As a book geek, when I think about changes from book to film, I think of what is left out. Like Tom Bombadil in FotR by Jackson, and like the leaving out of anti-school compulsion scenes in Narnia I & II by Disney. Hence this diatribe, which I won't delete, since what I say about school is correct. But let it no longer count as directed against you. You seem to have had a perfetly legitimate point.*
You must have been thinking about the many small changes. At least that could well be the case. If you know the books really well, as you do, and maybe a bit less I do too, some changes are apparent, though they are small. A half blooperish one was the Beavers couple and the three Pevensies getting all that close to the Castle of the White Witch when shouting for Edmund. No, actually, it was not blooperish: it added danger. And it is possible she was not looking because occupied with Edmund. A sweet one was adding the "padding" about WW-2 - the kind of scenes Hollywood excels in anyway. Mrs MacReady was so close to a female Georg von Trapp before he fell in love with Maria Kutschera in the musical. One sentence expanded into five minutes that are to the credit of the script writer. And when books were published so much less explanation about the Blitz was needed than now. And so many moments are faster when shown than when told in words.
I am getting back to the video!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
*I suppose your interview was made before Oh my, what a difference! - Prince Caspian
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est England. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est England. Afficher tous les articles
jeudi 13 octobre 2011
mercredi 10 août 2011
It is easier to smash a shop than to open one ...
Christiania is defending its shops and houses against police evicting and smashing (ok, some of the shops "were on Pusher Street" and so illegal, but those are not all that the police of Denmark smashed there). London young immigrants are doing what police did in Christiania. By doing so, they show that Marxist revolutionary ideologies are indeed evil, though shooting their most innocent and young adherents (with some of their children or younger siblings brought along too) was not a good thing.
Being richer than someone else is, is not a crime. It is a question of how the money was earned, honestly or not.
How many villas were sacked? But the owner might be as easily an owner of a small shop a bit bigger than the next to you as a bad official or a big business dishonest deal maker.
How many kebab or falafel bars were smashed? None or few I presume. How many restaurants and pubs serving alcohols like beer and gin were smashed? And yet both get their money by serving customers what they want to eat and drink.
How many shops selling fresh dates and peppers and halal butchery were sacked? And how many shops selling bacon and pork meat sausages were sacked? And yet both get their money the same way, selling foods and diapers and drinks and matches and toilet paper and sewing equipment. How come the ones serving the English are more culpable than those serving immigrants from Moslem countries? Because richer? That is not more culpable, that is having more customers.
Banks earn their money partly honestly, keeping it for people until they need it, part dishonestly, taking interest. Not all dishonestly. They do other things than just give loans and take interest. Since they give interest, they give an opportunty to those taking it to repay tothe poor impoverished by competition and by paying interest, such repayment having the characteristics of giving alms. Were banks more or less sacked in proportion as they are used by immigrants? Were any banks sacked at all?
Schools do keep a lot of people in adolescent age in studies they do not care about, but they also serve those who want to study - and would be serving them better if those who did not want so were put out of school and into whatever honest apprenticeship available and acceptable to his or her parents. Libraries are free to visit or not to visit. How many libraries were burnt? In France in 2005 there were some!
Police stations keep people usually captive in order to investigate crimes. Psychiatric hospitals keep one murderer a few months, a thief or one who slapped his girl friend a few years and ruin lives of people who never did wrong to a fly - not as if they thaught that a righteous way of dealing with the deeds of people, but because they do not consider people as doers but as sufferers. Were police stations or mental institutions more sacked? How many innocent victims of those were freed by rioters? How many young ones were brought back to their parents after mistreatments by child welfare? Were rioters not more concerned with freeing fellow rioters or people doing time for drugs or even with freeing noone, just hitting bobbies?
I remember a bobby who helped ma and me when sleeping in Dover, second summer she took me to an English speaking country. I might not like what I hear of secret services, but I do not hate bobbies, and I think they might have been worse off tonight.
The riots tonight have not served the freedom from psychiatry and child welfare, not served the freedom from school compulsion and to get to work and marriage early in life, not served the freedom to open small honest shops. They have only served to give a kind of excuse to the Oslo killer, if not for his actions, and choice of the particular victims he took on, at least for the choice of the groups - Marxist and immigrant - where he looked for them.
