winstonlegthigh

[blockquote].Acting for the most part is less of an art now, you can phone the shit in and the studios don't really care[/blockquote] Exactly...or on the flipside, they are too much into the craft of it til they are in way over there head and the pheriphery of a performance takes presedence over the actual substance i.e. OMG, CHRISTIAN BALE LOST 100 MILLION LBS FOR THE MACHINIST or OMG, JARED LETO TURNED HIMSELF INTO A FATTY FOR CHAPTER 27 but it's these things that sort of become the performance as opposed to the acting involved. Loads of great actors did things like that, Marlon Brando for example in The Godfather with the black hair and the cotton wool in his mouth and the croaky voice but that was just things to develop the character, it wasn't the extent of the character y'know? So there's a balance involved that people seem to miss.

I think that logic dictates that there must be SOME form of other life out there, whether it's more or less intelligent than us, who knows. As a general thing, i'd say i don't know whether they're out there or not but i definitely think there is some form of life out there. Thats the beauty of the universe though, perhaps our levels of perception aren't correctly disposed to see or understand all forms of life. Which further begs the question, if you can't percieve it does it exist as far as you're concerned?

I don't think there has been a mainstream hollywood production yet where story took prescedent over profit. It's a business, i don't think it works like that. if you mean like it was made by a director that was uncompromising in terms of being true to his particular vision of what the movie should be like then i think thats an eternal producer director struggle and with most movies or most directors worth their salt it's a back and forth battle where both sides kinda get their word in depending on the tenacity of the parties involved. Y'know i'm not sure i understood the question Wait, just re-read the post, i think i kinda get it now, in that case, just about any movies Lars Von Trier ever made, uhhh, Once Upon A Time in the West, Apocalypse Now, most of the movies John Huston ever made...hmmm, i think this'd be an interesting thing to approach from a director point of view. Easy Rider i'd say? Quemada with Marlon Brando, most definitely, Last Tango In Paris is another...loads of em. In fact i think it's part of the criteria for making a good movie if not totally exclusively. Three Colors Trilogy. A friend of mines always going on at me to watch Mystic River but i never get around to it.

Ginger Ale is best with Brandy although it's sort of an old mans drink

Fuck me, they were letting go for an awful long time, weren't they? I guess they had arthiritic fingers. You could argue that they were dismantling their empire because they didn't have the wherewithal to sustain it and Congress knew this and all this work that had been done by Indians towards independence was a part of it. People think Gandhi was just an idealistic pacifist but i think one could make a good case for his being a very shrewd politician. Other colonies were released, sure but that doesn't negate the work that was going on in India. I think a lot of it had to do with it being the tailend of WW2 and England being too drained in terms of resources to really put up a good fight for the empire. Also, wasn't there a Labour government at the time? Not sure but i think so, could be wrong. The Empirical mentality was very much a Conservative thing by then.