Letters to the Editor
commandax
Published Letters: 17 Editor's Choice: 5
-
I utterly disagree with Zacharek.
[Read the article: "Brokeback Mountain"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm baffled that Zacharek calls Brokeback Mountain a "failed attempt." The film is certainly one of the finest examples of filmmaking I've ever seen. Far from being "threadbare" and "clinical," Brokeback Mountain is a love story that cuts across lines of gender and sexuality, gripping the viewer with a dreadful sorrow that the deep and passionate devotion that these two lovers feel for each other is forbidden to them, on sentence of death. More than one initially timid viewer has said that they forgot that they were watching a film about two men. After reading this review, I'm left feeling that Zacharek wasn't given her requisite allotment of prurient details about the characters's sex lives. Clearly she feels that gay love should be portrayed as strange, intimidating and different--but that's just a form of ignorance. And you know what? "Denying your true nature" very often does lead to being married to a very unhappy person. I'm also surprised that Zacharek needs to have every detail of the characters' emotions spelled out to her verbally. If she was actually watching Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway, she would know precisely how they felt. Ledger's performance, in particular, is world-class.
-
You said it, Walter...
[Read the article: Fear of spying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But politics sooner or later becomes a test of character and not merely a paint-by-numbers exercise in low-risk electioneering."
Oh, let it be so. Because what this country needs more than anything is a leader who speaks the truth. Who has a spine. Who isn't in it for his own self-aggrandizement. Who understands that unchecked power in the executive branch is infinitely dangerous, and is exactly what this country was founded to prevent. Who has a sense of history. Who recognizes that he works for the people. Who understands that our nation was meant to be a light in the darkness of the world order, and not the dark power that dictates to the world.
This is a really tall order. Politics in our country is a field that attracts unprincipled, power-hungry bottom-feeders, and naturally repels most honest men. And those few honest men who make it through the vile and corrupting requirements of electioneering to make it to the highest levels of our government are almost always led astray by opportunistic, unimaginative advisors who insist that the only way to win is to never commit to anything. To avoid controversy and never risk speaking the truth. To always react, and never attack. To toe the line in the middle of the road so assiduously that one appears to believe in nothing at all. To show no sign of passion, righteous anger, or everyday human weakness.
Do I want to be safe from terrorism? Yes I do, and I live in a very high-risk city. Would I risk dying if it meant that my country as a whole could be still the shining light in the world that it has been for centuries? Yes, I would. Any soldier would say as much, and our risks as civilians are so much less than theirs. How can we send young men and women to die in our names, but be unwilling to take on the slightest risk ourselves in the name of preserving the principles for which they fight? We need to be vigilant to ensure that the country we believe we live in remains one in which equality, justice, liberty and government by the rule of law and by the consent of the governed continue to prevail, so that our soldiers have something worth coming back to, and our children still have something worth fighting for in the future.
Strength is better than weakness. It may not win every election, but weakness will win none, and we'll feel better getting there if we speak truth to power on the way.
-
Re: Editorial Error
[Read the article: Scotland the Grave]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, in the early Fleming books Bond's weapon of choice was the .25 Beretta. In the early scenes of the film "Dr. No" - the first Bond film - M actually confiscates the Beretta from Bond, who seems quite attached to it.
Bond producer Cubby Broccoli: “Ian took a close interest in the guns Bond used. He had become friendly with the gun expert Geoffrey Boothroyd, who had suggested… that Bond shouldn’t be armed with a .25 Beretta, which he regarded pretty much as a ‘lady’s gun.’”
Boothroyd suggested the Walther PPK was a more suitable gun for a man of Bond's stature, and Fleming rewarded him by naming the MI6 armorer "Major Boothroyd." He is the character who first gives Bond the Walther PPK in the film "Dr. No." In subsequent films, this character was known as Q for "Quartermaster."
M: Armourer! (to Bond) Take off your jacket! Give me your gun. Yes, I thought so. This damn Beretta again. I’ve told you about this before. (to Boothroyd) You tell him — for the last time!
MAJOR BOOTHROYD: Nice and light — in a lady’s handbag. No stopping power.
M: Any comments, 007?
JAMES BOND: I disagree sir. I’ve used a Beretta for ten years — I’ve never missed with it yet!
M: Maybe not, but it jammed on your last job and you spent six months in hospital in consequence. If you carry a Double-O number it means you’re licenced to kill, not get killed. And another thing. Since I’ve been head of MI7 there’s been a 40 percent drop in Double-O operative casualties, and I want it to stay that way. You’ll carry the Walther — unless of course you’d prefer to go back to standard intelligence duties.
JAMES BOND: No sir. I would not.
M: Then from now on you carry a different gun. Show him, Armourer.
MAJOR BOOTHROYD: Walther PPK. 7.65 mil with a delivery like a brick through a plate-glass window. Takes a Brausch silencer with very little reduction in muzzle velocity — the American CIA swear by them.