Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

PART FIVE - ONGOING THREAD FOR 2012 (Continued from Part Four)

What movies or DVDs have you watched (or will you be watching)?

Dolphin Tale. It was fantastic. A touching and inspiring story.

Jackie wrote: "Dolphin Tale. It was fantastic. A touching and inspiring story. "

Thanks, Jackie. Sounds good. I've added it to my Netflix queue. It will be available January 17.

For now you can see Winter, the star of the movie at

Thanks, Jackie. I also see that the story was told in the following book:
Winter's Tail: How One Little Dolphin Learned to Swim Again (2009) by Juliana Hatkoff.

PS-Winter (the dolphin) even has a Wiki page!

Yes.

I didn't read the book.

Tonight I streamed the following movie from Netflix:
"The Wingless Bird" (TV mini-series 1997)
(adapted from the novel, The Wingless Bird by Catherine Cookson)


One of the user reviews sums it up nicely:
=============================================
"This is typical Cookson territory, really. There's high drama, attempted murders, disgrace, scandal, and a swathe of upper class snooty horrors...

"'The Wingless Bird' is engrossing, if predictable, fare, and is beautifully photographed and flawlessly played by its cast ... A superior soapy drama.

"Catherine Cookson was for many years [one of] the most borrowed and read writers from UK public libraries, and her novels remain popular years after her death. The TV adaptations which were made over a twenty year span generally do the books proud without making their thin plots seem ridiculous, and 'The Wingless Bird' is no exception."
FROM:
=============================================

I'm giving it 5 stars. Highly recommended. Very likable characters.

Oliver Twist a BBC TV production in association with WGBH (Boston); directed by Coky Giedroyc ; produced by Sarah Brown ; adapted by Sarah Phelps. 2009 DVD.

This version of one of Dickens best was written, directed and produced by women. I give it 5 stars.

Joy H. wrote: "Tonight I streamed the following movie from Netflix:
"The Wingless Bird" (TV mini-series 1997)
(adapted from the novel, The Wingless Bird by Catherine Cookson)
..."

Thanks, Joy. I'll have to get me hands on that one. Sounds interesting. Cheers!

Wingless bird sounds good: On the eve of World War I, Agnes Conway manages both the business and the problems of her troubled family. She finds the strength to break class barriers and help her sister Jessie marry a good boy from a family of dockside toughs. Is she strong enough to break them again when Charles Farrier, a gentleman, courts her over his parents' opposition? Agnes faces an added dilemma when she finds her heart divided between Charles and his soldier brother Reginald.

Another one to add to list. My 'To See' list is as full as my 'To Read' list.

RedMum wrote: "Oliver Twist a BBC TV production in association with WGBH (Boston); directed by Coky Giedroyc ; produced by Sarah Brown ; adapted by Sarah Phelps. 2009 DVD. This version of one of Dickens best was..."

Thank you, RM. Below is a link to the production you referred to:
"Oliver Twist" (TV Series 2007)



Netflix has it:

About "The Wingless Bird", I especially enjoyed the character of Agnes Conway. She had a delightful accent and way of speaking. She was a strong female. The story reminds us about how very rigid class boundaries were at that time and how difficult it was to cross them.

Class (translation: money) boundaries still are a lot more rigid and hard to cross than we usually realize, even today!

One of the DVDs my grandkids got for Christmas (and watch a lot!) is Shrek the Halls, a relatively short Christmas video that's a spin-off from the four-movie Shrek series. (If you're not basically aware of the general premise and characters of the series, you live under even more of a rock than I do!). It's animated/CGI stuff, done well, with a lot of both verbal and physical comedy, some of it on the gross side (hey, the main characters are ogres; what would you expect? :-) ). But it has a good Christmas message, though in a strictly secular sense, emphasizing the importance of "family" ties (both those created by blood, and by genuine friendship), even if they make the season a bit rowdy and wacky. Kids are apt to like it (as I can testify!); but the theme and some of the subtler humor will resonate as well or better with adults. So for your holiday viewing next Christmas season, I'd recommend it!

Werner, thanks for telling us about Shrek the Halls.


Netflix doesn't seem to carry it, but I found some YouTube links:


The following link seems to be the full movie, which, according to IMDb, is only 21 minutes long:

Looks like fun.

Thanks for the links, Joy! (Hope your cold is better.)

You're welcome, Werner. My cold is slowly disappearing but it's being stubborn about it. :)

I'm watching Atlas Shrugged and it's really good. I wish I read the book. I'll have to read it now.

I tried reading Atlas Shrugged but couldn't get into it. There didn't seem to be a hook to draw me in.

I didn't realize that there is a movie. I guess it's new.
Why does it say Part One? When will Part Two come out?
"Atlas Shrugged: Part I" (2011)

"A powerful railroad executive, Dagny Taggart, struggles to keep her business alive while society is crumbling around her. Based on the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand."


