Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread


Recommended Posts

Jackie says to the Grey Dude (Re: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex) wow.... you LIKED it? It's INCONCEIVABLE!

 

To which the Grey Dude replies: I really liked it!  It's such a great relationship film.  I thought it was great to see two people so madly in love with each other but whose pride always got in the way.  It's amazing what can get in the way of great love.

 

As Rohanaka interrupts:  You keep using that word.. I do not think it means what you think it  means. 

 

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and yes, folks.. I DID borrow that line from a different movie.. which I DOUBT the Grey Dude has seen.. but Jackie.. have YOU seen it??) :D  But if you do know the reference for that movie quote.. I am using it in response to the word "love" rather than the word "inconceivable" this time. ha. Because.. I tried watching this movie tonight (will explain the word "try" in a moment) and all I can say about the "love" part is... "bah"   :rolleyes:

 

In fact, I did not see much love at all in what those two had to say to one another (or in how they treated one another.) Ok, yes.. there were a few good moments.. but they passed pretty quickly. I think they desired each other.. and I think they might have even had some form of affection somewhere along the line.. at least somewhat.

 

But overall, based on what I saw..  I think this is one of those "passion versus love" stories that always sort of stick in my brain as a disappointment for NOT being the "love" story I wanted it to be. And maybe that IS the right way to look at it and I am over thinking it. Maybe it WAS supposed to be an "almost" love story.. but I don't know. I just did not see these two as truly caring for one another.. at least not in the way that two people do, if they truly llove each other.

 

And (true confession time now)  I  have to say that whole "based on what I saw" part literally  because to be honest, I may never KNOW for sure... because the DADGUM DVD STOPPED WORKING HALF WAY THROUGH THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGGGGHHH!! (lousy library dvd.. bah, indeed!)  :angry:

 

I don't know WHAT happened.. but it was a bad copy of the DVD for sure. It started locking up and skipping.. and finally just froze altogether. (Did I mention Aggghhh??? )  

 

So after I realized there was not going to be any way for me to finish the movie (at least not tonight) I went in and read the synopsis both on the TCM database and in Wikipedia.. and I think between the two, I was able to figure out pretty much the rest of the story..and I have to say it seems to fit pretty much with my impression of these two. I see how Essex COULD have loved her.. maybe.. at some point. Or maybe he had the IDEA of wishing to love her, perhaps. (maybe early on, during their past.. in the time they knew each other before the movie began) Maybe he was READY to love her when he came home.. but after she treated him so poorly.. yes, Grey Dude.. I agree with what you said about how pride got in the way.

 

And I can even see how maybe she WANTED to love him too.. again.. perhaps in the past. (before she got mad at him, perhaps?) But WAS it real, honest to goodness love, that they had for each other?  Or was it just so much passionate desire? Did they really have each other's best interest at heart or did they just love the "romantic idea of love" and the wish that somewhere along the line, they might have been happy.. if only?

 

There is a difference.  I don't see it as them being madly in love.. I see them as only WISHING they could be. But never quite being able to put the other person first.. and so they don't ever really get to the point where they "LOVE" each other. 

 

 

 

And I know... I know...  I have beat that dead horse before, so I wont' keep on hitting it again.. but what can I say..  I am just a stick in the mud.. a nay-sayer.. a rotten old, no-fun, busy body, ha.. but silly me.. I really have a hard time calling their relationship a "love" story.. let alone a great love story because I guess I just like it if two people who LOVE each other treat each other like they love each other.. at least SOMEWHERE along the line in the story At some point ONE of them would have to have backed down.. if they really loved the other.. wouldn't they?  

 

Because hey..  IF you love someone... really love them... you don't go about trying to take away their throne and overthrow their kingdom.

 

And if you really love someone.. really.. you wouldn't go about chopping their head off and stuff.

 

(but maybe that is just me) ha. 

 

:D

 

But ok, I confess.. and all kidding aside.. I can see how his male pride (or even his military pride) COULD get in the way.. she DID pretty much push him to disobey her.. a lot. The opening scene where she berates him and he turns his back on her was TERRIFIC. I really LIKED that. (and if it could have been more about how she got over herself (or he did) and somehow between the two of them, they made peace.. even and if only in private.. then maybe.. perhaps.. I might have liked it better.

 

And I also see how she was really in a hard place to love or be loved by anyone. I totally get it. She was not the "great beauty" that so many others about her were... and she absolutely was feeling not only her age.. but the weight of her crown  (I like the line where she says something like to be Queen is to be less than human) It was an awful "privilege" for her to be queen, I am sure.

