Most of my impressions of the movie and my rebutals to Ms. Zacharek's objections have been covered in previous posts. I think it is worth emphasizing - for those who have not seen it - that this is the first mass-marketed movie made for grown-ups that I've seen in ages. The restraint in the sound track, the lack of gratuitous car chases, and the relaxed pace of discussion are conspicuous examples of a filmakers trust in the audience. I am reminded of the classy movies of the late sixties/early seventies.... and I assume that this is a deliberate effort by Mr. Spileberg to refer to that style as part of his mise-en-scene - along with the authentic 70s-period detail to which others alluded.

The main point I would add to the others is that the constant questioning about the morality of actions ("righteousness" in the film) is and always has been a part of the Jewish - and yes, Israeli - tradition. That is very well portrayed.

I think Mr. Spielberg has made an amazing effort to be sympathetic to both sides - even though he is under no obligation to be even-handed. Ultimately, it may be that there are no answers, per se. In nature, sex, food (so much good sensuous food and wine and whiskey in this flic), and violence (the juxtapostion scene) are simple givens; and humans are in fact just other animals of the earth - extraordinarily 'successful' predators.

... and "Munich" does not even rate an honorable mention? Ms. Zacharek just didn't get it. Pity.

I think the CGI in "kong" - as in ebery other movie in which CGI is as heavily relied upon - is vastly, vastly over-rated. It's just not convincing. Fans seem willing to suspend disbelief vis-a-vis monsters and hulks, but not dramatic human interaction. Pity.

Most voted against Lieberman because he supported:

Estate Tax

Bankruptcy Bill

Immigration Bill

PATRIOT Act reauthorization

This legislative record is offensive to the core values that we Democrats - mostly - hold in common: compassion, downward redistribution of massive wealth, progressive taxation, second chances, the Constitution of the United States of America Bill of Rights... little stuff like that

The issue is not homosexuality. The issues are:

1)predatory sexual behavior toward minors,

2)hypocrisy and

3)the violation of public trust

Do not let the GOP or the religious right change the subject!

I am troubled by the way you, Sullivan - and others - who previously supported the war now concede maybe you were too gullible.

Many of us who opposed the war were not. We said to you at the time that it would not work as conceived. We asked why more time could not be given for diplomacy, intelligence-gathering, multi-lateralism, etc.

We further reminded you that war is a last resort for executing policy that cannot done any other way. We asserted that war would not be the viable policy instrument for converting the Mid-east into a modern democracy.

Water under the bridge now, but for future reference:

How does one deal with people like you - how does one reason with people like you - at the time the debate matters (when the misadventure is not yet fait accompli)?

I wish the interviwer had asked: Sullivan essentially called me a member of a 5th column - even though he doesn't know me. What's he say about THAT now?

For biographical inspiration, the posts pointing to Fleming's bio are spot on, which Fleming has acknowledged.

As for this particular form of genre fiction, note that the hero travels alone on missions - cut off from home - in hostile wilderness in service of his tribe. The hero is a hunter and a technician. He encounters challenges which he overcomes sometimes through superior skill and sometimes only by luck.

I believe it is related to our ability to - and our preference for - identifying patterns from sensory stimuli. This talent is one of the many traits that makes us successful predators - in fact, the most successful predators on the planet. Our need to tell stories and have them passed down through the generations might also be a useful mechanism for transmitting vital information that helps our species persist.

It is an undeniable urge - just like hunger, thirst, sex drive, etc... ya gotta believe in something (even if it's atheism!).

healthy skeptic writes in response to my labeling of humans as 'predators:'

"...That gets the award for creepy over simplification in a Freudian slip."

and then goes on to ask:

"Does intelligence and religion serve any other purpose than being a 'predator' perhaps? Do you suppose our ape ancestors evolved intelligence to be great predators? What percentage of their diet was meat do you think?"

Guilty as charged of over-simplifying.

Of course intelligence and religion serve other purposes. Never said they didn't. And as to why our ape ancestors' intelligence evolved: hard to say for certain. But it's reasonable to posit that 'intelligence' (or a set of traits that yield 'intelligence') was useful in enabling members of the species to survive (aka: compete for resources) and then project genes with similar traits into future generations. Further, being a predator is only one of many traits that contributed to the evolution of our particular species, up until now anyway. In truth, that trait may ultimately contribute to our extinction. Who knows? Evolution serves no purpose, per se. It simply happens. And neither being intelligent, nor being a predator is required; it did happen that way for our species, though.

Yes, I simplified (and still am!)- because the main point of my post was about pattern perception. In what way is all this creepy? And - just curious - what is Freudian about it?

In good humor,

Gordon