"Ayn Rand's controversial bestseller is the basis for this potent drama about Dagny Taggart, a fiercely independent railroad tycoon determined to use innovative technology and enterprising partners to revive her business, no matter the personal cost."

Glad you mentioned it, Jackie. I've put it on my Netflix queue.

Part 1 didn't do well financially so I doubt they'll make Part 2. It's classified as 'in production' but nothing has been done on it.

The description is misleading, it's a lot more than that. It's prophetic and completely apt for times in which we now live. It's a statement about capitalism vs socialism. It's amazing to me how many authors in the past have nailed present-day issues, how did they know, was it that evident back then?

I think "Atlas Shrugged" is more for late teens or early 20's. Rand's idealism permeates it so heavily & repetitively that it gets tiresome. Also, she makes a lot of assumptions that I don't think are valid with everything in a very monochromatic setting.

I don't recall the vocabulary as being terrible in it, but many of her books & lectures use $5 words. I like to keep a dictionary handy. That's one of the things I enjoy most about her. To think that a Russian immigrant could use words better than I can understand them is pretty amazing. She was a very smart lady.

You can find some of her stuff, including an interview & her address to West Point, I think, over at archive.org. It's worth listening to.

Are you familiar with the philosophy she founded, Ojectivism? She makes some good points, but I can't swallow it all. Unfortunately, those that do tend to be fanatics. That's right - I met Joy in Ilyn's group. She's a self-published author here on GR that's a Rand wannabe. She got upset with me when I brought up Sally Hemmings in connection with Jefferson.

Anyway, if you want to find out more about Objectivism, the Wikipedia page does a pretty good synopsis of it from the bit I scanned.

So do you think I should read it, Jim? It's not sounding as good as the movie was, which was much shorter and not repetitive. The last thing I need is a long winded drawn out book to read.

I just started watching The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which I thought I had seen before, but I guess not because I'm not remembering any of the visuals. I read the books and must have thought I saw the movie because I have many visuals inside my head, but they're not the ones from the movie. How strange. And cool.

My daughters insisted I watch MATILDA and it was more entertaining than I thought it would be.



After they went to bed I watched the original TRUE GRIT with John Wayne which I still like better than the recent remake, which was okay.

Jim - Just to clarify... Ilyn is the self-published author here on GR, not I. :)

Yes, I met you in Ilyn's group. I immediately liked the way you thought and the way you wrote.

As for Rand's Objectivism, I tried to understand the theory a long time ago. After reading about it, I was thoroughly confused. Seems that there were flaws in the reasoning, if I remember correctly. At first it sounded good but after I read more about, I lost interest.

I'll take a look at the Wiki link and refresh my memory. I just don't want to get drawn into that tangle of logic (or non-logic) again.


Yes, I got the feeling that its followers bordered on fanaticism. But what do I know. :)

PS-The following is a sentence from Wiki about Objectivism:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Various scholarly philosophers have concluded that Rand's arguments for Objectivist ethics are fallacious."
FROM:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So there! LOL

Roger, I enjoyed John Wayne in "True Grit" too. I hadn't expected to enjoy a Western as much as I did. It was a good story. The tough little girl was played by Kim Darby who was excellent.

I haven't seen the remake. I'm sure I'd be biased on the side of the original.

Jackie wrote: "I just started watching The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which I thought I had seen before, but I guess not because I'm not remembering any of the visuals. I read the books and must have thoug..."

Jackie, by coincidence, I watched that movie just a few weeks ago via a Netflix DVD. I remember only parts of it. I don't remember the exact plot or the ending. However, while watching the film, I did jot down the following quote which resonated with me:
================================================
"I'd much rather be happy than right any day."
-quote from the movie, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
================================================
See the quote at:

I suppose we could attribute the quote to Douglas Adams because he was the author of the book, IF the movie followed the book.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Jackie wrote: "So do you think I should read it, Jim? It's not sounding as good as the movie was, which was much shorter and not repetitive. The last thing I need is a long winded drawn out book to read."

It's 1000 pages of very small type in my paperback, Jackie. Give it a shot, but unless you get caught up in the story, I doubt you'll want to finish it. I think The Fountainhead is a little shorter. It comes first, although it doesn't matter too much what order you read them in. They both stand alone very well.

I'd rather you read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court first. That's far more interesting, IMO. A lot shorter, too.

Jackie wrote: "I just started watching The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which I thought I had seen before, but I guess not because I'm not remembering any of the visuals. I read the books and must have thoug..."

We have two versions of it. One is a 6 part BBC drama, the other a movie. I never made it through either one nor the books, although I've tried several times each.

