|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 21, 2020 19:04:15 GMT -5
TBB: VFX Before and After [From Zoic, CVD, LUX]
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 22, 2020 10:28:14 GMT -5
I find it interesting how it is shown at the end of episode 2, in the narration of Lemony Snicket, that he started running away from that moment. Before that, he had a relatively quiet life during the narration, and he had a fixed address. But from that moment on it ends. I think it replicates something that happened in Lemony Snicket's narration from TMM. (In TWW, Lemony still claims to be in his apartment writing the story, but from TMM, Lemony has a much more dangerous life, involving being sought out by the authorities).
Although this is shown here, if I remember correctly in TRR there will still be a scene in which Lemony comfortably drinks coffee while sitting in an armchair while stating that Uncle Monty is going to die. (Is it his apartment over there? Did he return to the apartment after escaping? Or was Lemony's narration scenes in TRR recorded (in the fictional universe of the show) before the scene in which Lemony runs away from his apartment? ) It is interesting to stop to think that this series is broadcast in a fictional way in the universe of N-ASOUE (I just coined that). A universe parallel to ours and parallel to the universe of books in which Netflix exists and that there is also another Lemony Snicket different from that which exists in the universe of books. A universe in which he is not afraid to show his face. Interesting.
So, in this parallel universe in which Netiflix exists, the internet must exist. Still, the physical books contain information not available on the internet. There is probably no goole or wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jun 22, 2020 11:18:06 GMT -5
BARRY SONNENFELD: It’s a narrow room with file cabinets that go up eleven feet, all the way to the ceiling, and Poe is at the end of it, with the Baudelaire fortune in a safe behind him, just waiting there for the taking. Well now would you look at that. Confirmation (at least as far as the show is concerned) that the Baudelaire fortune really was physically sitting in a vault to be stolen from!
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 22, 2020 12:22:16 GMT -5
BARRY SONNENFELD: It’s a narrow room with file cabinets that go up eleven feet, all the way to the ceiling, and Poe is at the end of it, with the Baudelaire fortune in a safe behind him, just waiting there for the taking. Well now would you look at that. Confirmation (at least as far as the show is concerned) that the Baudelaire fortune really was physically sitting in a vault to be stolen from! In the universe of the show, yes. ...
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 22, 2020 16:24:54 GMT -5
Second half of episode 2:
Of course, Lemony's photograph of Beatrice is blurry, as it wouldn't do to give too many clues to who she is or isn't so early.
The Hook-Handed Man and Sunny: I rather like this scene, which foreshadows their later bonding on Mount Fraught. The show does give the henchpersons more complexity early in the series, and already (apart, so far, from the WFW) they seem not fully committed to their villainous vocation.
So, The Marvellous Marriage. It is, of course, something of a puzzle what could actually happen in such a play: there doesn't seem much room for an actual plot. We found a rather splendid reconstruction of it, in truly Olafian style, on YouTube a while ago, but even that gave Violet more lines than she can actually have had. Here it seems that the Very Handsome Man escapes marriage in various parts of the world because women fight over him, so being able to marry his, er, true love, I guess.
'When people say literally they do mean literally, only not literally.' Gustav is right - give his premises - to object to 'my heart would literally break', but not to 'I am literally standing at the edge of a pond': the character, with whose voice Olaf is speaking, is, within the play, literally standing at the edge of a pond.
The Justice at the wedding reminds me rather of Rowan Atkinson as the Catholic priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral.
It seems unwise of Olaf to give orders to kill Sunny in plain sight, something he pointedly avoids doing in the book. I guess this is so that the HHM can get some credit as her rescuer.
I have always had doubts about Violet's 'own hand' manoeuvre: 'own hand' does not mean 'dominant hand', and it's hard to pretend it does. It seems the writers had a similar feeling, since they allow the marriage plot to be defeated, not by Violet's manoeuvre all by itself, but by a speech from Klaus appealing to philosophical considerations. It seems likely that the Justice's ruling depended not simply on the literal sense of the law but on the aim of finding the most equitable conclusion. As Sunny was later to say, Scalia. (Though as she might have said on another occasion, Gorsuch.)
(But in what sense is Thurgood Marshall's insight apocryphal?)
(And am I right in thinking that Martin Luther King was a member of VFD? I don't think there is any evidence about whether Marshall was.)
