Andy's recent posts

Recent public posts (showing 1-20 of 277).

I agree with what your take on Gittes moral code Candy, he has a powerful internal sense of right and wrong.

The thing about having such a strong moral code is that he was wrongly convinced that she did it. No matter how strong his moral code, he was still "wrong" right up until the very end I think.

We don't know much about Noah Cross, but from what we do know, I guess we can surmise that his moral code is more apt to slide around and shift with the circumstances. I was trying to establish the idea that Gittes strong moral code is the only way he's able to stay in the business so long, but Noah Cross' very different moral code has let him stay around in the business, too, for a very long time.

Moral codes, eh?

*spoiler*

Well I suppose Gittes really could have extorted the lovely but deranged Evelyn Mulwray. I guess he chooses to honor justice (when he thinks she was guilty). He mentions toward the end that he's been in the business for a long time, I suppose it's his faith in justice that keeps his back bone firm when the going gets tough.

There are a lot things happening in this film. Golly.
Faye Dunaway's performance is something else. John Huston's Noah Cross calls her a deranged woman. She has that wild look about her at times, and the way she jerks her head toward the end. She's one coooool customer. What do people think of her?

The love scenes between the two of them, when they're out by her pool having a drink and then when they're lying in bed, is it just me or are they both very beautiful? Nicholson looks so mischievous LOL.

Candy wrote: "Okay sounds good. I've got to track down a copy. Do you have any requirements Andy about what to watch for in your class?"

Hey Candy, good question. Sorry I didn't get back at it sooner, I was in Tulsa for business. Yee haw.

The professor wants us to look at moral codes. He wants to know how Gittes and Noah Cross differ with respect to moral codes. So there you go.

I just picked up the movie today and I will watch it tonight!

Maybe next week we can get a Chinatown discussion going?

I identified four scenes that have that soft glow... Kind of hard to see on the youtube version :)

*spoiler*

I think the glow is softest in the scenes between Tracy and George. Could be the directors needed to use whatever trick they could to keep the audience involved in that relationship, since everybody knows she's going to end up with one of the others :)

http://www.goodreads.com/photo/group/262...

http://www.goodreads.com/photo/group/262...

Check out the "romantic glow" lighting. I think it's notable that the director used this stylized lighting here, when George is telling her she is pure and a goddess, the exact qualities that Dexter and her Father criticized her for.

They use a similar lighting scheme when she is dancing with George, then when Dexter and Tracy are in the car after the party, then when Tracy and Mike are having their moment in the garden later that night...

If I could figure out how to embed photos, I could post them here to show things more clearly... Does anybody know how to do that?

Thanks for the notes, Stagg. I like that you noticed the hats, LOL.

I'm going to "skim" the movie again tonight to look for other production values that are noteable...

Hi Lee! And Wild and Candy, too!
Awww, I missed everybody!

The obstacle I have been thinking of is Tracy's lack of passion (it's funny that interpretation is at odds with Gabrielle's). The scene that happens just before the party, her father dresses her down for basically not showing any vulnerability. He says she sees herself as a goddess... cool, aloof, perfect. It is that speech that "drives her to drink" so to speak. After that speech, she downs three glasses of champagne and decides she is going to show everybody that she's no prude.

Jimmy Stewart's writer character is one representation of love in the film. He is a hard man on the outside, but Tracy reads his book and finds that he is capable of love, if not starved for love. There is a cultural narrative that suggests through art, love, emotion, meaning is made possible.

One question that springs to mind: is Carey Grant's character also an artist in a way? Is he seeking revenge or is he trying to win Hepburn's character back? Does he bring in the writer (Stewart) and the photographer/painter (Elizabeth Imbrie) to soften Tracy up? Or was he genuinely plotting revenge? Does it matter what his intentions are?

I also wonder about the word "important." Stewart's character says the photographer might be an "important" painter if only she had time. George is interested in being an "important" person, he wants to be in the magazines because he wants to become involved in politics. Is there a correlation between "importance" and the notion of love that drives the story?

Hi Beej! I know it's kind of fast, but I'm in a pop culture class right now, it's only seven weeks so everything is squeeeezed in.

Questions posed by the prof:
What obstacles to love do the characters experience?

What narratives about love does the story express? (Include production techniques if relevant).

Whoa! Hey cool group!
Thanks for setting this up!

I'll watch Chinatown soon, gotta get it from the library.

Watched Philadelphia Story last night. Upcoming are Chinatown and Duplicity and a Michael Connelly novel: the Lincoln Lawyer.

