Letters to the Editor
Xrandadu Hutman
Published Letters: 2630 Editor's Choice: 52
-
Saw it
[Read the article: "A Mighty Heart"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I liked it, but I am not sure it was fully necessary that this story be made into a film. That is, I think it has a limited audience.
The film consists mainly of the tension in the days between Pearl's disappearance and the discovery that he has been brutally murdered. There is little suspense in this sequence of events because we already know the bleak outcome. As such it is more a study of people's behavior during uncertain times, but even there it does not linger.
The film also doubles as a police procedural, Pakistan-style, providing details that are on the verge of confusing. The film touches on the ambiguity of the dichotomy between terrorists and the righteous when showing how the police use torture to extract information.
"A Mighty Heart" also touches on a lot of other issues, such as the tenuous way people in Pakistan see the outside world and react to its political forces. There is no question the film is done intelligently.
I also thought Angelina Jolie was good, though not great, in her role. Jolie projects strength convincingly, tenderness and depth a bit less so. But she's not bad. I was at first put off by her artificial-sounding accent, but I warmed up to it soon enough. Jolie has some very stark, emotional scenes, and I thought she pulled them off though I wanted the director (Michael Winterbottom) to cut away sooner. I think he went a bit overboard with the birthing scene. OK, we get it, her pain in death was linked to her pain in life. Winterbottom didn't have to push that so hard.
Will Patten's performance -- creepy as always, but likable -- provided a weird touch. I also liked the woman who played the Indian reporter. Most of these characters seemed self-contained and isolated from each other. There is more a sense of disconnection than connection among the characters. I am not sure if this was intentional, but I am glad they did not sentimentalize these people.
So I thought it was a good film....but part of me still doesn't understand its point for existing. Is it an homage to Daniel Pearl, and to Marianne Pearl's strength in her time of despair? If that's all it is, that's fine, but again, I am not sure this is worthy of a wide audience's attention.
The film does, as Zacharek says, tell us something about the complexity of the world, and it definitely gives a realistic view of modern-day Pakistan and the many social/political forces at work.
(Incidentally, has Zacharek been busy lately, or what? Four reviews in a row! You deserve a day out by the pool, Stephanie.)
-
You answered your own question
[Read the article: My sister is in perpetual crisis -- should I give her $5,000?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The LW wrote: "If I give her money, it will be gone and in six months they will be right back where they started from."
If that isn't the only answer you need, what is?
You would be giving her $5,000 for nothing. So don't.
People who are close to the edge find ways to push back harder, to survive. People who have a safety net lull themselves into a false sense of security and don't take action. Your sister needs to know that she's on the edge and needs to act. The only way she'll know that is if you decline to offer her money.
Your sister could get two jobs. She could learn to budget her existing resources. She could sell off all the frivolous junk she doesn't really need.
She can only do these things without your help.
Your sister sounds like an expert at denial. People like her need to be in a position where they can't avoid themselves any longer. They need to have all their toys and drugs taken away until the only thing that's left is a mirror and a list of problems to be checked off one by one.
In any case, loaning people money is always an iffy proposition at best. I have learned this from personal experience. If you loan somebody money, especially somebody with a history if irresponsible behavior, do not expect to ever get it back. You might as well that that $5,000 and throw it in the garbage.
-
Meet the Farkers
[Read the article: News you can abuse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Warning: This message forum will soon be overrun with Farkers, just as soon as this article is "greenlit" on Fark (perhaps it already is) and they swarm over here to defend Drew and/or post links to photos of cats eating invisible sandwiches.
I use Fark regularly because it has all the news, from the weirdest stuff to the most important.
In spite of Wil Wheaton's flimsy rationalization to defend his friend, Farhad Manjoo's central evaluation rings true: Drew Curtis has written a book decrying the very type of news that has made him a wealthy man.
It's sort of like if Ray Croc had written a book warning against the poor nutritional value of cheap-beef hamburgers and deep-fried potato slivers, all the while raking in McDonald's profits.
I was tempted to buy Drew's "Fark" book at the store, and spent some time skimming its sections and reading some of its examples. My main impression was that it would be a very unenjoyable read, because Curtis comes across as remarkably pedantic and sour compared to the wry tone of Fark's home-page headlines.
Do we really need the king of dumb news to tell us that dumb news is dumb?