying attention --- they have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of responsibility.

Nobody is guilty until proven innocent.


I understand and respect your point and in an "ideal" world I'd agree with you, but unfortunately with minority and other lobby groups bribing lawmakers nowadays to get their way even at the cost of common sense and morality I'm inclined to believe we're reaching a state (if we're not in it already!) where most of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and their values are not being adequately represented by their so-called "representatives." And this is just one reason I find myself increasingly choosing to freely abstain from voting come election time.

The courts got it right. Apple does not have to develop a back door. The consequences are too great to the public.


Agree with you here. It's a rare occasion the courts get it right especially when it comes to increased surveillance over society by "federal" authorities and the infringement of our privacy and individual rights.

If you are so paranoid that you are threatened by cell phones, don't use them. You can be stupid just like the sister in this movie. Many privacy crazies go out of their way to hide. Just be like them.


I didn't say I was being threatened by cell phones. The threat we as a free society face comes from faceless bureaucracies and ruthless corporations who use the technical and legal means to assert their "rights" over the people's God-given, inalienable rights. If this makes people like me, a concerned citizen, described as "paranoid" or "stupid" or whatever insult you want to label me with so be it. It's a double standard imo though.

reply

I understand and respect your point and in an "ideal" world I'd agree with you, but unfortunately with minority and other lobby groups bribing lawmakers nowadays to get their way even at the cost of common sense and morality I'm inclined to believe we're reaching a state (if we're not in it already!) where most of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and their values are not being adequately represented by their so-called "representatives." And this is just one reason I find myself increasingly choosing to freely abstain from voting come election time

In an ideal world, the voters and taxpayers would pay attention to the governments that represent them. And the lobbyist would always take second place to the voters.

But, unfortunately, in the real world, we have too many citizens following the Kardashians, The Bachelor and The Real Housewives of Wherever instead of paying attention to what is really important.

I have my own business. If I hire employees and leave for thirty years. Only to come back and say, "What the Hell is going on?" I have only myself to blame for whatever foolishness has occurred.

Too many citizens are not paying attention for whatever reason. That is why the politicians and lobbyists are able to run amuck. Don't blame the system. Blame the citizens. And if you don't vote --- blame yourself !!!

The politicians care more about votes than they do about money. And we pay them enough already.

I didn't say I was being threatened by cell phones. The threat we as a free society face comes from faceless bureaucracies and ruthless corporations who use the technical and legal means to assert their "rights" over the people's God-given, inalienable rights. If this makes people like me, a concerned citizen, described as "paranoid" or "stupid" or whatever insult you want to label me with so be it. It's a double standard imo though.

I don't want to insult you. I want to inform you. Once again, is it our responsibility to be vigilant. We can't always just sit back and hope everything works out. We have a responsibility.

Faceless bureaucracies and corporations are only taking the liberties we give them through negligence. They can't do anything if we don't let them. We, the citizens and voters, have power in numbers. If we pay attention and stand up against anyone who wants to infringe on our liberties and freedoms, they won't have a chance.



reply

...But, unfortunately, in the real world, we have too many citizens following the Kardashians, The Bachelor and The Real Housewives of Wherever instead of paying attention to what is really important.


LOL! So true!

...Too many citizens are not paying attention for whatever reason. That is why the politicians and lobbyists are able to run amuck. Don't blame the system. Blame the citizens.


I reckon a lot of people fail to pay heed nowadays is because of the stress of their daily lives. It's not like yesteryear when a man could support himself, his stay-at-home wife and his growing family all on one income, and afford to buy a home to suit, car, go on annual holidays, etc. Nowadays one income is barely enough to support one person let alone an entire family!

And if you don't vote --- blame yourself !!!


Re my right to vote I choose to not vote primarily because of my religious and philosophical convictions i.e. I'm a Christian so I feel my beliefs and values are increasingly under attack and under-represented by those put forward by TPTB to "represent" me. If there was a suitable candidate that I feel did adequately represent my values I'd be more than willing to vote for him or her. And another reason for my abstention is I don't want to have a guilty conscience (which I've experienced in the past when I have made the poor choice of voting someone who was later to be revealed to be of questionable character) and vote for "the lesser of two evils" or "the evil of two lessers" who promise the voters heaven and earth, but once elected renege on their campaign promises even to the extent of lying about what they said or meant all just to appease their own party faithful and tow the party line.

The politicians care more about votes than they do about money. And we pay them enough already.


LOL! Yeah on the election campaign their sole concern is how to get as much votes from the people as they can until they're elected to office; and once in their main concern switches to how to get as much money from the people as they can to make a comfortable living for themselves in retirement! I know I might come across as a cynic when it comes to "our" representatives, but that's cos I've lived long enough to see "there's nothing new under the sun."