It's a fast-paced course, only seven weeks!

The best conversations about books I have ever had have been with this group. Several times in the last year I’ve been here, when we are working together on some interpretation of a book, when we are picking up each other’s words and ideas and reactions and running with them, I have felt so connected and understood. It’s a rare and beautiful feeling I hope I will have again.

And I know others have felt that way, too. One of the very new people has said that she is surprised to see so much passion on this forum surrounding the events of Candy’s getting kicked out. I believe that passion that has been demonstrated in people’s posts these last few days comes from that feeling of connectedness and group understanding we have all felt in the past. We are desperate not to lose that feeling, we want to get there again, the moderators don’t want to lose it and the members don’t want to quit, but I have to quit. We don’t want to quit but I am quitting and I don’t want to seek out something similar to this elsewhere because it was so nice here and it was so unique and it worked for me and I know I’ve been kind of a pain lately to some but I know it’s because I so want to feel connected (calling Oprah!), and even those who have been around for a month or a year or two years or more feel so invested.

It takes a lot of work and risk and vulnerability, it takes skill and experience and empathy and probably a bunch of other things for a group like this to work. It’s a bit of a balancing act, it’s a bit like Icarus flying with waxen wings and all those other clichés. Apparently this time we’ve flown too close to the sun.

Everybody should be congratulated for participating in such a nice thing. I have a lot of stuff written about all of this but I am just going to sit on it because it’s all just too sad and I’m very confused and exhausted. I don’t have much nice to say about the moderators who kicked out my friend, except Don’t go bein’ too rigid now, ya hear? Oh, it might be helpful to consider that you are running a publication and it takes all kinds. I’m not sure what your goals are, but I think if your goals are either quantity of members or quality of discussion, you were doing fine on both counts even with that dastardly rogue member lurking about. You might have considered seeking out some resources on how to deal with such a “problem”. I know this is not a day job for anybody, but there are other forums that you could reach out to for advice, there are books on conflict resolution, there are people who have training in how to solve such problems that you could reach out to. You apparently didn’t do any of those things. You just threw her ass out. And then acted like goddamn Soviet intelligence officers.

Oh, if anybody comes across a different group that might like to have me as a member, give me a shout. I’ll keep my goodreads email open. Or if you just want to say hi /smile/

And thanks everybody for great conversations and companionship and for reading my long posts /smile/ I will miss you all very much /smile/

andy

A Short, Incomplete List of Things I Like About Candy

She’s very clever at argumentation.

She’s bold.

She’s confident.

She’s an inspiration to me.

She’s resilient.

She has overcome much diversity and tough stuff.

She’s really funny (and has a terrific smile).

She’s well read and well travelled.

She likes to geek out on art and all kinds of fun stuff.

She’s damn smart.

She’s a great listener and she’s very understanding.

She has a super cool hubster!

She’s excited to meet new people and have new adventures.

She makes films and paintings and killer grilled cheese sandwiches.

She has written a book of poetry.

She introduced me to many terrific people.

She volunteers and got me volunteering.

She’s open and caring.

She approaches this forum the same way everybody else does, but something about her approach makes me see something fresh in everybody.

I learn from her.

She overcomes the bullshit and keeps smiling.

We share a fascination for how forum communication works!

She’s my friend!

Good for you, Janet. Thank you for mentioning the censorship request. That is a very strange behavior for the moderators.

You may have noticed in rereading the apostrophe thread that several posts were removed there. I believe it is a Goodreads issue that when a post is removed, all the subsequent posts are renumbered so it appears that the deleted post was never there in the first place, the only way to notice is to catch references in subsequent posts.

This is a robust group. The ten years of alleged abuse Candy has allegedly doled out have not been enough to keep the group from expanding past one thousand members

Ruth: It’s important to understand that this decision was taken not merely because of the latest unpleasantness here, but after a continuing pattern of insults and abuse.

This whole debacle got me and another member talking via email about a past disagreement we had had. I remembered the disagreement, but I couldn't remember what the topic of the thread was. It's funny how some things loom larger than others in our memories.

broken the protocols of polite conversation
This is the most polite discussion forum I have ever been a part of. Have you been to other Internet sites? I have some great links that demonstrate impoliteness, let me know and I can send them for comparison purposes.

I'm sure we could also find some nice juicy excerpts from some of the books we've read that are much better examples of broken politeness protocols.

conventions of this group. First Jane mentioned some rules, now this business about conventions. I see no other mention of rules or conventions anywhere in Constant Reader.

