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
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
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. ...
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:
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. :-)
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
(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]