Re: humani nil a me alienum puto

I'd agree that the film was about things other than sex. The sex
tended to overwhelm the film, though, to the point that it needed to be
a big part of the point of the film. Even if it was just a point about
Sex and Catholicism, gah, that would have been fine. No arguing with
that. I can see the sense of limiting the film to Nora's early marriage
-- the amount of material to cover is much more manageable that way --
but I was left with the sense of...what was this all about? I should
probably see it again and try to understand it about a young woman
coming into her adult life, and see what I can see in it.

Maybe I could get my wife to watch it with me...who knows what might
happen? :)

James Joyce may be too large an imaginative character to really capture
on film.

I'd double your nomination for Mrs. Parker, though. Now, THAT was a
good film about a literary character. You're talking about "Mrs. Parker
and the Vicious Circle," right? I don't recall who played the part, but
it was well played. Kudos to JJ Leigh if that's who it was.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> I don't see much point here in arguing about positions, especially
> sexual ones. :) But I do think that Pat Murphy was making a film
> about things other than sex. And I think it tried to be a small and
> personal film and that's why she resisted the temptation to make it
> about Nora's whole life.
>
> As to your last comment, I'm not sure anyone's portrayal of James
> would completely work for me, not after reading and loving the books.
> I agree that Ewan didn't do it. Kim's probably right about the
> inevitable problems there.
>
> My nomination for who comes closest -- Jennifer Jason Leigh as Dorothy
> Parker.
>
> Tomorrow's the first day of class. Hurrah.
>
> All the best,
>
> --John (finally getting around to typing syllabi)

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Aug 24 19:45:29 2003