She has been made fully aware of this over and over again.
How so?

We are saddened
It doesn't seem that way.

unwilling or unable to change her behavior What was the objectionable behavior again?

in the best interests of the group and the free exchange of ideas without fear of abuse or intimidation.
The police chief of a town near me resigned today because he was wrongfully accused of being drunk on the job. Police chiefs have many enemies in the towns they serve. Could it be that somebody who had it in for the chief complained loud enough to the city councilman, who was also an enemy of the chief that they decided to do an investigation? Could it be that Candy had "enemies" on the forum. A lot of disagreements can arise in ten years of discussing philosophy.

I feel like it would be the right thing to do to have an open dialogue with a trained conflict resolution practitioner. There are known conflict-resolution techniques that could be brought to bear on the situation.

I think we need to talk about the specifics of the situation, but it doesn't feel right to do so without Candy here. I think most of the "misbehavior" can be boiled down to misunderstanding.

She didn't quit, the moderators locked her out.

Hi Yulia,
Well, I think Sherry, Jane, and Ruth were very deeply involved in the conflict as it developed. It is difficult for people who were involved with the development of the conflict to mediate it in a way that is just.

If it was a just resolution, this thread we are speaking in wouldn't exist.

And I agree that this isn't the Middle East crisis. But my friend has experience doing things like helping estranged families start talking again, so it isn't necessarily only international conflicts that can benefit from outside help. Like I said, he is a good guy to talk to when it comes to conflicts, and he can talk over email. Actually, his story is very interesting. He was born in Brazil and educated in Mexico and lived in the United States for a long time and travelled back in forth and started a family and now he is 60 and he has committed himself to spending his remaining years trying to bring peace and justice to people that might not have it. He was also my Spanish tutor and the most brilliant teacher I have ever had and a person who just warmed my heart whenever I was around him. I know it probably seems a bit out there to suggest, but he really is a beautiful person, and even before his training with non-violent communication I believe he was and is a gifted person who has a knack for helping people communicate. I don't normally gush about people but there you have it.

Jane: Our rules are stated at the top of this forum.

I don't see them.

***

I'm relatively new. I believe The moderators should be appreciated for creating and maintaining Constant Reader. I believe you Sherry and Jane, when you say you are doing the best that you know how. It is apparent that you are feeling stress over the whole situation. That is why I suggested looking toward an outside moderator to lead a discussion that would hopefully lead to an outcome that is agreeable to more people in the group.

My company runs several large web forums. We have on staff professional moderators who are responsible for settling disagreements that arise on the board. It is often difficult for people who are strongly tied into the conversation to lead a conversation and come to a just outcome. I do know a justice-reconciliation practitioner who does volunteer work on just this sort of issue who may be able to help us. It might be beneficial for the moderators to speak to him, and for Candy to speak to him, if you would like to. If anything, he has useful things to say on how to resolve conflicts and is a good ear. I think in this situation, we are all so emotionally tied up in what is happening, it is useful to know that there are strategies out there for having fruitful dialog, and that those strategies can be helped along by a trained outside party.

Please tell me Sherry or Jane, in a private email if you like, if you would like for me to put you in touch with my friend John Cabral, he is a very nice person and a truly great listener and a person who has had a lot of training and experience in helping communities who are having conflicts. It maybe wouldn't even come to a full-blown mediation, but it might be helpful to talk to somebody outside the group. (My friend has been working on a licensing requirement that requires 40 hours of volunteer conflict resolution work, so he wouldn't require anything in return.)

We know that you want to do what is best for the group, I think there is a way to approach this conflict in a way that will help retain members.

Incidentally, I have been rereading the thread and I find that to be a good exercise. It might even be useful for people who feel very hurt to print it out and talk it over with a loved one, it could take the sting out of it when you look at it after the heat of the moment.

http://www.mediate.com/mediator/details....
http://www.espanoldeljuan.com/

Sherry: This was a decision made for the health of the community.

Jane: We have written to Candy, and she knows why she was made to leave.

These statements make chills run down my spine.

Also, I am worried this thread might turn into a trial of sorts without all parties present. It hasn't happened yet, but if it looks like it's going to become a conversation of specific (perceived?) injustices, I would suggest perhaps employing the services of an outside mediator or alternative dispute resolution practitioner. I don't know if all parties are interested in even having that conversation, but I feel if we want to have a sane conversation about all of this, it would be a good idea to entertain the notion of retaining some outside help.

It might be a good idea to entertain in the interest of the health of the community.