Estefanía’s
Comments
(group member since Dec 08, 2019)
Estefanía’s
comments
from the EVERYONE Has Read This but Me - The Catch-Up Book Club group.
Showing 121-140 of 189



It sounds great, but I always get worried when a hear him. I remember him being super passionate in his voice work. He will always by the voice of AM to me.

Just a little question. Was it normal for people to have a beef with Jules Vernes in the seventies? The guy wrote the prologue (he was also the translator) of my copy really didn't like Vernes. I was just confused at the guy how is supposed to get you interested in the story, go out of his way to call the author's body of work vulgar, mediocre and "literature".
I'm asking because I read a prolog in The Time Machine edition that also took shots at the guy. However they were nicer, they called him boring next to H. G. Wells.


In the Classics (1969 & before) suggestions someone nominated A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, 480 pages. The Bookshelf is getting so large, I'm not surprised if somebody missed a book while checking the old reads.
Jan 28, 2021 06:41PM

We Have Always Lived in the Castle and The Lottery by Shirley Jackson.
I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream by Harlan Ellison.
And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie.
Beloved by Toni Morrison.
The Burning Plain and Other Stories by Juan Rulfo.
The Popol Vuh

If she wanted tug at our heartstrings, wouldn't she play up the going from hotel to hotel and the traumatized husband? For what little we now of their future is Manderley is gone. Nothing is said about rebuilding. The longing for that building make the fire look like a murder. The family never stopped mourning nor have the will to move on. Nonetheless, she can choose to get lost in her memories, the husband isn't so fortunate. By the Ms. de Winter's description he will soon get his wish and leave everything behind. Let's hope he doesn't confuse her for Rebecca on one of his bad days.

Estefanía, thank you for that important and relevant historical note. Man, it sounds mad, like propaganda tal..."
Because it was. More specifically an attempt of the cleaning the industry's image after a number of scandals and help it weather the landmark decision of Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio. The Supreme Court at the time decided the free speech didn't extend to motion pictures. That left them at the mercy of indecency laws. However, it was overruled by Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson ("The Miracle Decision") in 1952. In other words, the day was saved by an italian anthology film (L'Amore) section called The Miracle. Because reality has to be more on the nose than fiction.

Crime and immorality could never be portrayed in a positive light.
Methods of committing crime could not be explicitly presented.
Alfred Hitchcock couldn't included the original twist if he wanted his movie to see the light of day. It had to be change into an accident. The problem of the new one a guess is the same thing that happens with adaptations. When there is more than one version of the same work, nip and cut the part whey like. They wanted Du Maurier, but also Hitchcock name recognition. That's why I imagine they kept a change that Hitchcock didn't even want to do in the first place. Also, they seem to have thought it was a romance as in a love story and not in the gothic sense. Heck, you could say they might have wanted a classy fifty shades of grey.

Dec 02, 2020 03:53PM