 

So who am I to say.. "love' or "not love"? (ha.. especially since I only READ about the end of the movie instead of watching it) I just have a pretty rigid definition of the "L" word that way, I guess. So I really struggle with stories like this one. So again.. based only on what I saw (and read) I will have to confess.. Grey Dude.. you once told me I wouldn't like these two.. and chalk another one up for you, sir.. because you pegged me pretty well. :D

 

(And PS: I am editing my post because  I want to include this excellent quote from Ms. Favell) Had they been anyone else, they could have lived and loved like any other two lovers, fought and made up and fought again....and it would have been of no consequence. People would have said they were a perfect match or that they would end up killing one another, but that spark would remain. Here, one has to kill it in the other.

 

Jackie.. I think you hit the nail on the head. If you could remove "who" they were and the roles they had to fulfill from the entire equation who KNOWS what might have happened between them. They might have eventually been able to actually love one another.. truly.  As it was.. they were both pretty much immovable in the life and roles they'd been born to. As much by the designs of the culture they lived in, as their own stubborn wills.

Edited by rohanaka
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do, Ma Stone -- As Rohanaka interrupts:  You keep using that word.. I do not think it means what you think it  means.

 

HA!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and yes, folks.. I DID borrow that line from a different movie.. which I DOUBT the Grey Dude has seen.. but Jackie.. have YOU seen it??) :D  But if you do know the reference for that movie quote.. I am using it in response to the word "love" rather than the word "inconceivable" this time. ha. Because.. I tried watching this movie tonight (will explain the word "try" in a moment) and all I can say about the "love" part is... "bah"   :rolleyes:

 

The line you are referencing isn't ringing any bells with me, so I believe you are right.

 

In fact, I did not see much love at all in what those two had to say to one another (or in how they treated one another.) Ok, yes.. there were a few good moments.. but they passed pretty quickly. I think they desired each other.. and I think they might have even had some form of affection somewhere along the line.. at least somewhat.

 

But overall, based on what I saw..  I think this is one of those "passion versus love" stories that always sort of stick in my brain as a disappointment for NOT being the "love" story I wanted it to be. And maybe that IS the right way to look at it and I am over thinking it. Maybe it WAS supposed to be an "almost" love story.. but I don't know. I just did not see these two as truly caring for one another.. at least not in the way that two people do, if they truly llove each other.

 

I'd say the story is more about love than desire but desire plays a part as it does with love.  While I do know there are loves without passion and desire, I feel passion and desire can add a lot to love.

 

What makes Elizabeth and Essex different than most regular couples is the situation and circumstances.  Elizabeth is the Queen.  She cannot simply just follow her heart and abandon her position.  Essex is trapped by his masculine ego and his need to lead.  While it would be nice to just simply say, "with love, you drop everything and do whatever for the one you love".  But it doesn't always work that way.

 

The reason why I feel its love are the tortuous decisions and all of the indecision that is found in the story and relationship.  They are both constantly fighting themselves.  They want to give in but they cannot.  Desire is rarely this tortuous.

 

And (true confession time now)  I  have to say that whole "based on what I saw" part literally  because to be honest, I may never KNOW for sure... because the DADGUM DVD STOPPED WORKING HALF WAY THROUGH THE MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGGGGHHH!! (lousy library dvd.. bah, indeed!)  :angry:

 

Now that stinks.  I hate it when that happens.

 

So after I realized there was not going to be any way for me to finish the movie (at least not tonight) I went in and read the synopsis both on the TCM database and in Wikipedia.. and I think between the two, I was able to figure out pretty much the rest of the story..and I have to say it seems to fit pretty much with my impression of these two. I see how Essex COULD have loved her.. maybe.. at some point. Or maybe he had the IDEA of wishing to love her, perhaps. (maybe early on, during their past.. in the time they knew each other before the movie began) Maybe he was READY to love her when he came home.. but after she treated him so poorly.. yes, Grey Dude.. I agree with what you said about how pride got in the way.

 

Pride is certainly involved with Elizabeth and Essex.  It's especially so with Essex.

 

And I can even see how maybe she WANTED to love him too.. again.. perhaps in the past. (before she got mad at him, perhaps?) But WAS it real, honest to goodness love, that they had for each other?  Or was it just so much passionate desire? Did they really have each other's best interest at heart or did they just love the "romantic idea of love" and the wish that somewhere along the line, they might have been happy.. if only?

 

They couldn't have the best interest of both at heart since both wanted the same thing, the one thing they could not share.  So somebody would have had to give in with that one thing.  Both wanted to do this and then both didn't want to do this.  To me, this is an example of societal issues getting in the way of actual love.  Without the societal influence, love could exist.