I will leave Jacquelyn and Gustav till next time.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 22, 2020 17:15:42 GMT -5
I think it would be better for Fernald to appear without a clear justification like the game of poker. I didn't really like the poker game scene. I was ashamed to watch beside my wife, she with the expression: "do you really like this?" I had to pause and explain: "It doesn't happen in books". I also didn't really like the fact that Gustav and Jacquelin were there during the play. It seems that they had everything under control, and they had the attitude: "Let's see if the children can solve this on their own." But Sunny could have died. I think it would be better for them not to be present. Maybe it would be better for them to be late, giving more protagonism. the solution that children got on their own.
|
|
|
Post by gothicarchiesfan on Jun 22, 2020 18:26:01 GMT -5
Of course, Lemony's photograph of Beatrice is blurry, as it wouldn't do to give too many clues to who she is or isn't so early. Indeed. Not to mention the fact that they probably didn't want to cast an actress so early on in case they couldn't get her later on when doing TPP/TE. So, The Marvellous Marriage. It is, of course, something of a puzzle what could actually happen in such a play: there doesn't seem much room for an actual plot. We found a rather splendid reconstruction of it, in truly Olafian style, on YouTube a while ago, but even that gave Violet more lines than she can actually have had. Here it seems that the Very Handsome Man escapes marriage in various parts of the world because women fight over him, so being able to marry his, er, true love, I guess. That does seem the most plausible description of the version presented in the show. Absolutely perfect to have Olaf write a show that consists of nothing but women telling him how handsome he is. The version presented in the film (though much of it ended up being cut) had slightly more of a plot, wherein a noble count is believed dead after fighting overseas but eventually returns and prevents his bride to be from marrying an ugly bald headed man. I also didn't really like the fact that Gustav and Jacquelin were there during the play. It seems that they had everything under control, and they had the attitude: "Let's see if the children can solve this on their own." But Sunny could have died. I think it would be better for them not to be present. Maybe it would be better for them to be late, giving more protagonism. the solution that children got on their own. Given catastrophist 's comments about Kit and Jacques being in the episode during an early draft, I imagine they were originally in Gustav and Jacqueline's place. Frankly, I think the show made the right choice in replacing them, I think it would have been too much too soon.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 23, 2020 5:40:56 GMT -5
I think JL meant that it was not a good idea to have any member of VFD present at the play. But I'm not sure what J and G could have done to help anyway: if they had tried to intervene I think this would have made it more likely that Sunny would be killed.
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Algernon on Jun 23, 2020 6:04:24 GMT -5
'When people say literally they do mean literally, only not literally.' Gustav is right - give his premises - to object to 'my heart would literally break', but not to 'I am literally standing at the edge of a pond': the character, with whose voice Olaf is speaking, is, within the play, literally standing at the edge of a pond. Thank you. This has annoyed me since the very first time I watched this episode. Miscommunication with the set designers, maybe?!… I have always had doubts about Violet's 'own hand' manoeuvre: 'own hand' does not mean 'dominant hand', and it's hard to pretend it does. It seems the writers had a similar feeling, since they allow the marriage plot to be defeated, not by Violet's manoeuvre all by itself, but by a speech from Klaus appealing to philosophical considerations. It seems likely that the Justice's ruling depended not simply on the literal sense of the law but on the aim of finding the most equitable conclusion. That does seem to be the case. Although an important element to remember is, of course, that the series emphatically leaves open the possibility that Asoueland isn't actually an English-speaking country. So perhaps the "own hand"/"dominant hand" switcheroo is more justifiable in whatever language they actually speak. I've long suspected that if Asoueland is a version of North America which remained split in several small enclaves with different forms of government (hence the Duchess of Winnipeg), then the Baudelaires might be from a region which speaks some unique, possibly vaguely Germanic dialect, albeit one with a lot of English loanwords. But if I had been in charge of rewriting the TBB resolution, I feel as though the simplest way to screw with the exact words of the "own hand" thing would be to have Violet use a counterfeit handwriting to sign her name. Olaf would have no idea, because he never thought to check what Violet's normal handwriting looked like. (At a stretch, you could say this is the point of signing with her left hand: not being ambidextrous, she'll writer her name really badly, and so it doesn't count as her "own hand" in its usual meaning of "own handwriting".)