I don't want to insult you. I want to inform you. Once again, is it our responsibility to be vigilant. We can't always just sit back and hope everything works out. We have a responsibility.

Faceless bureaucracies and corporations are only taking the liberties we give them through negligence. They can't do anything if we don't let them. We, the citizens and voters, have power in numbers. If we pay attention and stand up against anyone who wants to infringe on our liberties and freedoms, they won't have a chance.


True, but I feel our society has grown so apathetic of late that I feel our ancestors would've not tolerated half as much as what our generation sadly do...and so we have problems that are growing endemic to the point of paralysis and no one is bold enough to stand up and say, "Enough of this madness!" Instead we perpetuate it tweaking it a little here and there, but in essence nothing changes and most throw their hands up in the air and give up if they try to change the system from within because it's all too hard so they end up following the mantra, "If you can't beat 'em join 'em!" And this just makes the problems for the next generation doubly worse...

reply

I reckon a lot of people fail to pay heed nowadays is because of the stress of their daily lives. It's not like yesteryear when a man could support himself, his stay-at-home wife and his growing family all on one income, and afford to buy a home to suit, car, go on annual holidays, etc. Nowadays one income is barely enough to support one person let alone an entire family!

That is a pathetic excuse. It is indicative of how little importance is placed on appreciation of history. Most people today are soft, whining babies. They look back twenty years and they think they know everything. Go back 50, 100, 500, 1,000, 4,000 years. Life is better and easier now than it has ever been for humans. Especially in first world countries.
They cry with their cell phones, smart pads, computers, air conditioning, grocery stores, 24 hour convenient stores, privately owned cars, 24 hour police, fire and medical services --- about how hard life is. I just want to punch them in the face. These weenies wouldn't last one week --- in the year 1900 --- much less farther back in history.

Re my right to vote I choose to not vote primarily because of my religious and philosophical convictions i.e. I'm a Christian so I feel my beliefs and values are increasingly under attack and under-represented by those put forward by TPTB to "represent" me. If there was a suitable candidate that I feel did adequately represent my values I'd be more than willing to vote for him or her. And another reason for my abstention is I don't want to have a guilty conscience (which I've experienced in the past when I have made the poor choice of voting someone who was later to be revealed to be of questionable character) and vote for "the lesser of two evils" or "the evil of two lessers" who promise the voters heaven and earth, but once elected renege on their campaign promises even to the extent of lying about what they said or meant all just to appease their own party faithful and tow the party line.

I am a Christian also. A devout one. But, if you live in the USA, you should know we have separation of church and state. My religious beliefs are separate from my civil responsibilities and obligations.
The first European pioneers risked and lost their lives coming to America because they were trying to escape the Church of England. The Church of England "was" the law in 16th century England. People were persecuted, arrested, imprisoned and executed for being "suspected" of not believing what the Church of England demanded everyone believe. They wanted freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That is why the Constitution says there shall be no state religion. We don't live in a theocratic oligarchy like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.
My religious beliefs are very important to me. But they have no place in politics or law. So, as long as a politician is in favor of equal rights and individual freedom, I am happy.
If you want to force your religious values on other Americans, you are in the wrong country. Religion is a private matter. To be decided on by each individual. Not a requirement forced on citizens by a religious power.

LOL! Yeah on the election campaign their sole concern is how to get as much votes from the people as they can until they're elected to office; and once in their main concern switches to how to get as much money from the people as they can to make a comfortable living for themselves in retirement! I know I might come across as a cynic when it comes to "our" representatives, but that's cos I've lived long enough to see "there's nothing new under the sun."

Well, the public collectively has more money and political power than any corporation or special interest group. And to be honest, those corporations and special interest groups are comprised of individuals who have private citizen concerns. So, the corporations, special interest groups and lobbyists have no chance against a united public.

True, but I feel our society has grown so apathetic of late that I feel our ancestors would've not tolerated half as much as what our generation sadly do...and so we have problems that are growing endemic to the point of paralysis and no one is bold enough to stand up and say, "Enough of this madness!" Instead we perpetuate it tweaking it a little here and there, but in essence nothing changes and most throw their hands up in the air and give up if they try to change the system from within because it's all too hard so they end up following the mantra, "If you can't beat 'em join 'em!" And this just makes the problems for the next generation doubly worse...

Well, like I said before, if society has grown so apathetic, irresponsible and disconnected that they allow this country to go down the toilet, they have no one to blame but themselves.
As a Christian, when I die, God is going to judge me based on my life. Not on the lives of a bunch of apathetic, irresponsible disconnected Americans. So, I don't worry about things I am not responsible for.



reply