 

I also don't believe having the best interests of another makes it true love.  I feel love runs deeper than that.  But, there are so many shades of love.  Some couples are not that romantic and/or sexual.  Their love is built around commonality and respect.  But I don't believe the latter makes the former simply desirous and not "true love".

 

There is a difference.  I don't see it as them being madly in love.. I see them as only WISHING they could be. But never quite being able to put the other person first.. and so they don't ever really get to the point where they "LOVE" each other. 

 

Again, the situation and circumstances wouldn't allow them to love.  This is the societal influence I speak of.  It's similar to religion being the wall between two people.  For some, if you don't believe as they do, you cannot be together.  To me, this is a societal creation that kills potential love.  The same can be said for many other societal creations, such as jobs, titles, money, class, etc.  This is the case in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex.

 

I feel Elizabeth and Essex are madly in love because they are angry (mad) about the one they love.  Anger is usually a sure sign of love for someone.  It's a real emotion.  They are both under the skin of the other.  Their love runs deep within them.

 

And I know... I know...  I have beat that dead horse before, so I wont' keep on hitting it again.. but what can I say..  I am just a stick in the mud.. a nay-sayer.. a rotten old, no-fun, busy body, ha.. but silly me.. I really have a hard time calling their relationship a "love" story.. let alone a great love story because I guess I just like it if two people who LOVE each other treat each other like they love each other.. at least SOMEWHERE along the line in the story At some point ONE of them would have to have backed down.. if they really loved the other.. wouldn't they?  

 

But they did back down at times.  They both relented.  Elizabeth was ready to hand over the throne to Essex.  Essex was ready to give in and be the second in command.  But then they both admitted the truth to the other, that their pride (Essex) and duty (Elizabeth) would always push them to want the throne.

 

Because hey..  IF you love someone... really love them... you don't go about trying to take away their throne and overthrow their kingdom.  And if you really love someone.. really.. you wouldn't go about chopping their head off and stuff.

 

(but maybe that is just me) ha. 

 

:D

 

Societal.  Many do what their beliefs and doctrine dictate them to do.  Many "cut off the heads" of people before they ever get to meet them.  Love is often blind until we allow the societal influences to color our true feelings.  How many people just let love guide them?  How many people are going to fall in love with someone who believes differently than they do?

 

But ok, I confess.. and all kidding aside.. I can see how his male pride (or even his military pride) COULD get in the way.. she DID pretty much push him to disobey her.. a lot. The opening scene where she berates him and he turns his back on her was TERRIFIC. I really LIKED that. (and if it could have been more about how she got over herself (or he did) and somehow between the two of them, they made peace.. even and if only in private.. then maybe.. perhaps.. I might have liked it better.

 

But they did do all of this.  The issue was that it was temporary.   I liked that they told each other the truth about their desires.  They were actually upfront with the other.

 

And I also see how she was really in a hard place to love or be loved by anyone. I totally get it. She was not the "great beauty" that so many others about her were... and she absolutely was feeling not only her age.. but the weight of her crown  (I like the line where she says something like to be Queen is to be less than human) It was an awful "privilege" for her to be queen, I am sure.

 

Precisely.  It's a position where giving up everything for your love isn't a simple decision.

 

So who am I to say.. "love' or "not love"? (ha.. especially since I only READ about the end of the movie instead of watching it) I just have a pretty rigid definition of the "L" word that way, I guess. So I really struggle with stories like this one. So again.. based only on what I saw (and read) I will have to confess.. Grey Dude.. you once told me I wouldn't like these two.. and chalk another one up for you, sir.. because you pegged me pretty well. :D

 

You are very traditional with your view of love.  Rather puritanical.  There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  But I do feel love is a bit broader and has many shades.  I know quite a few people in my life who love each other but their kind of love isn't my kind of love.  It's love because their feelings tell us so.  But in terms of my idea of love, it's way off.

 

Jackie.. I think you hit the nail on the head. If you could remove "who" they were and the roles they had to fulfill from the entire equation who KNOWS what might have happened between them. They might have eventually been able to actually love one another.. truly.  As it was.. they were both pretty much immovable in the life and roles they'd been born to. As much by the designs of the culture they lived in, as their own stubborn wills.

 

Excellent!  I completely agree with you.  I feel the societal issues are why they couldn't be together in the end but their stubborn wills may have prevented them from being so even without the societal issues.  They both valued power.  The moment they allowed themselves to be weak with the other, they immediately felt the urge to regain some power.  Weakness was simply momentary.

