Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd be interested to hear what was it about that scene that made you cry?
What made me cry was the song and the power of the deaf choir and then both choirs together. Imagine is an enormously powerful song and the delivery first by the deaf choir and then by all the kids together had an impact.
The key word there is ALL. The power of the song is that it supposes a world where we ALL care and work together, hence it seemed reasonable to have the kids sing together.
I also don't think it's surprising that there haven't been more "join in" instances in Glee. For the most part the routines are combined song and dance and the latter makes it very hard to pretend that a second group could join in and get it right.
Note the word pretend. Because I don't for a second believe the Glee group could have joined in and got the sign language right first time. Nor do I believe for a second the harmonies could have been organised and got right first time. It's pretend and my job is to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy it.
As I said for me there was a moment of "how could they join in on another's performance?". But that was from the perspective of thinking a spectating Rugby team wouldn't "join in". I think what Amy has said is that choirs "joining in" isn't that farfetched.
I don't think anyone is intending to be confrontational (and apologies if I come across that way). That's the beauty of this site - we express opinions and accept differences of opinion. And we learn.
-
So why do ALL media reports talk of a “reshuffle” ?
Maybe shuffling was how he allocated them portfolios in the first place?
I think they used GDKP
-
but there will be a period where extra investment is needed to get things off the ground - just as there was when other groups started being included.
Yup I really get that Sacha. But I really also think that aiming at Glee is the wrong target for two reasons.
Glee actually tries to get things as right as it can. There are a bunch of producers and directors much more deserving of criticism than those who create and perform in Glee
And Glee is pure sillyness. It isn't a docudrama or some deep meaningful study of the human condition. It is a simple piece of fluff that sometimes takes the time to try and say something meaningful and some of those times actually gets pretty close to the mark.But even if we were talking about a show that looked at the human condition in a serious way I really don't expect the actors to be selected based on whether or not they have a particular physical condition. What I expect is that they be selected based on how well they can portray what is needed.
-
I thought it was a shame that Glee couldn't seem to find a singer in a wheelchair
Ok this is starting to bug me. I really don't understand the need for characters to be acted by actors with the same skills or lack thereof.
Temperance Brennan is NOT a scientist. Not even close, really trust me on this, nothing about her portrayal of a scientist rings true. Her partner is NOT an FBI agent. Do we demand that only gay actors play gay parts and vice versa? Do we require actors to learn to play the piano when the part requires them to touch a keyboard or do we accept that the hands might belong to a different person?
These are fictional roles played by actors.
If you want to criticize the actor in the wheelchair for getting something wrong, that's OK. But for not really being the character he portrays?
And no it's not the same as blackface which was instituted to exclude Negroes and humiliate at the same time. In this case a person in a wheelchair could have auditioned and won the role as easily as anyone else. You can't possibly be suggesting that only wheelchair bound people be allowed to play wheelchair roles can you?
-
Thanks for that Graeme. I guess I had it wrong.
At what point does the alleged rape victim get a representative that actually does do everything they can to prove the case?
-
Nope. The prosecutor acts for the Crown*, not the victim. They are not the victim's lawyer.
In a rape case the prosecutor acts for the rape victim and prosecutes the alleged rapists
-
Birdy Song over-dub from YouTube. Otherwise I'd be posting that right about ..... here >>>
roflnui
which caused me to have to explain why I was laughing to my workmates
-
I agree it should have gone to trial. Even if the prosecutor wasn't convinced it is surely his job to represent the victim to the best of his ability. And no, the judge shouldn't be ruling prior to hearing ALL the evidence.
Most rape trials come down to 'he said, she said', because there tend not to be impartial witnesses.
Really? Sure the most difficult ones are like that but I don't know about most.
The problem is that if there really is no other evidence - then it really is she said vs they said and that in the end comes down to convincing a jury which party is lying (the most). I can see where credibility is compromised so much by past behaviour that the judge and prosecutor believe that a trial is pointless.
For example would anyone believe Clinton now if he was accused of having consensual sexual relations with another intern?
I'm not trying to be devils advocate nor am I saying for a second that if she said no then the guys had any right to continue. I just think there is a point at which it becomes impossible for the court to determine who is lying and who is not. In that situation the court must return an innocent verdict.
It does seem odd that the prosecutor (acting for the victim) seems to have made that decision before the trial started.
-
first heard on Glee (cough Single Ladies cough)
That was the song on the radio that made me change stations every time - until after I saw it on Glee.
-
Without wishing to suggest for a second that she could not say no at any time for any reason...
I suspect the issue for the court may have been that it was essentially her credibility that she said no at all versus the 5 men who presumably would have denied that she said no.
If she had proof that she said no (at any time) then it would have been (hopefully) easy to prove it was rape.
That said, surely she should have at least been given the chance to argue her case.
The judge and the prosecutor seem to have decided that a) she wasn't telling the truth and/or b) even if she was telling the truth (and therefore raped) there was no way the 5 men would have been caught out in court.