|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Oct 30, 2005 14:52:54 GMT 8
So I just watched Stella again the other day, and since I have the French DVD, french subtitles appear when I watch it. This makes it a little easier to understand some of the dialogue when the accents get really thick, since I know some french. Anyway, I notice that at the very beginning, When Mr. Peters and Stella are talking, they say something to the effect of: and you took me in, just like in numerous works of thingyens. And this is repeated more than once. As if Mr. Peters has created this warped fantasy for his girls that they are little orphans like Oliver Twist and he is taking care of them.
Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone here has read thingyens more than, or more recently than I, who basically read my obligatory Great Expectations in the 8th or 9th grade and never looked back. Does anyone see any similarities between this story and a thingyens story?
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Oct 30, 2005 14:55:28 GMT 8
WHAT?? Every time I write thingyens, as in Charles thingyens, the author of Great Expectations, it posts it as thingyens!
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Oct 30, 2005 14:56:49 GMT 8
Does it think I'm trying to write an obscenity? OK, substituting T for D, I am trying to spell Tickens! Let's see if that works!
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Oct 30, 2005 14:58:18 GMT 8
OK, that's a little better. Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Nov 3, 2005 7:50:38 GMT 8
Yep, there's an "obscenity" screening function but it's like my fire detector - overly sensitive. Does anyone over five think that word that's an abbreviation for Richard is obscene? I just noticed also in the Songs thread that it hadn't let me write Salt Water as one word cos the last letter of one word combined with the first three of the next is of course "Totally unaccceptable."
But to address your original post, I do think Peters sees himself as a type of f*gin figure, kidding himslef that he's looking after his charges while exploiting them and suggesting to them that there are worse dangers out there. I'm not sure the film really wants to explore the whole "Modern London as Richardensian" theme though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Nov 3, 2005 11:21:29 GMT 8
To add what Virgil said:
-Oliver's demise was not his fault - he was born into abject poverty
-Stella's demise was partially her fault - she chose to be a prostitute
-Phagin - the "exploiter" - was a complex and redeemable person. He helped the orphans survive, even though survival included theft. He was always trying to find ways to get out of poverty.
-Mr. Peters - the "exploiter" was one-dimensional and not redeemable. He was a rapist and pedophile, and had no intent on stopping his life of sexual perversity.
-Charles D. indicted society as a whole for Oliver's demise.
-Corky G. doesn't indict anyone. Corky implies that people are responsible for their own actions - only you can save you.
However, I love that fact that you drew a comparison between Stella and Oliver. Times haven't changed too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Nov 3, 2005 14:31:36 GMT 8
No, probably not the whole film as a thingyensian analogy.
But does Coky really say that only we can save ourselves? Or is the message "we can try really hard, but sometimes the deck is just too stacked against us."
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Nov 3, 2005 14:32:42 GMT 8
How annoying!!! Tickensian analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Nov 3, 2005 23:26:33 GMT 8
Dhickens  D!ckens Dìckens Díckens Or is the message "we can try really hard, but sometimes the deck is just too stacked against us." Based on the film ending, Stella succeeded in helping herself. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepenthe on Nov 22, 2006 19:28:00 GMT 8
I completely forgot that I've actually seen this ...
Maybe I misinterpreted the ending, (highlight for spoiler) but doesn't Stella kill herself? I suppose then it becomes completely subjective, as in 'what constitutes success?' Personally, I still see her as a victim to her circumstance (or perhaps even her own nature). I have to say I don't really understand why it ended like it did, but it might just be that I need to watch it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Nov 22, 2006 22:18:21 GMT 8
I'd have to watch it again to really remeber the ending but I seem to remeber it's quite ambiguous. I certainly think what you mentioned is indeed implied and not all that subtly. The other thing that's unclear is what indeed is going to happen to Eddie. Has she helped him to find the permanent solution or is he just asleep/ out of it? And if so, what will his future likely be?
if you saw it before you were 'tuned into' Hans, it might certainly be worth another viewing (if only for the swimming pool scene)
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Nov 22, 2006 23:35:41 GMT 8
*spoiler alert* did you really see that!? That Stella might have done something to "put him to sleep" also? I really doubt it. Don't you think that Eddie might then have appeared somewhere in her final dream sequences?
|
|
|
|
Post by missjane on Feb 3, 2009 4:21:03 GMT 8
Okay don't beat me, but It was very hard to watch because my english isn't very good and I was in trouble with this bad dialect they've spoken (More than the half of the movie I don't understand what Stella is talking about  ) Can someone explain me the end of the movie? Does Stella kill herself or was she only sleeping?? And what about Eddie? Sorry for my silly questions and thanks for explaining  P.S.: Is it just me or... How old was Hans in this movie? He looks very young... maybe 17 or in his early 20's. He reminded me a bit of Josh Hartnett ;D |
|
|
|
Post by lynette on Feb 3, 2009 4:37:29 GMT 8
P.S.: Is it just me or... How old was Hans in this movie? He looks very young... maybe 17 or in his early 20's. He reminded me a bit of Josh Hartnett ;D[/quote]
Hans was 21 or 22 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by missjane on Feb 3, 2009 7:20:46 GMT 8
Eleven years ago that's very young indeed  |
|
)