 

But there's something to be said about someone who can really stir your pot.  Someone who gives you a daily stimulation is pretty darn interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy there, Mr. Grey, 

 

I likely am going to have to just defer to your greater knowledge of the events of the film for some of the things you have mentioned regarding what Elizabeth and Essex were willing to at least TRY to do in order to show their love for one another.. because I am sure it is easier to get a better feel for the story as a whole if you watch it all, rather than just be able to read about the parts I missed (ha.. lousy library DVD) So I am sure there is something to what you are saying at least in terms of some of their actions. 

 

But I do still think I would have to describe the story more as an "almost" love story.. ha. I just don't see the way they were treating each other as real acts of love.. or of even just "emotions" of love. True love is not selfish.. nor prideful. It is patient, forgiving, and yes.. for lack of a better word.. pure.

And ps.. for the record,  I don't get my definition of the "L" word from the Puritans, by the way.. I go to a bit older (more original) source  ha. (and at the risk of mentioning scripture on here.. I will just add that for me, 1 Corinthians 13 says it best..at least as it relates to what Love is.. and is not)

 

I also don't believe having the best interests of another makes it true love.  I feel love runs deeper than that.  But, there are so many shades of love.  Some couples are not that romantic and/or sexual.  Their love is built around commonality and respect.  But I don't believe the latter makes the former simply desirous and not "true love"

 

Well, I admit, you are right.. there CAN be a lot of "shades" to love. At least "romantic" love, anyway. (which truly almost has it's own definition, I admit.) And I think that is where the problem comes in when you try to define things in any sort of concrete absolute way.. because we only have one word for "love" but in truth.. there are many different KINDS of love.

 

So I guess what I was saying (and admittedly very poorly) is that I think romantic love is where most relationships between couples may START (perhaps somewhere along the line..  after desire)  But if a couple only stays in the "romantic' love sort of relationship.. they are not going to have a very solid foundation to build on. Because life isn't all "hearts and flowers" and you need something DEEPER than that to truly remain "in love" with someone at least in a "long and lasting, life time filled with love" sort of way. Romantic love will burn out, over time if there is nothing else to hold it. Somewhere along the line a romantic sort of "passionate" love should also begin to adopt an abiding, deeper form of love.. that goes beyond the romance.  At least in my way of thinking. I know I have pretty strong opinions on this.. but I guess I am only saying.. "romance' aint all there is to things.. There is more to love than that. Yes.. passion is good.. fire and desire, and all the things that make a relationship attractive are NOT just something to toss out the window.  It is GOOD for couples to desire each other and all that goes with that is good too. But after a while.. for a love to truly grow between a man and woman.. there ought to be something more.. something deeper too. And what I am talking about is the sort of thing that IS sacrificial, sometimes. To be willing to lay aside your own wants and wishes for the sake of someone else.. to put their interests above your own is not the death knell to romance. But it IS a way to truly express that you care more about another person than just the passionate way they make  you feel. And that sort of love is unconditional too. It doesn't rely on "what are they going to do or give up for me in return"  So I guess that is the type of love I am referring to.

 

And even if I didn't actually get to finish watching the story.. and just read about the rest of it.. I somehow think these two never got past the 'romance" of love.. at least that is what I think was the case. Yes.. they were bound by the roles they were in.. they were bound by their common ambition (or the lack of one.. however you would like to look at it, perhaps) But I think that they also just did not have much of a foundation to the love they felt for one another beyond just the attraction they felt. But again.. I confess, i might not have as clear apicture of their characters as I should so I will have to defer to your greater knowledge of the actual events in the story.

 

(But having said that.. ha.. I just didn't get as much of a "wow" factor out of their story to want to follow up.. I confess, I probably don't feel too driven to follow up and try to catch the part I missed by getting a different copy. Different people like different things in a movie.. so you were pretty good in predicting me on this one. 

 

Meanwhile... HERE is a great example of an actual story that IS about TRUE love:

 

:D

 

 

 

OH, and regarding this comment you made earlier.. The line you are referencing isn't ringing any bells with me,

 

Here you go: (it's probably one of my all time favorite quotes from that movie.. ha. but oh me, there are so many, it's hard to pick a favorite) :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I likely am going to have to just defer to your greater knowledge of the events of the film for some of the things you have mentioned regarding what Elizabeth and Essex were willing to at least TRY to do in order to show their love for one another.. because I am sure it is easier to get a better feel for the story as a whole if you watch it all, rather than just be able to read about the parts I missed (ha.. lousy library DVD) So I am sure there is something to what you are saying at least in terms of some of their actions. 

 

They dance back and forth between sacrificial love and selfish love.  I feel both are forms of love because the feelings are terribly strong for the other.  They are not simply desiring sex (lust, passion), they are desiring the love.

 

But I do still think I would have to describe the story more as an "almost" love story.. ha. I just don't see the way they were treating each other as real acts of love.. or of even just "emotions" of love. True love is not selfish.. nor prideful. It is patient, forgiving, and yes.. for lack of a better word.. pure.

