SansFin

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > The French tend to trust that the audience already knows right from wrong and are therefore more free to illustrate the evil inherent in bodies of power without throwing in the sop of an audience-comforting condemnation and punishment as a matter of course. I read many years ago that there was an average of seven crimes committed by Superman in every episode of the American television series Superman They ranged from destruction of personal property to trespassing to violation of suspects' civil rights. We find such things acceptable because of implicit morality of fighting crime by any means. I believe this movie focuses on the effect on a person in the position of committing immoral acts for the sake of the greater good.

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} > It strikes me as extremely far-fetched that any non-totalitarian government ever would have risked such an outcome on the reaction of a trainee acting alone with no immediate backup. There is a saying: some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them. I believe such sentiment can be restated as: some people are alive only because they are not worth the trouble to kill them. I can readily believe there are people which a government wants dead but they are not so important as to warrant a full-scale operation. Such targets would be prime for testing of a recruit. The known presence of more security which would rush in if there was trouble would assure that her death would result of her failure. The local authorities could then create a convenient fiction re her identity as she had been made a non-person many years earlier. The lack of any additional agency personnel at the scene would support the fiction that she was acting of personal motives or as an operative of a foreign government which was not able to insert a support team into that country. > Or the fact that the objects of her campaigns were only vaguely identified, with no names given of either countries or companies. I see the filmmaker's sense in that. To establish identities would quickly date the movie because alliances between countries often change quickly with little or no warning. It would polarize the audience also because they may have increased enmity towards the character if she had been taking out a representative of a government they support or the audience may lose the sense of repulsion if a vile act is perpetrated against a government which they hate. I believe this movie is so very much about her that the nature of her targets was immaterial. It spoke highly of her inner self that she saw them as people and their politics were not of her concern.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > this is one of the few movies I actively hate. It is a very intense movie and it is the nature of intensity that it polarizes like or dislike into love or hate. I believe the world would be very terribly boring if all people had the same tastes and perspectives. I am glad that you watched it with no preconceptions of the genre. I am sorry it did not please you as I know very well the sense of loss when I find a movie is very unlike what I want or expect. > I find it morally reprehensible I believe that one of the reasons I like it so very much is that it displays things which are vile and does not try to justify them or moralize against them. It presents things as: "this is what it is" and it treats the watcher as an adult to determine whether it is a thing to support or revile. Edited by: SansFin on Mar 31, 2013 2:51 AM

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > What's "good" for the LOBSTER is good for the LAB! A study in I believe it was 1987 was conducted wherein they attached an EEG to lobsters prior to cooking. The study showed three results: 1) A lobster dropped into boiling water exhibited the same response as to a flash of bright light and death occurred with no obvious pain response. 2) A lobster in water which was brought slowly to boiling exhibited a gradual loss of function with no obvious pain response. 3) Modern electronics do not respond well to boiling water and more circuit boards than lobsters died in the experiments.

> {quote:title=casablancalover2 wrote:}{quote} > Perfect, SansFin, perfect. I thank you for your kind words. I do what I can. I do what I can.

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote} > It's these foreign films with the subtitles that TCM likes to show so much. I believe subtitles are for those people who wish to expand their experience, enjoyment and understanding but who do not wish to bother to learn the major languages.

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote} > If this was my dog Lily those poor chickies wouldn't have a chance. That video is so very precious! I thank you for posting it!

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote} > Rossellini's film was based in the 17th Century and when these sorts of practices were commonplace. A Short History of Medicine: "I am sick. What should I do?" 1000 BC: "Eat this root" AD 1000: "That root is heathen. Say this prayer." AD 1500: "That prayer is superstition. Drink this elixir." AD 1900: "That elixir is snake oil. Take this pill." AD 1970: "That pill is ineffective. Take this antibiotic." AD 2000: "That antibiotic is artificial. Eat this root."