I loved reading _The Fountainhead_ year ago. I'm not sure I'd love it so much today. Of course there's a film adaptation of "The Fountainhead" as well, with Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, made in 1949:
I've heard that those two had a torrid affair in real life as well.

As for the film adaptations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I watched the 2005 movie via Netflix DVD. After reading Jim's post above, I found that Netflix also has the 1981 adaptation. So I've put it on my Netflix queue, if only to refresh my memory. Thanks, Jim!

1981:

""An Earth man and his alien friend escape Earth's destruction and go on a truly strange adventure as space hitchhikers."

"A mixture of live action and animation, this award-winning BBC adaptation of Douglas Adams's radio play has everyman Arthur Dent traveling the galaxy. Joining Ford is an assortment of ridiculous aliens, including two-headed Zaphod Beeblebrox."

2005:

"Mere seconds before the Earth is to be demolished by an alien construction crew, journeyman Arthur Dent is swept off the planet by his friend Ford Prefect, a researcher penning a new edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

"After learning his house is about to be leveled to make way for a bypass and that Earth is about to be destroyed to clear the way for an interstellar thruway, jinxed Arthur Dent survives by hitching a ride on a passing spacecraft."

Joy H. wrote: "Jim - Just to clarify... Ilyn is the self-published author here on GR, not I. :)

Yes, I met you in Ilyn's group. I immediately liked the way you thought and the way you wrote.

As for Rand's Objec..."

Yes, sorry that was a bit confusing & thank you.

I don't put a lot of stock in what other 'scholarly philosophers' have concluded. I've read a bit about quite a few philosophies & thought the same thing about them all. They're all idealistic, something that doesn't fit humans very well.

IMO, this central tenet of Objectivism, "that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic" is just wrong. Our minds don't work like that. Instead, we see something & compare it to a mix of memories that are LIKE what we're currently perceiving, often a snap judgement that's wrong.

Another tenet, "that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest)", catches most of the heat, but actually makes the most sense, if anyone bothers to read what Rand wrote about it. The Virtue of Selfishness is very interesting & explores this in great detail.

IF people were actually rational, Objectivism would make more sense, but we're not. We rationalize on faulty data very consistently. Still, it's an interesting, perfect-world puzzle that fun to explore. That's what most of her fiction does.

Good post, Jim, explaining Objectivism. I think the flaw in Rand's theory is the fact that she didn't allow for emotions and their effect on our perceptions.

PS-As for "Selfishness", Rand's theory reminds me of the following quote:
=================================================
"Men are not against you; they are merely for themselves". -Gene Fowler
================================================

I like that Fowler quote & agree with the rest.

Rand hated the idea of altruism & I think that's one of the hot buttons that turns so many people off from reading her theory on selfishness thoroughly. Fowler pretty well summed up her ideas on it.

Jim, would you say that Ayn Rand espoused the idea that selfishness is good economics (i.e., that free enterprise (as opposed to altruism) is the best way to go)?

I say that because I found the following quote by FDR:
===============================================
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
===============================================

In the following YouTube with Ayn Rand speaking about selfishness, she seems to make sense in a way:

Another thought on Ayn Rand: the arguments come down to the problem of semantics (i.e., proper defining of the terms used). At Wiki, it says:
====================================================
"...that Rand's philosophical position required altering the conventional meanings of some terms in order to express her views without inventing entirely new words."
FROM:
===================================================
When we don't define our terms, confusion results.

Jim wrote: I'd rather you read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court first. That's far more interesting, IMO. A lot shorter, too.

So would I. Atlas is a no-go. Thanks, I appreciate the honesty and you have a good grasp on what I'd like or not.

On Objectivism: Totally agree with Jim's comment in message 31. I'd have to quote the whole thing.

Here's the thing that people don't like to admit to themselves: people are inherently selfish. We want to appear altruistic but we really aren't, it's not in our nature and over the course of our evolution we wouldn't be here today if we weren't selfish. Even those who do altruisitic things, do it for selfish reasons; the only time it's altruistic is when it's anonymous which we wouldn't see or know about, instead everyone has to tell what they did so they get that pat on the back, "You're such a good person" and that's what they're getting out of it. It is far from selfless.

As far as FDR, he has his own semi-socialist agenda to push which we are paying for today. The key word in that sentence isn't 'self-interest', it's 'heedless'. Anything done heedlessly and to the extreme is not good. Self-interest is integral to our lives, to our survival, to motivate ourselves to get up off our asses and get a job for the things we want and need. Those that have no self-interest, well, take a look around, you know who those people are, they are the ones with nothing and who'll bitch about it and say it's your fault.

Joy H. wrote: "Another thought on Ayn Rand: the arguments come down to the problem of semantics (i.e., proper defining of the terms used). At Wiki, it says:
====================================================
"...."

