the calvary

Absolutely. One of my favourites. Lumet and Newman are both really missed by me and I'm sure many others. Both had much bigger hits, I know, but there's a humanity in this film that you don't see in many.

Chaos by name . . .

Of course, this is true. The audience has its own interpretive input. However I think what the OP is about is about looking at what the intention of the writer is. Or at least, what was at the forefront of the writer's mind. This reminds me again of the Elvis Costello story about getting a letter thanking him for his lovely song about a boat trip - Shipbuilding - as he said, they're entitled to that interpretation, but no, that's not what I intended. The "white lines" as coke interpretation, is so outside of the scope of the song, and Bruce's overall thematic concerns, that it makes it unlikely that that is what he intended. That a listener might read it as that is something else entirely. My mate, David, years ago, heard Streets of Philadelphia, when he was an addict, and believed it was speaking to him, about his drug addiction, and of course it was. Even though we know that the specific remit of the song, was to give voice to someone with AIDS. Of course Bruce left it so open, that it could be about pretty much any existential crisis a person is having. Thats not the case with GB. There are so many specifics. But if course a listener can make their own reading. However the listener cannot then say, refardoess of all evidence, my personal reading is correct, and expect to go unchallenged. So, for example, the line is "countin white lines and getting stoned". I read above that because Bruce ha previously referred to hard drug use in a scalped version of Shut Out The Lights, it makes this a likely reading here. By a stronger extension, we could say that "white lines" is about him getting coked up, and the phrase @getting stoned", is a religious reference, to biblical stoning for transgressions within Stone Age society. Bruce has made much of biblical references over the years, so, that box is ticked. Class a drugs are illegal, so this is a transgression, so we all must accept that my reading, that this man is doing lines of sniff and then being punished by his peers, through the barbaric act of stoning, is correct. Either that or we go with the more plausible, given the context, reading.

Agree. It's "countin' white lines AND gettin' stoned." Its a song about a biker. Were he to be "snortin'" or sniffin'" white lines, it'd be a no brainier, but would then detract from the verse, because he's just getting off his face, he's not riding. The line as it's best understood now, is that he's riding his machine and getting stoned. It also fits far better into the grand arc of themeatic Bruce. Another traveller. This one riding into a monotonous nothing.

Philosophical Essays - Bertrand Russell.

Some of the later US shows were apparently pretty good. I've no idea, I've not listened to the boots from this tour, but I'd be interested in hearing something from those later shows.

I saw this as I scrolled and thought about watching it. I love westerns. I think I'll give it a try.

No, I wouldn't recommend her as a partner. Well maybe that's harsh. I don't think I knew how to be the partner of someone like that, and I think the drama explores that difficulty. I actually watched the show with her after we'd split up after first watchingbit myself, and finding it spookily similar. The point being, the Saga character isn't a badly motivated person, she's just not able to completely be someone others can reach. I really enjoyed the way the two leads connected and related to each other, without ever really understanding each other. I also loved their superior officer and his concern for Saga. Great character studies of difficult people.

It's great. Really is. I think I told you once via PM that the main female character is so weirdly close to the ex that broke me into little tiny bits, it's a bit scary. Even looks a bit like her. But her behaviour/personality, is entirely her. Her parents even said this to her hehe.

First episode was not great. I watched it on recommendation of a friend, and I persevered even though I found the first episode hard going, simply because he was so enthusiastic about it, and he's usually spot on with any recommendation. im really pleased I did, I'm not a big tv watcher anyway, so my default is to stop watching. However I could've easily did what @Kay did and watch it in one day. Once Holt Mcallany gets his character properly established (he's a great actor and really holds this piece together) the relationship between the two becomes central, and when Wendy appears, the dynamic twists again. All the way through, the Holden Ford character develops subtly, in ways we'd maybe not expect. The series I'd compare it to, probably my favourite of the decade, is The Bridge (the Scandinavian original). It builds on the same concerns with relationships between characters and how the darkness of their work lives informs their internal workings. Definitely worth the second episode.

I've just watched episode 2 and I agree.

Precisely what I said

Just brilliant. He's such a great director. I can watch this film over and over. Every shot is eye poetry.

Halloween specials. High Plains Drifter. My favourite Eastwood movie when I was a kid. Earned the annoyance of John Wayne and Jon "No H" Landau. A great revenge western, with the most gleeful shootout scene ever. Man I love Clint. The Shining. Stephen King understands overwriting but still being good, better than any human alive, but he does not understand film. Stanley Kubrick does, and he knows novels are not film scripts and if people try to treat them as if they are, bad films happen. Kubrick was bad at making bad films, and he did a terrible job of making a bad film with The Shining, even though Stephen King thought he did a great job of it. Man I love Stanley.

Oh man, the dog tips it! Im sat here at 4 in the morning contemplating watching it again!

What size shoe do you take on your larger foot?

Last night I watched Pale Rider, which is enjoyable, but I think may be the least strong of the westerns he directed. It feels like there should be another hour of character and relationship development. I do tend to think Unfirgiven is his greatest, As you say, the struggles with his morality, and his past, are quite something. Ive always felt that it was a counterpart, (not a sequel), to Josey Wales. They both delve into strange moral landscapes. The shot just after Wales has faced off captain Red Legs, where he blinks and there's a tiny chime, is quite something. I also love the strange band of misfits he gathers as she travels. For me it's always symbolised a kind of idea of what a society can come from and become. Where differences are met with a realisation that tolerance and a regontion in the basic sameness we all have, fuse.They're not the same, they all have their individual identities and differences, but they find strength in their communal power. I like that. Eastwood's individualism and I think genuinely held libertarian instincts have always held out the hand to communal ties remaining essential to the individual, and I think Josey Wales depicts that in a way few philosophical or political tracts have ever managed. As a separate note, I'd love to see one final Eastwood western, I know it's unlikely, but I'd be so happy to see it.

Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy. Eastwood is one of the greats and this could be his high point, though I usually lean toward The Unforgiven. It's a tough call. I wastchbyhis every two or three years I'd guess and it never fails.

I think maybe having it on camera like that was possibly a bit uncomfortable maybe.

Maybe he was a bit uncomfortable.

Why?

Very good.

Both really great, both books I've been wanting to get to for a while. Rose's book is a hefty thing, the amount of research he must have put in is mind boggling.