 

Love at its best are those things.  But I feel love features selfishness, as well.  I can be madly in love with someone and completely desire them.  I don't know how many times I have wanted someone selfishly and understood this as so.

 

And ps.. for the record,  I don't get my definition of the "L" word from the Puritans, by the way.. I go to a bit older (more original) source  ha. (and at the risk of mentioning scripture on here.. I will just add that for me, 1 Corinthians 13 says it best..at least as it relates to what Love is.. and is not)

 

And to me, that's following a doctrine whereas I feel love is simply a feeling without any guidance.  The moment we start to bring things in like religion, class, money, etc., then love starts to leave.  We are in love with those things not the person if they enter the picture.  "I love the guy... but he doesn't make money.  It's over."  The feeling of love doesn't exist in that scenario.

 

Some people are led by their heart while others are the head.  I'd say Jackie is more heart and you are more head.  And there is no saying one is better than the other because life makes it that both come with the good and the bad.

 

When we watch and discuss films, our personalities come to the fore.  It's one of the biggest reasons why I like discussing film or most anything with people.  It's how you to get learn a person.  Who you are comes right to the front with discussion.  You are a straight shooter who is very "black and white".

 

Well, I admit, you are right.. there CAN be a lot of "shades" to love. At least "romantic" love, anyway. (which truly almost has it's own definition, I admit.) And I think that is where the problem comes in when you try to define things in any sort of concrete absolute way.. because we only have one word for "love" but in truth.. there are many different KINDS of love.

 

So I guess what I was saying (and admittedly very poorly) is that I think romantic love is where most relationships between couples may START (perhaps somewhere along the line..  after desire)  But if a couple only stays in the "romantic' love sort of relationship.. they are not going to have a very solid foundation to build on. Because life isn't all "hearts and flowers" and you need something DEEPER than that to truly remain "in love" with someone at least in a "long and lasting, life time filled with love" sort of way. Romantic love will burn out, over time if there is nothing else to hold it. Somewhere along the line a romantic sort of "passionate" love should also begin to adopt an abiding, deeper form of love.. that goes beyond the romance.  At least in my way of thinking. I know I have pretty strong opinions on this.. but I guess I am only saying.. "romance' aint all there is to things.. There is more to love than that. Yes.. passion is good.. fire and desire, and all the things that make a relationship attractive are NOT just something to toss out the window.  It is GOOD for couples to desire each other and all that goes with that is good too. But after a while.. for a love to truly grow between a man and woman.. there ought to be something more.. something deeper too. And what I am talking about is the sort of thing that IS sacrificial, sometimes. To be willing to lay aside your own wants and wishes for the sake of someone else.. to put their interests above your own is not the death knell to romance. But it IS a way to truly express that you care more about another person than just the passionate way they make  you feel. And that sort of love is unconditional too. It doesn't rely on "what are they going to do or give up for me in return"  So I guess that is the type of love I am referring to.

 

I mostly agree with your idea of love.  I believe in that kind of love, as well.  It's just that I know romance and desire also play a role for many.  For some, it means nothing.  It didn't mean much from the start, most likely.  Their relationship isn't built on that.  But to give you an example of how romance and desire matters I'll use my country grandma as the example.  When you ask my grandma about my grandpa she'll tell you "he was a lover."  She doesn't say he was caring, abiding, mindful, respectful, or any of the other qualities you cite as being more important with love.  She goes right to "he was a lover".  When a person gets to be 90 years old and was married over 60 years to the same man they have an entire lifetime to reflect upon.  And where does she go?  "He was a lover."

 

Again, not every relationship is built the same.  Some need the desire and romance despite the passage of time.  Some don't have it at all but the relationship is wonderful.  Maybe those spouses will say, "she was caring" or "he was thoughtful" as the most important thing about the other upon reflection.  All kinds of love.

 

I admit, without ever being in a relationship, I have romantic notions of love.  I'm the type who would make sure a woman knows I love her and that I think she's lovely and beautiful most every day.  Those would be honest feelings.  Some people don't have those feelings or cannot express those feelings.  Their silent commitment is how they show their love.

 

And even if I didn't actually get to finish watching the story.. and just read about the rest of it.. I somehow think these two never got past the 'romance" of love.. at least that is what I think was the case. Yes.. they were bound by the roles they were in.. they were bound by their common ambition (or the lack of one.. however you would like to look at it, perhaps) But I think that they also just did not have much of a foundation to the love they felt for one another beyond just the attraction they felt. But again.. I confess, i might not have as clear apicture of their characters as I should so I will have to defer to your greater knowledge of the actual events in the story.