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 23, 2020 6:24:21 GMT -5
'When people say literally they do mean literally, only not literally.' Gustav is right - give his premises - to object to 'my heart would literally break', but not to 'I am literally standing at the edge of a pond': the character, with whose voice Olaf is speaking, is, within the play, literally standing at the edge of a pond. Thank you. This has annoyed me since the very first time I watched this episode. Miscommunication with the set designers, maybe?!… I have always had doubts about Violet's 'own hand' manoeuvre: 'own hand' does not mean 'dominant hand', and it's hard to pretend it does. It seems the writers had a similar feeling, since they allow the marriage plot to be defeated, not by Violet's manoeuvre all by itself, but by a speech from Klaus appealing to philosophical considerations. It seems likely that the Justice's ruling depended not simply on the literal sense of the law but on the aim of finding the most equitable conclusion. That does seem to be the case. Although an important element to remember is, of course, that the series emphatically leaves open the possibility that Asoueland isn't actually an English-speaking country. So perhaps the "own hand"/"dominant hand" switcheroo is more justifiable in whatever language they actually speak. I've long suspected that if Asoueland is a version of North America which remained split in several small enclaves with different forms of government (hence the Duchess of Winnipeg), then the Baudelaires might be from a region which speaks some unique, possibly vaguely Germanic dialect, albeit one with a lot of English loanwords. But if I had been in charge of rewriting the TBB resolution, I feel as though the simplest way to screw with the exact words of the "own hand" thing would be to have Violet use a counterfeit handwriting to sign her name. Olaf would have no idea, because he never thought to check what Violet's normal handwriting looked like. (At a stretch, you could say this is the point of signing with her left hand: not being ambidextrous, she'll writer her name really badly, and so it doesn't count as her "own hand" in its usual meaning of "own handwriting".) Klaus's argument must have been as follows: the principle behind the law indicates that the expression "own hand" means the spontaneous free will of the bride and groom. If the judge identifies by means of a gesture that there was duress during the signature, the judge may declare the marriage invalid. Violet's gesture was to sign with her left hand. And that is why there is a need for a judge at the time of signing.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 23, 2020 7:58:56 GMT -5
That's very good. I'm doubtful that it's what Klaus's argument must have been; there's a reason we don't get to hear it and have to fill it in for ourselves. But it's a very plausible legal argument, which takes account both of the actual words of the law and its intent.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 23, 2020 11:16:00 GMT -5
But in what sense is Thurgood Marshall's insight apocryphal? Thurgood Marshall - he supported the philosophical trend called Living Constitution. It is a vision of law in which it is believed that the country's Constitution needs to be interpreted dynamically or as if it had the properties of a living being. The idea is associated with the view that the majority views of a society closer to the present, must be taken into account when interpreting the constitutional text. The opposite of this view of law is called Textualism, a theorry in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law. Thurgood Marshall was replaced at the United States Supreme Court by a man who supported the theory of textualism. Thus, the show subtly raises the quality of the TBB ending, alluding to antagonistic ways of thinking about legal issues, making references to US Supreme Court judges and their different ways of thinking, and how this can lead to real consequences on citizens. My applause to the writers! The "apocryphal view", I believe, refers to the fact that he is accused by many of distorting the law. And again, thank you for alluding to a very important black historical character. And when I say that Klaus' argument was based on what I said, I am referring to the way of thinking of this historical character.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Jun 23, 2020 13:09:39 GMT -5
But Klaus seems to be following Marshall's actual insight, not the view wrongly ascribed to him. I'm not convinced they are using the word 'apocryphal' correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jun 23, 2020 13:59:29 GMT -5
Got it. In Portuguese something apocryphal means non-canonical. I had understood that his way of thinking was known as a non-canonical interpretation of the law, because it takes into account things that are not literally written in the law. But the word "apocryphal" in English must have a more restricted meaning, something that means that it is not necessarily wrong. For example, if you told me that my view of ASOUE is apocryphal, I would not be bothered, because I know it is apocryphal (in Portuguese), that is, I know that it is based on conclusions that are not explicit, but that does not mean that are false. But perhaps an English speaker who says that my way of thinking is apocryphal, is really trying to say that it is false. As Portuguese comes from Latin, perhaps in the legal field when someone says that someone's way of thinking is apocryphal, perhaps he means that it simply contains non-canonical elements, such as the intention of the law, since it is not explicit in the form of words written by the legislator. I think we would need a legal consultant to clarify what an apocryphal way of thinking means in the legal field.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jun 23, 2020 14:12:49 GMT -5
In English, the word "apocryphal" generally means "of doubtful origin", specifically referring to a text or statement; that is, it would refer to material which claims to come from a certain author, book, speech etc., but in fact this claim of authorship seems unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. So the Biblical apocrypha are of uncertain origin; you might say that they are not provably from God. Conversely, I wouldn't call your theories apocryphal, because their authorship is very clear; though if you quoted some very convenient remark of Daniel Handler's which I was unable to source, that would be an apocryphal quotation. So an "apocryphal insight of Thurgood Marshall" would be an alleged insight attributed to Thurgood Marshall, but more probably not spoken or written by him at all.
Edit: Perhaps the suggestion is that Thurgood's insight refers specifically to apocryphal material, i.e. the alleged intentions of the drafters of the law rather than the established text of the law itself? You might call that an insight into apocrypha.
|
|