I was well treated by Muslims this morning, in France. Others have been ill treated by, presumably also Muslims, this night in England. I am not worth more than they. I cannot tell a butcher making bacon and having his shop sacked tonight for a worth of hundreds orthousands of pounds that Muslims are great because they offered me some coffees and some extra euros this morning. If that is the case, if such were the choices of the rebels and burners tonight. Alas, such is my suspicion. Of course, neither will I tell people here that Muslims suck because there were riots over in London: I did not see those of 2005 (was in countryside), and people here will know how bad or tolerable or absent were riots here, and how many of the rioters were Muslims among the rest. People over here know that better than I.
I do not think every immigrant should get a ticket out of Europe, but I think some London immigrants just earned one.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beauvais
St Laurent's day of in the
Year of God's Manhood
Two thousand and eleven.
Being richer than someone else is, is not a crime. It is a question of how the money was earned, honestly or not.
How many villas were sacked? But the owner might be as easily an owner of a small shop a bit bigger than the next to you as a bad official or a big business dishonest deal maker.
How many kebab or falafel bars were smashed? None or few I presume. How many restaurants and pubs serving alcohols like beer and gin were smashed? And yet both get their money by serving customers what they want to eat and drink.
How many shops selling fresh dates and peppers and halal butchery were sacked? And how many shops selling bacon and pork meat sausages were sacked? And yet both get their money the same way, selling foods and diapers and drinks and matches and toilet paper and sewing equipment. How come the ones serving the English are more culpable than those serving immigrants from Moslem countries? Because richer? That is not more culpable, that is having more customers.
Banks earn their money partly honestly, keeping it for people until they need it, part dishonestly, taking interest. Not all dishonestly. They do other things than just give loans and take interest. Since they give interest, they give an opportunty to those taking it to repay tothe poor impoverished by competition and by paying interest, such repayment having the characteristics of giving alms. Were banks more or less sacked in proportion as they are used by immigrants? Were any banks sacked at all?
Schools do keep a lot of people in adolescent age in studies they do not care about, but they also serve those who want to study - and would be serving them better if those who did not want so were put out of school and into whatever honest apprenticeship available and acceptable to his or her parents. Libraries are free to visit or not to visit. How many libraries were burnt? In France in 2005 there were some!
Police stations keep people usually captive in order to investigate crimes. Psychiatric hospitals keep one murderer a few months, a thief or one who slapped his girl friend a few years and ruin lives of people who never did wrong to a fly - not as if they thaught that a righteous way of dealing with the deeds of people, but because they do not consider people as doers but as sufferers. Were police stations or mental institutions more sacked? How many innocent victims of those were freed by rioters? How many young ones were brought back to their parents after mistreatments by child welfare? Were rioters not more concerned with freeing fellow rioters or people doing time for drugs or even with freeing noone, just hitting bobbies?
I remember a bobby who helped ma and me when sleeping in Dover, second summer she took me to an English speaking country. I might not like what I hear of secret services, but I do not hate bobbies, and I think they might have been worse off tonight.
The riots tonight have not served the freedom from psychiatry and child welfare, not served the freedom from school compulsion and to get to work and marriage early in life, not served the freedom to open small honest shops. They have only served to give a kind of excuse to the Oslo killer, if not for his actions, and choice of the particular victims he took on, at least for the choice of the groups - Marxist and immigrant - where he looked for them.
I was well treated by Muslims this morning, in France. Others have been ill treated by, presumably also Muslims, this night in England. I am not worth more than they. I cannot tell a butcher making bacon and having his shop sacked tonight for a worth of hundreds orthousands of pounds that Muslims are great because they offered me some coffees and some extra euros this morning. If that is the case, if such were the choices of the rebels and burners tonight. Alas, such is my suspicion. Of course, neither will I tell people here that Muslims suck because there were riots over in London: I did not see those of 2005 (was in countryside), and people here will know how bad or tolerable or absent were riots here, and how many of the rioters were Muslims among the rest. People over here know that better than I.