I'd disagree with this & it's one of the reasons I like to read Rand. She uses English very well, often getting fine connotations out of words that are just beautiful to behold. English words taken out of context can often have widely different meanings. I think ignorant people with an agenda often argue semantics with her & I've never found a case where I agreed with them. I tend to disagree more with Rand on her basic assumptions.

I agree completely with Jackie on FDR. He ruined the economy of this country & set far too many bad precedents. It's one of the places where I tend to agree more with Rand who espoused laissez-faire capitalism, which Reagan agreed with. I prefer this approach of FDR or Obama's socialistic policies.

Jackie, I agree with your idea that most do-gooders do it because it makes them feel good about themselves or feel good in general. So indirectly, they do it for selfish reasons. I see the logic there. Even if they do it anonymously, they themselves know about it. So they get a benefit by feeling good about it. But don't try to convince them of that! LOL

As far as your theory about people who don't help themselves, I read a book years ago which explained that some people are like that because they have lost hope. It made sense to me. The name of the book was _Human Resources_ but I see that there are many books with that title. I wouldn't know which book it was. (It had to have been published in the 1960s because that's when I read it.)

PS-BTW, there's a book called The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Wiki says:
====================================================
"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will—merely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

"This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes. Some people find this metaphor entirely clear, while others find it confusing, misleading or simply redundant to ascribe mental attributes to something that is mindless. For example, Andrew Brown has written:

'Selfish', when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it.' "
FROM:
===================================================

Anyway, I thought I'd throw that in there to exercise our minds a bit more. :)

Interesting thoughts in Message #40, Jim. Discussions about Rand's views can get very complicated.

As far as socialism vs laissez-faire capitalism, I believe there has to be a middle road between them, a balance in their practices. The issue certainly makes for interesting conversation.

Joy wrote: I agree with your idea that most do-gooders do it because it makes them feel good about themselves or feel good in general.

I didn't mean that they do it to feel good about themselves, I meant that they do it so others feel good about said-do-gooder's actions and get that all-important pat on the back.
I think if it's anonymous, it would be to feel good about themselves, but not the self-broadcasters.

I can agree that I would sacrifice anything or anyone for my child, but that too is selfish, in that Eric's more important to me than anyone else in the world.

Jim, I'm with you on Reagan. The proof is the state of the economy when capitalism is espoused, as opposed to when socialism is espoused. It tells the story for itself.

The biggest problem with socialism, which in theory seems great, is that people are involved. IF everyone did what was required, it might work but that will never happen. As I've stated there are those who do not want to work and will live off the dole. Eventually those paying the dole will decide not do it anymore and join the ranks of the sponges. Who will be left to pay the bills then?

If a person has lost hope that's their problem and I shouldn't have to support them. That's an easy, bullshit excuse. When people know that no one is going to support them, they will do what's required to survive. It's knowing that they'll get free support that allows them the luxury of 'no hope' as an excuse.

I may sound heartless but survival of the fittest is something I agree with, if you can't muster the will to work for a living to survive then you don't deserve to live.

There's a lot of states of both socialism & capitalism, Joy. Laissez-faire capitalism isn't pure & unrestrained. I tend to lean further left in it than Rand, but it basically says that there are pieces of the economy in which the government has to fiddle, such as dealing with other countries, but otherwise the government should stay out of business.

Jackie wrote: "... I didn't mean that they do it to feel good about themselves, I meant that they do it so others feel good about said-do-gooder's actions and get that all-important pat on the back.
I think if it's anonymous, it would be to feel good about themselves, but not the self-broadcasters...."

I hear you, Jackie. But even feeling good about yourself is a benefit which comes from doing good. People like to feel good about themselves. So in a way, doing good can still be self-serving.

Jim wrote: "There's a lot of states of both socialism & capitalism, Joy. Laissez-faire capitalism isn't pure & unrestrained. I tend to lean further left in it than Rand, but it basically says that there are pieces of the economy in which the government has to fiddle, such as dealing with other countries, but otherwise the government should stay out of business. "

Jim, Canada is very socialistic and it isn't doing too badly.

Jim wrote [to Jackie]: "... I'd rather you read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court first. That's far more interesting, IMO. ..."

Jim, last year I tried listening to an audio version of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and I found it very confusing. Perhaps I should have read the book instead.

Today I streamed (from Netflix) the movie "Carrington" (1995). It's a movie adaptation of Lytton Strachey: The New Biography by Michael Holroyd.

My review is at:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I loved Emma Thompson's performance.

Harking back to Roger's post (mesage 23), I'll chime in and say I've also watched the Wayne version of True Grit years ago (though I haven't seen the remake) and would recommend it highly. (And that's coming from a viewer who isn't usually an ardent Western fan, so that says something! My wife is a Western fan, and she liked it, too.) I don't know how close it is to Charles Portis' original novel, True Grit, but I have that one on my to-read shelf.