 

It's hard to say.  What we are shown is a great affinity for the other but also the ambition and sense of duty each possessed.  The way I look at it is that they were in love but they desired the throne.  It was the throne that Essex lusted over.  I feel he loved Elizabeth.

 

(But having said that.. ha.. I just didn't get as much of a "wow" factor out of their story to want to follow up.. I confess, I probably don't feel too driven to follow up and try to catch the part I missed by getting a different copy. Different people like different things in a movie.. so you were pretty good in predicting me on this one. 

 

I can tell you that your opinion of the two won't change.  There isn't a big event or moment that would make you think, "A-ha!  They love each other!"  It's more about how they become separated from each other, get upset over their not communicating through miscommunication (a devious deed by Vincent Price), their reconciliation, and their ultimate showdown for the throne.

 

Meanwhile... HERE is a great example of an actual story that IS about TRUE love:

 

:D

 

So now I get it!  The man has to kiss a woman's fanny and tell her "as you wish" and that makes it sacrificial and thoughtful for both!  Women!

 

You are definitely big on a person changing their stripes and repentance.  Elizabeth and Essex won't give you that.

 

And I have seen The Princess Bride.

 

As you wish, me lady.  Now do you really think I'll let you get your wishes without sparring for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

to me, that's following a doctrine whereas I feel love is simply a feeling without any guidance.\

 

No..Religion doesn't really have much to do with it, Because even though it is found in the Bible, I don't see it as a "doctrine" to use the ideals in 1 Cor 13 as a way to "define" my concept for Love. I believe God had Paul write it to show us what HE sees as the best way to express love for one another at all levels (not just in a marriage)

 

But it IS a good description for how married couples can have a fuller and better relationship with one another.. and I DO see it as a good model for what Love would look like in it's most pure and basic form.

 

And let's face it.. to be honest, none of us are ever going to fully achieve it this side of heaven.. but as Paul wrote.. it is the "more excellent way"  to care about others. (romantically or not) So it is the ideal. He says earlier in the passage.. if I speak with the tongues of angels. .but don't have love.. then whatever I say really doesn't mean much. And if I give all I have to someone.. but don't do it in love. my gift isn't worth much. (that is my translation, by the way.. I am speaking Kathy-ese" for what the text actually says, ha)  It is not the things we do that show love for others.. but it is LOVE that makes all the things we do have value. 

 

If you love someone.. really love them, then selfishness, pride, disrespect, impatience, rudeness, and unkindness are all going to work against you (and the person you love) Real love will cast OUT those sort of things because it wants (by nature) to give BETTER things to the person who is on the receiving end. And it is so much more than a feeling.. which can come and go and wax and wane based on whatever is going on around us at the time. For love to really truly endure.. you have to have a better foundation than that. 

 

We all have our selfish, prideful, arrogant, disrespectful, impatient moments. And let's face it.. passion can be very much "all about us" if we aren't careful. What does that other person make US feel like... what do they do for ME (physcially, mentally, emotionally) It can change.. if the other person begans to change over time. They don't excite me as much as they used to.. they don't look or act, or treat me the same as they used to. So now I don't "love" them anymore. So to make that the most important basis for your relationship.. just because you have physical desire for someone.. even deeply held longing for passion with them that makes the heart about leap out of your chest just to THINK of them.. ha.. it will lead you to nothing but ruin if that is all there is to it (and somebody will end up getting their head chopped off, either figuratively.. or maybe even LITERALLY , ha) 

 

And I loved (ha..there's that word) the story of your Grandma. But I don't see anything in disagreement with what I wrote about her use of the word "lover" to describe your Grandpa. I can totally see how an older person would still carry the "torch" of romance for the one they love.. even after they are old.. and even after the one they love may be dead and gone.  But I imagine the fondness for him that she remembers was not ONLY based on that.. even if that is the first word she uses to describe him.  You seem to have forgotten what I said in my post when I mentioned that these other deeper aspects of Love do not mean the DEATH KNELL for romance in a marriage too. It's not a "one or the other" sort of thing. It's a this..and this.. and this.. and THAT TOO" sort of thing, if you think about it. You said it right.. there are MANY shades to love.. and sometime  they can fit together to make one big lovely, multi-shaded package.

 

Just because a couple moves on in their relationship and gets past the "hey, baby" phase of things does NOT mean that they don't still desire to be with that person and there are some older couples who have been married for 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more.. and many of them will tell you.. that part of their marriage  didn't DIE just because they also began to understand the deeper meaning for what it is to put the needs of the other person above their own. In fact.. it can be that it would even ENHANCE the romance to know that the person you are with cares for you so much that they actually would give THEIR life for YOU rather than expect YOU to give up your own life for them. 

