Jane Poirot wrote:If not now, there probably will be eventually.
Undoubtedly. According to the Toronto Star, this is going to be a catastrophe on the scale of Katrina. The oil is devastating the Louisiana marshlands, an already fragile ecosystem. Without that marshland, the Louisiana coastline is kaput. This also could have been avoided had there been money invested in a valve control, which was deemed too expensive. Like usual, it was a matter profit before protection.
But yes Jane, if the public is going start caring about this serious matter, now's the time. This is a devastating disaster that is happening right now. People seemed to care plenty about the volcanic eruption because it inconvenienced them.
Know what bugs me? When promos for TV shows preview the up-coming "sweeps" episode with the claim that "nothing will ever be the same"...and then everything goes back to normal with little to no change within two or three episodes.
Anyone who thinks Canadians are meek and mild-mannered has obviously never seen us during Question Period!
Because I know Hamlet too well in my English class, my teacher gave me a copy of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (which I am allowed to keep- great news!) It is delightfully witty, a true intellectual tennis match between audience and actors, with some delightfully funny lines, as you see the events of Hamlet unfold through the eyes of Hamlet's ill-fated friends, who see themselves as far more important in the story than they really are.
The movie, although also very funny, is no match for the play.
I've been forced to revise some of my thoughts on Shakespeare in Love (after having to see it another time). I still dislike it, but I notice now that its main flaws are in direction and acting- Paltrow is horrid, Fiennes is bland, Judi Dench isn't on for long enough, and Geoffrey Rush can't carry the whole thing himself. But I now realize that the script is actually far more clever than I've given it credit for in the past- but the way it is eventually pulled off by the actors and director comes across as more silly than anything. But did we have to suffer through the endless 'romance' scenes between Fiennes and Paltrow? I don't think so.
The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy. ~Ellery Queen At the Scene of the Crime
Well, the movie is called Shakespeare in Love, so the romance scenes seem like they would be important. I haven't actually seen the movie all the way through, but what I saw I wasn't in love with.
Having not seen the scene you are referencing, I can offer some suggestions that may be completely off, but since it's the internet, I can say whatever I want anyway.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the 70s version of Romeo and Juliet, Juliet's bre@sts are shown in bed. What play are they rehearsing? Romeo and Juliet? Perhaps an homage? Perhaps that's a bit too reaching.
Showing Paltrow nude does actually show romantic escalation. If her bre@sts are exposed, there is a comfort level there, a level of intimacy not reached when one covers oneself up. If she were shown with the blanket over her, it might point to some deeper issues. Perhaps she has difficulty really being herself around people. Maybe she hates her body, and wants to cover it post coitus. But if she's more uninhibited, it fits more with the character, who as I recall is a bit more free spirited than the women of the day.
Also, nudity is art. While not everyone may agree with this, the fact is that artists have been depicting nude women for centuries. Why should the film medium be any different? While at times it is not artful, showing a nude woman in bed with her lover is hardly pornographic. It's not bre@sts for the sake of *beep* to get 13 year old boys in the movie.
Also, frankly, , they're just boobs. Women have them. They aren't scary. Well, they aren't all scary. I certainly can't say I would mind seeing Gwyneth Paltrow's.
For someone who has not seen the film, Niteshade, you actually do make pretty good points that are spot-on. Yes they are "rehearsing" (it's a bit complicated) R&J. Paltrow's character is pretty free-spirited for a woman of that day (she did dress up as a guy just to get into the play after all). I would also agree that nudity does not always equal "pornography" and can be put to beautiful use. And yes, they are just bre@sts, something that is perfectly normal for women.
And if I may add another point: Showing a woman in bed with the blankets just below her bre@sts is at least realistic, unlike the conveniently-shaped L-covers you usually see in a movie or TV show post-coitus (you know the ones I mean--the ones where the blankets come up to just below the girl's shoulders but conveniently expose the man's chest for female eye candy ).
Anyone who thinks Canadians are meek and mild-mannered has obviously never seen us during Question Period!
I guess it ends up being a matter of personal taste. I just didn't like it, and think there could've been a better way to show growing romance than perpetual bed scenes.
The two women exchanged the kind of glance women use when no knife is handy. ~Ellery Queen At the Scene of the Crime
Also, fun fact, don't think I've shared it on here, but I moved from main entrance operations to attractions! I working icon attractions at Hollywood Studios! Whoo!!!
).