Don't Look Now is one of those unforgettable 1970s movies so ahead of their time, along with The Marathon Man and very few others. And it's spooky indeed, hard to bear if you've got a child. RIP
Anyone wanting to watch this movie (which is great) just go into it cold. Be warned that there's a pretty extended sex scene, but otherwise just go in without expectations.
> Be warned that there's a pretty extended sex scene, but otherwise just go in without expectations.
I want to push back slightly against the idea that's an "extended sex scene", or even that it's a "sex scene" at all.
It's one of the most beautiful sequences in all of cinema -- a grieving couple rediscovering intimacy and joy. The way it is intercut with them dressing, getting ready for dinner, the way you can see it brought happiness and affirmation and some sense that life is not over and love survived a terrible loss. It's central to the entire film: to why they are in Venice in the first place, to their commitment to each other, to their determined love for each other.
> It's one of the most beautiful sequences in all of cinema -- a grieving couple rediscovering intimacy and joy. The way it is intercut with them dressing, getting ready for dinner, the way you can see it brought happiness and affirmation and some sense that life is not over and love survived a terrible loss. It's central to the entire film: to why they are in Venice in the first place, to their commitment to each other, to their determined love for each other.
Also known as a "sex scene." And at a full five minutes, it's a rather long scene :-)
It's also one of the most notorious sex scenes in cinema from that era, with persistent rumors that Sutherland and Christie actually were doing the deed.
But I think you wrongly inferred that the commenter was trying to dissuade people from watching the movie because of it. I interpreted it just as a fair warning, lest you think it might be a fun pick for family movie night with the kids and grandparents.
> Also known as a "sex scene." And at a full five minutes, it's a rather long scene :-)
It has almost nothing creatively in common with sex scenes in almost any other movie ever made, which are usually (lazily, and often misogynistically) used to cheaply bond the damsel to the hero.
It's not a sex scene; it is fully and completely a love scene.
I can think of so few like it.
> It's also one of the most notorious sex scenes in cinema from that era, with persistent rumors that Sutherland and Christie actually were doing the deed.
> It's not a sex scene; it is fully and completely a love scene.
The love was expressed sexually. In a sex scene.
I understand that most sex in movies is poorly done, but that is a different discussion (and doesn't alter the plain-english meaning of the words sex or scene). No argument that sex is often a negative thing in films -- often causing the protagonist's downfall (an endless re-telling of the Garden of Evil parable). And of course, until very recently the woman was expected to be topless, though less so in the last few years since #metoo. There are exceptions, with sex-positivity and/or no female nudity.
Persistent, yes. But I'm confused why you think the rumors are infantile or misogynistic. At the time, people were shocked by the realism, and they reacted with "those two sure look like they're really fucking." How is that derogatory to Julie Christie??
> Buddy, when two people are having sex in a movie, it's a "sex scene", however you choose to explain the nuance.
I'm not your buddy and I'm trying to draw what I think is a pretty important creative, cultural, artistic distinction. But if you don't see it, that's fine.
> What makes it "misogynistic"?
Have you ever considered how the balance of male and female nudity works in Hollywood? Who is always the most exposed?
As a result it's very nearly intrinsically misogynistic to suggest two actors really had heterosexual sex on a film set. The portrayal and the balance of power makes that clear.
(I mean consider how the distinction works if it is two men or two women... how do you decide what is portrayal and what is sex?)
For those who enjoyed the article, and are further interested in reading more about this central theme of frustrated economic/historical development specially as it took and takes place in Brazil, I recommend reading the late Professor Darcy Ribeiro.
In my view, largely influenced by Ribeiro, Brazil's elites are immensely selfish and petty, as well as always stuck in outdated economics and politics (e.g. rural elites have always been way too influential, ). The State is blatantly *negligent* and does not think about serving its people (e.g. let them build and live in favelas and leave them to their faith, build a new housing project but make it 20 miles from the beach and nevermind planning for transportation or education in the area).
There's definitely much that I love about Brazilian culture and the "general disposition" of my fellow nationals, but I agree that as a whole we have developed this sense of morbid ironic detachment from our social environment.
For example if you read letters from Dom Pedro I to Dom Pedro II, and also see the opinions they had, both believed Brazillian economy was backwards and stupid, they believed strongly that it would be far more profitable, not just for the country, but even for the large landowners, if they agreed with the end of slavery, because it would create a consumer class (among other things).
I also saw similar issues regarding modernization of manufacturing, with the government wanting it but the elite resisting.
When the State finally ended slavery for good (after many attempts! For example one thing I was never taught in school, is that Brazil explicitly allowed England to sink Brazillian slaver ships way before slavery officially ended, as an attempt to end slavery while not antagonizing the elite), instead the elite kicked the government out and created its own.
Things basically remain this way, whenever the leadership is promising, the elite kick it out somehow.
The idea that land owning elites deposed the emperor because of emancipation is a mix of grade school historical simplification and monarchist propaganda, which is scarily pervasive on any google search about the period, given how small of a political movement it is.
I believe Taleb's investment advices are neither contrarian nor innovative, which I don't mean as a disqualification (I liked his books).
I also believe his rant is more likely just a rant. And he may or may not have long or short positions in Bitcoin. I also like to believe he is too sophisticated (well, to be fair, as a quant/professional trader he is very sophisticated) to think that he's influencing the market in his favor with his tweets (he knows he's not Elon Musk).
I was born and raised in Brazil where I lived until 25 in a major city with no shortage of poverty and inequality. I have never seen or heard reports of people defecating on the street. Though at least in the northeast it’s common for men to urinate.
I had a friend living in Rio, who told me of a woman who did this before getting into her car. Now I’m not saying it’s common, but it isn’t like SF is the only place in the world where it’s happening.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m from San Francisco and I’ve never seen anyone do this either. But clearly it happens.
Are there many startups using FPGA? In what industry is usage more common? I've had the desire to learn FPGA development for a while but don't much about the professional applications that I could use it for.
Being from the Northeast of the country, there certainly were lots of people (men mostly) committing homicide in things like bar fights and other petty personal quarrels, and my impression is that this certainly has decreased over the past 15 years, and I think the severe gun limitations contributed to it (really, at least until very recently it was virtually impossible to legally own a gun - the abstract says "carry" but that really (again, legally) is beyond imagination - as permission can only be given by the Federal Police and they will say no). Outside of homicide, it's hard for me to imagine decrease in other violent crimes that are committed with guns.
Things like armed robbery and just plain mugging in the middle of the street in broad daylight is RAMPANT in every major city in the country except perhaps in some cases in the Midwest, Southeast and South (richer regions of the nation and often showing better local governments).
It hasn't actually been virtually impossible to legally own a gun. In fact, since the bill passed, the number of legal guns has increased substantially, especially along the last three or four years.
All types of violent crime rates (including armed robbery and property crimes) are lower in the NorthEast than in the South.
I will add the caveat that 2020 might be an exception due to the extraordinary circumstances that year presented (but I actually dont think it is, because barring murders, all kinds of violent crime have actually fallen in the north east).
The only reason it might not appear that way is because there is because right wing media has basically built an identity out of painting democratic led areas as crime infested, and since democratic led areas tend to be highly populated, it's easy to build such a false picture by using absolute numbers.