I do not think every immigrant should get a ticket out of Europe, but I think some London immigrants just earned one.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beauvais
St Laurent's day of in the
Year of God's Manhood
Two thousand and eleven.
mardi 23 novembre 2010
Debating video "end of monarchies" on FB
Here is the video, short link = http://o-x.fr/k9sn.
Here is one reaction and part of another of a Joe Hargrave, known from blogosphere and from my other blog HGL's FB Writings. With my answers to it. He is of course welcome to continue the debate in comments section over here too.
Joe Hargrave:
"The American experience shows that the end of monarchy isn't necessarily a terrible thing."
But the beginning of American Monarchy was George Washington. To lots of people George III had been King in name only (kino, reminding us of that recent political animal rino), whereas George Washington was a real monarch. As Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan: men who have shaped history by personal determination, on the leading one-man office of the state.
The "end of monarchy" in US as in end of colonial dependence on British monarchy proves as much and as little as the "end of republic" in Morocco as in end of colonial dependence on III or IV or V French Republic. The "British"1 monarchy was ended once in "Britain"1, by a man named Oliver Cromwell.
"Does everyone need to use that same piece of music for their videos?"
It is the politically correct piece of music for death camp pictures. I heard it I think (though that might be a false memory) in school way before the youtube era. Thus it is a reference.
It is however also a bad block on the upload, the "slow" upload on this computer - it is a public library! - stops the video time after time. Probably due to this piece of music.
"You still have the freedom to worship in this country, to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire, where their Christian ancestors had been oppressed for over a thousand years."
I sympathise with your hope of giving Muslims the freedom a Muslim régime would not give your forefathers. Without loosing our freedom as Christians. But I do not quite count on it. Switzerland has banned new minarets. France has banned the complete veil known as burqah. For my part I think Switzerland - at least if it had gone one step further and banned new mosques - had been both strategically more correct and also less intrusive into private life. Either way, France has ten times more Muslims per capita than US, Moslems are more omnipresent here, and people are getting a feeling that if not checked it is them that will check us.
If you like the religious freedom of US, remember it began in Pennsylvania, and that at first it was in practise only about Christian diverse sects, Jews and Freethinkers (whether you class Quakers as Christians or as Freethinkers). Remember also that it started by Royal Privilege from King Charles II. Only way this secret Catholic could get Catholics some religious freedom was by handing it to very left wing protestant sects at same time. Quakers (actually pretty close to nearly Catholic Spanish Alumbrados in a way) were less agressively anti-Catholic than Puritans or even Baptists, which is why religious freedom stems from Philadelphia rather than Plymouth Rock.
"freedom ... to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire"
Might explain your foible for laissez-faire capitalism. In Ottoman Empire the freedom to own a business equalled the freedom to run it any way you like. As it was in England from Reformation and in English colonies from start.
In France before Revolution it implied usually but far from always a contract with a corporation called jurande, according to which you were sworn to keep certain prices, certain wages for the journeymen ("journey"=French "journée"=here="day's work" rather than "day's march"), certain quality, a certain number of apprentices (who were children between 7 and 14, thus schoolboy age, and can be seen as having thus compulsorily lowered productivity), and of course no use of labour-saving machines the other master craftsmen(=employers,businessmen) did not use. It also implied Christian religion, caring for the dead both by burial and by prayers, caring for the old and diseased. Which implied usually that the state did not have to care for them.
Far from always means, that like in France before the Jews were expelled, some lines of business (for Jews never legally limited to only usurious money-lending) could locally be in other hands than that of the jurande. Even afterwards, a free-master not belonging to a jurande might get an exception if he were better serving the public and la jurande not as good as it should. As about France, so the Germanies, especially Catholic parts (Bavarian beer regulation is famous) or Spain./HGL
1"British"=English AND Scottish AND Irish, before United Kingdoms were united in any other union than having same monarch. Dito for "Britain".
Here is one reaction and part of another of a Joe Hargrave, known from blogosphere and from my other blog HGL's FB Writings. With my answers to it. He is of course welcome to continue the debate in comments section over here too.