 

I guess that is what I am trying to get you to see.

 

Good golly..  How much does this have to do with Elizabeth and Essex NOW?? ha. This always happens..ha We start talking about a movie and end  up diving head long into the mud over these "side issues" ha. (And I guess that whole "I won't beat the dead horse" comment I made way back in my first post has gone out the window now.. ha.) :D  

 

So now I get it!  The man has to kiss a woman's fanny and tell her "as you wish" and that makes it sacrificial and thoughtful for both!  Women!

 

OH for Pizza SAKE! ha. I will have you know that I am married to the "ANTI-WESLEY" ha. :D If I said "Farm Boy fetch me that pitcher" he would respond with something like, "I CAN'T.. I am too busy looking for a good stick to beat the lovely lady!!!!!!!!" :D  But that's just us.. :D

 

And I have seen The Princess Bride

 

INCONCEIVABLE!  :P

 

As you wish, me lady.  Now do you really think I'll let you get your wishes without sparring for them?

 

Ha.. With you it's Mudfights.. always mudfights. My hatpin has NEVER gotten so much work since I started sparring with you. What can I say.. it's what we do.  :D

 

PS: Mr. Movieman.. 

 

It is playing on the big screen here at the end of the month. I imagine there will be a party

 

I still remember the first time I ever saw that movie.. it was on the big screen when it first came out waaaaaaayyyyyyy back in the 80's and I have loved it ever since. :)   I think it is one of those movies that has taken on an almost 'cult-like" status now all over the world, ha. (or at least in my little corner of it.. I have a whole group of friends that love this movie and we go back and forth all the time feeding each other lines from The Princess Bride ha. There are quotes in that movie that are suitable for almost any occasion! ha) :D  It would be FUN to see it on the big screen again.. I bet there WILL be a party for sure. ha.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can interject to Sir Francis's point about there not being an "A-Ha" moment. I agree but for me it seems they certainly do love each other. They are victims of their pride and position.  Ro, you are right in that Essex's ego of the man and his position in a relationship is too big for him to back down. At that point Elizabeth becomes the wife and not the queen to him. She will always be queen even in their relationship and cannot back down or compromise on anything.  They would be two Big Horn Sheep butting heads all the time. It's a marriage that would not work. Better they agree to be friends with benefits.

 

And yes, old, long married people aren't dead people. If a couple was right the desire is still there no matter the years. (30.)

 

For me, love without guidance is really only lust and not love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

for me it seems they certainly do love each other. They are victims of their pride and position.  Ro, you are right in that Essex's ego of the man and his position in a relationship is too big for him to back down. At that point Elizabeth becomes the wife and not the queen to him. She will always be queen even in their relationship and cannot back down or compromise on anything.  They would be two Big Horn Sheep butting heads all the time. It's a marriage that would not work. Better they agree to be friends with benefits.

 

Way to bring this all back around to the movie at hand, there Mr. Movieman. :D  And I am sure there is something to what you and the Grey Dude are saying. I just think I got hung up on the whole idea of his comments about this being such a "love story".  I saw it (at least the parts I SAW before the DVD went south) as more of a "Battle of wills" story. They may well have loved one another.. but I just don't think what they had was the sort of love that WOULD have lasted in a marriage..so I think you have them right. it would not have ever worked for them in the long run. 

 

And yes, old, long married people aren't dead people. If a couple was right the desire is still there no matter the years. (30.)

 

21 for the QT and me. We like to joke that we are not newlyweds but OLDLYweds now. ha... but you are right.. we aren't deadly-weds, either.  ha!  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she gave in to her position as the devil's handmaiden, gave up long ago trying to fight it maybe even immediately, as it was to her advantage to give in. She decided it was more pragmatic to simply go with the flow from the moment he trapped them, that maybe she would be able to find a way to outsmart him. I think she already did relish a little devilment when dealing with others weaker and stupider than she, but I also feel that it has deepened into a more cunning lust and hatred over a long long period of time. She's one of those who like to play the game, twist other people in the wind because they can. I think she looks down on those who find her attractive, also on those who are foolish in love. She carries worldly wise to an extreme level, has taken womanly shrewdness to just this side of evil. There is no softness, no vulnerable spot there showing... but why? I still somewhat like her as a character. I see one **** in the armor of her sarcasm and haughtiness.   underneath that hard glittering exterior, I think she was dumped by Gilles, and never really forgot the sting of it. Some people will do anything to avoid being vulnerable again. And so she got even harder and colder. There may have once been hope for her, but it was lost. She's like the male Liliom - it's easier to sit back and enjoy doing bad things than to change. I'd have to go back and watch again to see if wjhat I said actually fits the story. It's an impression I have.