I wish very much that I did not have a life which prevents my watching TCM all day this Saturday! I would tune out only the movies as 6:00 AM, 1:15 PM and 3:30 AM and afterwards. The entire remainder of the day is very wonderful.

I would prefer the Ronald Colman versions of the movies: *Raffles* and *The Prisoner of Zenda* and *Kismet* than the: Niven, Granger and Keel remakes.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > I was this close to making a post about being a world-travelled, ex-military, weapons-trained, psych-med experienced woman from eastern Europe possibly having a more realistic perspective regarding what's believable or not about such a movie as this. You make me sound so formidable that I must thank you for making me laugh! I am world-traveled only by being aide or support staff for doctors at conferences and talks. The travels of my own choosing were brief visits nearly always in Europe and I doubt that I spent more than ten or twelve days each year away from home during those. They were done also on nearly no money so I am far from being in jet-setting crowd. I went into the military because it was the best option for continuous employment and ex-service receive best jobs. I spent more time in school and receiving training than I spent doing actual work there. It was there I became a nurse but most of my duties were secretarial or clerical. Learning to use weapons is standard part of our equivalent of your Girl and Boy Scouts. It is not modest to say so but I had a natural talent for marksmanship and was exemplary. I am best only with my rifle. I am ordinary with pistols and other rifles. I know of psychology as part of being a nurse because the state of a mind is many times as important as somatic condition. These were all ordinary things and many here have backgrounds which are much richer in significance and import. My background affects my perspective re: her test in the movie because of my first experience with military determinations. My initial training included several exercises and tests in marksmanship. Some who were not as skilled as I was or who were not as consistent as I was were promoted to active units when I was not. I have never known what in those exercises and tests revealed I was not suited to be in areas of conflict even although my psychological examinations showed no such restrictions. Learning that tests are not at all times for the things they seem to be for was important to me. > Then I thought - nah, she can speak better about it than I. > And you do. I thank you for your kind words. English has been difficult for me because I did not use it for so very many years. It is likely I would have lost it completely if I did not so much love American movies!

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote} > I'm so touched everyone is concerned about me headache(s)- I believe it is natural for any person who has suffered headaches to sympathize greatly with other sufferers. They are pain on a very personal level. I believe that none of the modern NSAIDs are as truly effective as old-fashioned aspirin. The effects of aspirin are boosted by intake of caffeine. It should be in a cold drink rather than a hot drink. Two cans of Coca-Cola and two aspirin are the strongest non-prescription relief available. I believe it also does some good to add a generous quantity of rum to the Coca-Cola. I can not speak to its medicinal effects but it gives me a better attitude with which to manage the discomfort.

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} > The only scene in a film I can recall comparable to this was the famous initiation of Ali la Pointe in The Battle of Algiers, I would not compare it to any movie scene. I would compare it to what is done in real-world situations. I can speak only of military training that it often happens that it is not obvious always what is being tested. > some sort of a hothouse "test", the sole purpose of which is to test Nikita's reaction. I see many things which it tested: 1) It tested her ability to kill. The only time she killed prior to that was when she was drug-addled. There was confidence in her ability to do so but there was no proof and they needed proof before sending her on a mission critical and involving support personnel. 2) It tested her ability to stay calm and follow instructions. I have seen many times a person who is a good marksman freeze up when they shoot their first animal on a hunt. Such would be disaster in a mission which involves support personnel. I believe there is no way to know in advance how a person will act or react until they are in that situation. 3) It tested her ability to adapt to conditions at hand. I believe she failed part of this part of the test when she was stricken to find the expected exit blocked. That is when her horror at what she had done and her rage at the plan failing took their toll and caused her to delay her escape. The delay there provided time for the security forces to reach her. She clearly would have been out of the building before being seen if that had not happened. 4) It tested her loyalty in that she could have left. That she choose to return to the training center demonstrated that she knew she was part of the group. > the problem is that this "test" leaves many dead guinea pigs. I have watched that part again several times in the belief that I had missed the cause of your statement. I do not see it. The VIP and his bodyguard died. Two other members of the security force were killed and one was wounded. I see no "guinea pigs" being injured. All innocent civilians escaped uninjured. That is a far better outcome than what often occurs during such actions in real-life. > Problem is that this begs the question of why the government would risk having a sting operation like this fall completely apart in order to test a lone woman. I do not understand the concept of how this was a "sting operation". The first engagement with the target was there and then and no person hid their identity or carried out a ruse. > IMO the entire scene strains all credulity, to say the least, as does the entire movie, It saddens me that your preconceptions tainted the movie so badly for you. Perhaps you can set it aside for a period of time and come back to it and find it more believable when you know more of the world.