Joe Hargrave:
Does everyone need to use that same piece of music for their videos?
It ought to be considered that it was the weakness and ineptitude of these monarchies that proved so tempting and easy a target for the Jacobins and Bolsheviks and the others. The American experience shows that the end of monarchy isn't necessarily a terrible thing.
... You still have the freedom to worship in this country, to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire, where their Christian ancestors had been oppressed for over a thousand years. ...
"The American experience shows that the end of monarchy isn't necessarily a terrible thing."
But the beginning of American Monarchy was George Washington. To lots of people George III had been King in name only (kino, reminding us of that recent political animal rino), whereas George Washington was a real monarch. As Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan: men who have shaped history by personal determination, on the leading one-man office of the state.
The "end of monarchy" in US as in end of colonial dependence on British monarchy proves as much and as little as the "end of republic" in Morocco as in end of colonial dependence on III or IV or V French Republic. The "British"1 monarchy was ended once in "Britain"1, by a man named Oliver Cromwell.
"Does everyone need to use that same piece of music for their videos?"
It is the politically correct piece of music for death camp pictures. I heard it I think (though that might be a false memory) in school way before the youtube era. Thus it is a reference.
It is however also a bad block on the upload, the "slow" upload on this computer - it is a public library! - stops the video time after time. Probably due to this piece of music.
"You still have the freedom to worship in this country, to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire, where their Christian ancestors had been oppressed for over a thousand years."
I sympathise with your hope of giving Muslims the freedom a Muslim régime would not give your forefathers. Without loosing our freedom as Christians. But I do not quite count on it. Switzerland has banned new minarets. France has banned the complete veil known as burqah. For my part I think Switzerland - at least if it had gone one step further and banned new mosques - had been both strategically more correct and also less intrusive into private life. Either way, France has ten times more Muslims per capita than US, Moslems are more omnipresent here, and people are getting a feeling that if not checked it is them that will check us.
If you like the religious freedom of US, remember it began in Pennsylvania, and that at first it was in practise only about Christian diverse sects, Jews and Freethinkers (whether you class Quakers as Christians or as Freethinkers). Remember also that it started by Royal Privilege from King Charles II. Only way this secret Catholic could get Catholics some religious freedom was by handing it to very left wing protestant sects at same time. Quakers (actually pretty close to nearly Catholic Spanish Alumbrados in a way) were less agressively anti-Catholic than Puritans or even Baptists, which is why religious freedom stems from Philadelphia rather than Plymouth Rock.
"freedom ... to own a business, to make a life for yourself. My great grandparents fled the Ottoman Empire"
Might explain your foible for laissez-faire capitalism. In Ottoman Empire the freedom to own a business equalled the freedom to run it any way you like. As it was in England from Reformation and in English colonies from start.
In France before Revolution it implied usually but far from always a contract with a corporation called jurande, according to which you were sworn to keep certain prices, certain wages for the journeymen ("journey"=French "journée"=here="day's work" rather than "day's march"), certain quality, a certain number of apprentices (who were children between 7 and 14, thus schoolboy age, and can be seen as having thus compulsorily lowered productivity), and of course no use of labour-saving machines the other master craftsmen(=employers,businessmen) did not use. It also implied Christian religion, caring for the dead both by burial and by prayers, caring for the old and diseased. Which implied usually that the state did not have to care for them.
Far from always means, that like in France before the Jews were expelled, some lines of business (for Jews never legally limited to only usurious money-lending) could locally be in other hands than that of the jurande. Even afterwards, a free-master not belonging to a jurande might get an exception if he were better serving the public and la jurande not as good as it should. As about France, so the Germanies, especially Catholic parts (Bavarian beer regulation is famous) or Spain./HGL
1"British"=English AND Scottish AND Irish, before United Kingdoms were united in any other union than having same monarch. Dito for "Britain".
samedi 20 novembre 2010
All's well that ends well: Ebbsfleet
I read Chesterton's pre-conversion books as much as post-conversion - or more, since there are more of them. Here are other works, more precisely pastoral letters, that go up to a conversion: link to pastoral letters of a man known to Anglicans as bishop of Ebbsfleet.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)