Peter Montgomery wrote:
>
> Appyparentally there is a new movie, called TILL HUMAN VOICES WAKE US

Thanks for the announcement Peter.



Here is a review of "Till Human Voices Wake Us" that at least STARTS
out even-handed:

http://www.aboutfilm.com/movies/t/tillhumanvoiceswakeus.htm

    Review by Carlo Cavagna

    A positive review of this film would no doubt characterize it as a
    moving examination of memory and loss set in a disappearing small
    Australian town. It would praise the film for being profound but not
    overwrought, relying on still simplicity and atmosphere to convey
    feelings of intense longing and grief. Oh, and it would no doubt use
    the word "poetic." Just in case you don't get the fact that the film
    is poetic, writer/director Michael Petroni has festooned it with a lot
    of actual poetry. Characters read verse and quote T.S. Eliot to one
    another.

    A negative review would no doubt characterize it as a wretched hash
    involving memory and loss set in a disappearing small Australian
    town. It would condemn the film for being cumbersome and overwrought,
    relying overly on still simplicity and atmosphere instead of actual
    narrative to communicate vaguely defined characters and moods. Oh, and
    it would no doubt use the word "pretentious." To make sure the film
    puts on the proper airs, writer/director Michael Petroni has burdened
    it with a lot of actual poetry. This is the sort of film where the
    characters read verse and quote T.S. Eliot to one another.

    Put me down for the latter kind of review. ...


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054956479.html

    The film was shot in and around the Victorian town of Castlemaine.
    But there are two versions. The one being shown in the US intercuts
    past and present. Here, we're getting the original one, a riskier
    scenario that doesn't introduce Pearce or his co-star, Helena Bonham
    Carter, until the story is well under way.


Other reviews are linked to from Rotten Tomatoes:
    http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1120684/reviews.php





In what I will call "U.S. v. J. Alfred Prufrock"
Prufrock makes another appearance at the U.S. Supreme Court
(actually he isn't mentioned but maybe he's part of a class action. :-)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079701/

    Shelf-Censorship
    The Supreme Court finds a library porn filter it can love.
    By Dahlia Lithwick


    You really have to hand it to U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. The
    man can say absolutely anything and still keep a straight face. Here
    he is in the Supreme Court today, arguing for a law that conditions
    federal funding to public libraries on their willingness to install
    wildly ineffective "smut filters," and he actually manages to
    argue--three times by my count--that these filters will enhance free
    speech.

    ...

    (Sites banned by the porn filter include the Knights of Columbus
    Council 4828, the California Jewish Community Center, and Orphanage
    Emmanuel, the Republican National Committee's Web site, a juggling
    site, and health sites devoted to baldness and halitosis.)

    ...

    So, Olson somehow wins the paradigm today and will possibly also win
    the case. He convinces most of the bench that there's no difference
    between refusing to stock Henry Miller and flipping on the porn filter
    and goes so far as to say that this statute somehow "expands" free
    speech. While it's not at all clear to me how men attempting to
    research male-pattern baldness in public libraries can be stymied,
    while free speech wins the day, I'll hand this to Olson: He almost
    had me persuaded as well.



ACHTUNG: Diese Mail ist keine Spam. Sie haben erlaubt das diese E-Mail
zu Werbezwecken verwendet werden darf.
                                        -- [log in to unmask]