My brother is asking me what was terrible about "What the Bleep Do We Know." My claim is that it is blatant pseudoscience, but I don't actually have the scientific background to back this up.
Man, the more I learn about my brother these days, the more upset I get. I guess it might be time to just stop caring, lest my concern drives me to go into total control freak mode.
well that's why I mentioned suspension of disbelief. Were JCVD to play a female role, it would probably fall on it's face, because he wouldn't have the chops to pull it off. But if a good actor really worked with it and played lady macbeth, it could come off without a hitch, and maybe even make the performance very special.
This is all true, but I feel like there is more to it than the actor in question's skill
like doing that with lady macbeth (in this day and age when female roles are generally played by women) would foreground that character and that performance in a way that may or may not mesh with the rest of the overall goal of the production.
like, okay, one of Welles' most famous productions was Julius Caesar done in modern fascist garb. that's sending a very clear message, it's coming from a very particular point of view. if he at the same time had used an all-child cast, that would send a different signal that might impede reception of the first one.
of course, if that's what someone wanted to do - to have every single casting or costuming decision exist as an overt challenge to its hypothetical audience - that is totes fine. but if someone did that, it would strike me as churlish for a third party to complain that the attention-grabbing element of a production has grabbed an audience's attention.
"he went to school with just 1 kid for 18 years. That kid lived 45 minutes away, so he never got to hang out with him after school. When that kid was 18 he killed himself."
Maaaaaaaaan
Wash on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I thought of a timely joke today but did not have an audience
it was terrible
Elendil on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited December 2010
you know, i'm basically okay with the idea that countries keep some secrets and do some activities in secret.
i think there needs to be sufficient oversight in these endeavors, and there needs to be carefully circumscribed and assiduously policed boundaries and goals. but i don't think a modern nation can function without keeping some cards close to their breast.
maybe it's because i have worked in defense and intelligence most of my life. most secrets are kind of boring, but some are pretty important to keeping us safe.
Alright, this week's confrontation of faith vs. reason with my brother is on again. Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion in which our hero asserts "It's just what I believe and belief does not require evidence," and the antagonist loses precious hours agonizing over the whole thing and eating emotionally.
Silas Brown on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
you know, i'm basically okay with the idea that countries keep some secrets and do some activities in secret.
i think there needs to be sufficient oversight in these endeavors, and there needs to be carefully circumscribed and assiduously policed boundaries and goals. but i don't think a modern nation can function without keeping some cards close to their breast.
maybe it's because i have worked in defense and intelligence most of my life. most secrets are kind of boring, but some are pretty important to keeping us safe.
I am inclined to agree. Personally, the release I'm looking forward to is the next one, which is a bunch of internal Bank of America communications. Supposedly, it's full of unapologetic, unmitigated evil; I hope it brings down the whole fucking company.
It really fucking angers me when people ask me to do things at 4:53. Especially when they know these things take more than 15 minutes to do. Especially when these people got to work later than me despite living within walking distance while my commute takes about 90 minutes. Actually I'm not sure "really fucking angry" quite cuts it.
Also, this recent wikileaks release of the diplomatic stuff was total bullshit. The only good thing to come out of it was the solid gold Daily Show segment about it.
Posts
next step: "we're so indie we don't even have actors"
Old guy's still got it
I dunno Santa Claus roleplay can be pretty fun, especially the stocking stuffer.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"Mister Candy Cane needs a fluffer!"
Thank you, COuscous.
Man, the more I learn about my brother these days, the more upset I get. I guess it might be time to just stop caring, lest my concern drives me to go into total control freak mode.
and just for one person too
I posted in a thread outside of [chat]
in a contentious manner.
I'm afraid
George Lucas. Opposite of indy. Also, rapist of Indy.
AND NOW I BE HATIN' BRAH
Hypocracy 101.
This is all true, but I feel like there is more to it than the actor in question's skill
like doing that with lady macbeth (in this day and age when female roles are generally played by women) would foreground that character and that performance in a way that may or may not mesh with the rest of the overall goal of the production.
like, okay, one of Welles' most famous productions was Julius Caesar done in modern fascist garb. that's sending a very clear message, it's coming from a very particular point of view. if he at the same time had used an all-child cast, that would send a different signal that might impede reception of the first one.
of course, if that's what someone wanted to do - to have every single casting or costuming decision exist as an overt challenge to its hypothetical audience - that is totes fine. but if someone did that, it would strike me as churlish for a third party to complain that the attention-grabbing element of a production has grabbed an audience's attention.
They're just upset that all the hard working white actors can't get roles in Hollywood.
Steam | Twitter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RomPjp3ydek
Possibly. But John Wayne played Ghengis Khan
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaan
"he went to school with just 1 kid for 18 years. That kid lived 45 minutes away, so he never got to hang out with him after school. When that kid was 18 he killed himself."
Maaaaaaaaan
if john wayne's khan was regarded as "signature" it probably was for another reason
That will never happen.
yeah
but he was in blackface so everyone was tricked into thinking he was black, or something
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Malcom X 2: Back From The Dead
Starring Jason Statham
it was terrible
i think there needs to be sufficient oversight in these endeavors, and there needs to be carefully circumscribed and assiduously policed boundaries and goals. but i don't think a modern nation can function without keeping some cards close to their breast.
maybe it's because i have worked in defense and intelligence most of my life. most secrets are kind of boring, but some are pretty important to keeping us safe.
Especially if they cast Dolph Lundgren as Martin Luther King, Jr.
With Simon Pegg as the Ghost of MLK.
tell me the joke
"Passive resistance... MOTHER FUCKERS!"
pleasepaypreacher.net
König is one of my favourite Germanic words.
Theres a thread for this if you want to strawman what I'm saying go ahead and do it htere.
You asked about the original portrayal of Othello and I pointed out how they would put on black face.