 

I love the way the movie shows right off the difference between Dominique and Gilles. When the Gilles performs that act of kindness on the jester (with pet bear) she says disdainfully "What did you do that for?."  She's at home with her role of deviltry probably to a similar degree that Gilles is not. We get to see the essential goodness in Gilles before he even meets Anne. I do remember (I think) a conversation between Gilles and Dominique about their past and there's definitely baggage there, and I think you are quite right about that. And did anyone else experience a chilling effect when Dominique and Anne's father were sort of paired off and then disappear together. The movie doesn't follow them and then ends, leaving us to contemplate what might happen there. Surely she has some deviltry up her sleeve and I don't think Anne's father is in any enviable position. He doesn't know what's coming and we might be better off not knowing as well. (or did I remember that right?)

 

Jackie, that's a wonderful analysis of Dominique. You nailed her.

 

I love Jules Berry as le diable. He has that likeable rascal quality to him, something we can enjoy as viewers but we can understand only too well what one random character says of him, "There is something about that fellow that makes me nervous." The movie right off makes no secret on who he is, we get that amusing bit when he approaches the fire. Although he is the ultimate bad guy of all time he is imbued with a charming wit that keeps the tone of the story on an even keel, given the potential dire subject matter. There are comic elements to the story (can we consider the movie a black comedy, or at least of comedy of sorts?) and Jules Berry portrayal is certainly a factor. (I mean look at the reaction of le diable at the end when he hears those hearts a-patter, he pouts like a child, ha).

 

Scott, I wonder if you had a comment on this. You are usually so excellent on responding to those who have seen movies that you have seen yourself, it makes me think you may have missed this. If you have nothing, that's fine, really. I do believe you said that you did have a look at this movie. What's your take on my comment about on the way Dominique and Anne's father seem to slip away and then perhaps leave us with a sort of frisson as to what she may in store for him, deviltry-wise. Was there anything to that? Or was there some other significance there? I don't think we're supposed to believe that she really likes him. It's a little fuzzy anyway for me, I don't usually comment to fully on movies that I don't consider 'recently watched' and it had actually been awhile since I viewed that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAPPY Birthday to Madhat Molo (wherever he is!)  It's not the same around here without you, sir. Hope you can stop in and say "hey" sometime. :) 

 

Meanwhile.. will just say I hope your birthday is a happy one. (Oh.. and one more thing:  CUPCAKES for everybody!)  :)  

cupcakes_zpse2f12b35.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, while we are waiting for our buddy Molo to come and  blow out the candles on HIS cake.. I would be remiss if I did not mention a happy birthday wish to the OTHER August Birthday Boy around here...

 

Happy Birthday to my DEAR friend, :D  Mr. Grey!!!

 

 

In honor of your birthday.. Gray (I mean GREY!) Cake Pops for everybody!! (woo hoo!) :D

 

cakepops_zps879490b2.jpg

 

Hope you have a saurkraut and sawdust kinda day, sir. Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhh....

 

You'll never catch up with me my old young and foolish friend.

 

I surely hope today has been a very special day for you. I hope you are celebrating with your friends and family and I hope you get a chance to sit back and reflect on what today really means.....

Another fracking (BSG reference) year older.

 

Happy day!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Jackie, Great pics!! (and torture too)  ha.

 

And Hey! I didn't know they snapped that lovely pic of the two of us baking Frank's cake. Good thing we remembered the sawdust.. but (rats!) we forgot to add the SAURKRAUT! :D

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! Jackie, Great pics!! (and torture too)  ha.

 

And Hey! I didn't know they snapped that lovely pic of the two of us baking Frank's cake. Good thing we remembered the sawdust.. but (rats!) we forgot to add the SAURKRAUT! :D

 

 

hahahahaha!

 

Ha! Jackie, Great pics!! (and torture too)  ha.

 

And Hey! I didn't know they snapped that lovely pic of the two of us baking Frank's cake. Good thing we remembered the sawdust.. but (rats!) we forgot to add the SAURKRAUT! :D

 

hahahahaha! I'm sure in that huge kitchen we can find some saurkraut somewhere. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jackie

 

I second Ro on the pics ... and quip/caps of Joan ... good ones all. I've always loved her as Amy. She certainly doesn't look very ashamed in that one picture. Ah, you can already see the noir in her ...

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensational!  That was phenomenal!  What great creativity!  I loved your story and dialogue.  Simply wonderful.  And you picked the right girl for me.  Joanie has really become a great favorite.  But you're even more of a favorite to me.  Thank you, Jackie.  :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...