I believe that Celtic or Irish influences are strong in this music:

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} > the whole scene, dream or not, is just insanely ridiculous. It is unfortunate that you feel that way. I found it to be realistic and it played to character. Collateral deaths are common in assassinations. It is rare to have so many die at the scene but that speaks to her character. Most assassins quickly run away the moment their task is finished because they are afraid of capture. She was so very horrified by what she was doing that she was unable to be scared. It took her an exceptionally long time to recover normal ideation. The delay and her hysteria accommodated and necessitated the secondary shootings. I would compare it in collateral damage with the attempt to assassinate Shapor Bakhtiar in I believe it was 1980. They killed a woman who was in no manner related to him and an officer and they seriously wounded four other people. The result overall is that three skilled assassins put six people on the ground before they entered the front door.

It is in movies of many genres in which a character will say: "It is every man for himself! No. Wait. I am in trouble. Help!"

I will miss the: Headlines feature on Monday nights. It is sad to say that it is true also that I often did miss it as the program begins at a time which is inconvenient and I would have to remember to change to it at the proper moment and that was rare to happen. I like Jay Leno but I do not like him so well as to suffer the trouble of changing to his program in the middle of an other program.

> {quote:title=twinkeee wrote:}{quote} > I still can't bring up TCM's schedule ! I can not go to it from the forum pages. I can go to it from www.tcm.com. I do not know why.

> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote} > Will you be grooving to GUN CRAZY as well? That's my fave of the night, but this one is groovy too! I am sad to say that I do not know that movie and the DVR is in a process and it will not be free until late tonight. I hope you will highlight it when it comes onto the schedule in the future.

I hope to remind all that this wonderful movie is scheduled to air tonight. I hope you will please to check the schedule for the time in your area.

I do indeed groove hipoliciously with the Saturday morning movies. I live very much the series and the tenor of the other movies they have been airing. I thank you very much for highlighting so many interesting movies even although you did not note that which I consider the high point of the month of Saturday night / early Sunday morning.

I hope that all here will watch *La Femme Nikita* (1990) on tomorrow night. I fear that many may reject watching it because of its genre. It rises above its genre and it is a story of transformation and redemption. It stars Anne Parillaud and she won several major awards for her performance. I have made a separate thread on the main board for it: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=168761&tstart=15 It is distress for me when I know of a wonderful movie and then a person will say: "I do not watch movies like that".

> {quote:title=casablancalover2 wrote:}{quote} > Doll culture squared here with Hollywood: > http://missgenemarshall.blogspot.com/2010_06_01_archive.html > There is also photography of a doll recreating Meet Me in St Louis (scroll down halfway) . That site is precious! I am not by nature a real gambler but I'll lay you a C at 20-1 he ain't got a girlfriend.

Movies have always been part of me. My mother would leave me with my uncle while she worked. He had a highchair for me next to the projector in his theater. I have been told that I would be perfectly still while any movie played even although I was so very young I could not understand what was being said. I quickly learned that the word 'Fin' on the screen meant the movie was ending and I would begin to fuss. It was a family joke that I could read French before I could speak. I never made a distinction between current movies and older movies. I love what I love and I like what I like and I do not like that which I do not like and it does not matter in which year or country or style in which movie was made.