MovieChat Forums > CalvinJarrett > Replies
CalvinJarrett's Replies
This is very insightful, roger1. Thank you. Indeed, this was the role that introduced to Sir Antony Hopkins. I've enjoyed his work ever since (including his role as The Father).
I've actually thought about this, and I am glad you included Saudi Arabia at the end. That's the country I was thinking! Certain Saudis have an unlimited amount of wealth as well as a distrust/hatred of the U.S.. I could see the Saudis viewing Trump as a real commodity/source of state secrets, and whether he is or isn't - they can afford the investment of giving him asylum and an opulent lifestyle.
I didn't necessarily have a problem with the Da'Vine Joy Randolph character (Mary Lamb). My issue was with her accent. It seemed as though she was attempting a some kind of a regional Massachusetts accent, and it just sounded 'off' of fake to me.
I thought it was a good device to show Hunham's progressive nature. He didn't care that Mary was black, a woman, or 'the help.' He expected her to dine with him and the other boys, and he seemed genuinely interested in her as a person, no patronizing at all. I'm sure that was not the norm for New England private school teachers in the early '70's, so it went a long way toward humanizing Hunham. Sure, they could have revealed his heart in other ways through another character(s), but they chose to do so with a black, female cook who lost her son in Vietnam.
Precisely, case in point when Giamatti is responding to Angus's question as to whether he'd ever been with a woman. "A white, hot passion burned in my loins," Giamatti generically replies. And then when neither Angus nor the audience believes him, Giamatti exclaims, "White hot!" as though we should all now think, "I still thought he was a vigrin, but now that he repeated 'White hot,' well, he must have been a stud."
Not fresh out of arguments. I already made my point, and it's been echoed by other members of Moviechat.org. Is your name Charles? I swear everything you say reminds me of an opposing counsel (named Charles) I encountered on a case I litigated few years ago. He was easily the most insufferable person I had ever met - next to you (unless you're one and the same person.)
I agree with you on the "childishly useless' score, JSCC. I've just been f|_|cking with Maxim at this point just to see how voluminous his essay will be at the briefest of comments from me.
Your usage of the words "dismissed" and "denied" makes me think you're judge, MaximRecoil. However, the judges and justices I have met in person speak and write in everyday parlance when they are not on the bench or authoring judicial opinions. In any event, aside from liscarkat, it looks like your having defend your tennis racket theory against multiple other members than me.
" ... maybe cut off their hands and heads." You say that as though it's the easiest, most causal thing in the world.
Shooting fish in a barrel is equally remote to me. I never understood it. For example, you mentioned the fish in the barrel are dead. I never imagined someone shooting at already dead fish.
Nonetheless, your response proves just how obsessed you are with this idea. You've put entirely too much thought into killing birds with tennis rackets. Also, one other thing that occurred to me - the tennis rackets that would have been available to the cast in 1963 were not the same as rackets produced in the '80's and beyond. Do you really think the wooden frame and strings could have held up against birds (as opposed to rubber balls). I think the birds would have broken the strings, and then you'd have nothing with which to bludgeon the other birds. I don't think tennis rackets are a solution for any time if posed with a situation like this, but I especially don't think rackets would have sufficed in 1963.
Instead of using the idiom "shooting fish in a barrel," MaximRecoil, you should replace it with 'like swatting birds with a tennis racket.' After all, it's so obvious; everyone will understand your intent when you say it in everyday life.
SPOILERS for both movies
Except only the last five minutes of Network are devoted to assassinating one person.
The entirety of Capricorn One is devoted to assassinating three.
Wait a minute. Are you talking about Barbra Streisand and James Brolin? Elliott Gould and Barbra Streisand split up in ~ 1969. I believe they officially divorced a couple of years later by the early '70's. Streisand, according to her autobiography, Call me Barbra, recalls seeing James Brolin at a 1983 awards show (her for Yentl, him for Hotel), but they didn't formally meet. She met and started dating Brolin in the late '90's. I think they wed in 2000. So in 1977, she and Elliott were through and she had yet to even meet James Brolin. She was dating and living with John Peters at the time.
So, no, I don't think Elliott Gould regretted making this movie at all. Capricorn One was an excellent installment into the '70's paranoia genre, and Gould played his character admirably.
That sounds like an excuse her agent would have told her to make her feel better.
Since no one else has said it over the past 15 years, don't the names "Jim" and "Cameron" strike any of you as decidedly common, and that it's entirely possible - if not probably - that Jim Cameron of The Silent Partner catering staff and James Cameron of Titanic and Terminator fame are two separate people?
Wow. She was 61 or 62 when she made this movie? She looked great. Most women in their sixties did not look as young as she did in the mid 1970's. What was Max thinking? Well, at least he came to his senses in the end ... hopefully it wasn't too late.
It seems like you are desperately wanting to prove your ability to use a tennis racket as a weapon as well as your ability to sustain multiple peck wounds from birds. I am sure there is a reality TV show these days that could fashion just that scenario and an audience that would like to see you endeavor to do it. I, however, am not interested.
Excuse me, but I think you are using this post as an excuse to brag about your tennis ability at the net. "...I treated it like a volley at the net. It was dead before it hit the floor."
If you and four or five other people were in that situation, even if you were all armed with tennis rackets and strong tennis ability, you'd still be pecked to death. There were just too many birds. It wasn't a single bat. Hundreds of birds now on the defensive due to the swatting of tennis rackets would overpower you and your compadres.
I don't know if this is true. Wasn't The Birds based upon a Daphne du Maurier short story of the same title written a few years earlier? Hitchcock was a fan of du Maurier; I believe Rebecca was written by her and Hitchcock made that into a famous movie with Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine in the 1940's. I think Jamaica Hotel was also a du Maurier. I think he liked her style and found that her writing adapted to his type of filmmaking well. When he read The Birds, he probably thought it would make a good plot in his post-Psycho period.
Sorry, too many leaps in logic for me. You're giving 1970's educational institutions too much credit, Hunham's ability to survive another ten years too much credit, and Angus's ability and willingness to help out an old teacher ten years later. Remember, at the end of the movie, Angus is unaware of the precise sacrifice Hunham made for him so that he would not have to go to military school, and Vietnam. He may never be made aware, and by the early '80's, he may not care much about his high school years, Vietnam, or how close he came to attending military school. He'll be too busy selling junk bonds and mutual funds with the rest of the yuppies of his class and generation.
I think he'd be dead by 1974 from some alcohol related illness or injury.
I guess I waited too long to respond to this post. This thread is as dead as Nancy Greenley.