lolo-kakapoum says > spellbound is the literate meaning of ''ensorcelés''
Yes, but we were specifically referring to the end of the movie. At that point they weren't as charmed by Jonathan as some of them had been earlier. At the end of the movie they understood him but still kind of drawn to him in a way.
Fascinated is the figurative meaning.
Actually, no, fascinated is the dictionary definition of the rarely used English equivalent of 'ensorcelés'. The verb form 'ensorcell' means to enchant or to fascinate. That's why I said there wasn't a big difference in meaning.
The girl you just desperately fall in love with doesn't need to be a witch for you to be ''ensorcelé'' / spellbound, right?
The word is related to sorcerer but, no, she wouldn't have to be a witch. It refers to how you feel, the state you're in, or, literally, the spell you're under. Someone else could have cast the spell on you or you could have simply succumbed to her beauty, charm, or some other trait.
In any case, it does give the impression of something magical or supernatural. That's why I thought it wasn't exactly the right word for how they felt towards Jonathan at the end of the movie.
Anyway, fascinated is OK to me. What I wanted to say is that the French title is in itself an indication of the ending, but it may only be the arbitrary interpretation of the (probably French) person that proposed this title (which was accepted (the title, not necessarily the interpretation of it :-)
I think the French title works fine; probably more an indication of what's in the movie than the original title that tells us nothing. Spellbound, however, would work better early on, when some of the others first knew Jonathan; Georgia in particular but also Fred. Jonathan had a hold over them that was all encompassing. They would have done anything for him and followed him anywhere. By the end their eyes were open.
Using your analogy, at the end of the movie they felt toward Jonathan the way you might feel toward that same girl after the bloom was off the rose. There might still be an attraction but you'd see her as she really was instead of through your previously starry-eyed, unrealistic perspective.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share
lolo-kakapoum
8 years ago
I think we agree for most issues. I agree that at the end the state of mind / feelings of our three friends w.r.t. Jonathan may have changed.
Maybe the French title indicates that they are spellbound anyway, i.e. even if they are more aware of what is going on, they would fall for Jonathan once more.
reply
share
mdonln
8 years ago
lolo-kakapoum says > Maybe the French title indicates that they are spellbound anyway, i.e. even if they are more aware of what is going on, they would fall for Jonathan once more.
You do realize we don't have to agree. There are no right or wrong answers. We're each just expressing our own views.
That said, I do believe they all decide to work with Jonathan again. I just don't think they 'fall' for anything. This time they go into it with their eyes wide open.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share
lolo-kakapoum
8 years ago
You do realize we don't have to agree. There are no right or wrong answers. We're each just expressing our own views.
This is not because we do not have to agree that we cannot agree.
I do not see any MAJOR divergence in our views. At least, if Israeli and palestinian people had divergence of the amplitude of ours, the world would be a better place to live.
reply
share
mdonln
8 years ago
lolo-kakapoum says > I do not see any MAJOR divergence in our views. At least, if Israeli and palestinian people had divergence of the amplitude of ours, the world would be a better place to live.
Nor do I but hostilities, in my opinion, are more likely to stem from minor divergences and grievances than major ones. That's because those minor points are the ones we're not as willing to concede.
Also, I believe, the unrealistic need some people have to achieve full agreement or consensus is problematic as well. We don't all see things the same way so we'll never agree on every point. Disagreement can be good. The whole Political Correctness thing is based on this excessive and unnecessary need for everyone to see things the exact same way. It's annoying!
Lately when someone expresses an opinion that differs from the currently accepted view, they are immediately attacked and accused of all sorts of horrible things. In reality, the view that seems to be shared by the masses often is not. Most people are just too afraid to say publicly what they really think. They won't risk standing apart from the crowd lest they be the next target of the backlash and the deluge of often brutal personal attacks.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share
lolo-kakapoum
8 years ago
hostilities, in my opinion, are more likely to stem from minor divergences and grievances than major ones.
In my opinion, Human being what it is, hostilities are likely to stem from anything. So, at times, a little bit of agreement can do some good too.
Also, I believe, the unrealistic need some people have to achieve full agreement or consensus is problematic as well. We don't all see things the same way so we'll never agree on every point. Disagreement can be good. The whole Political Correctness thing is based on this excessive and unnecessary need for everyone to see things the exact same way. It's annoying!
I agree on the fact that disagreement can be good thing, which get us close to a paradox. The problem is not disagreement in itself, it is rather when there is violence made by one party to impose its view on the other party. Disagreement within a tolerance context is more than OK.
reply
share
mdonln
8 years ago
lolo-kakapoum says > In my opinion, Human being what it is, hostilities are likely to stem from anything. So, at times, a little bit of agreement can do some good too.
There's nothing wrong with 'a little agreement' but what is the point if it's insincere? I could have easily said two posts ago, "oh yes, I agree with you" but it would not have been how I really felt. I don't see the point of having a discussion if I'm not going to be honest.
That's why I said the need for agreement can also be a problem. My goal in discussing this topic with you was not to convince you to agree with me or accept my point-of-view. I was merely sharing my opinion and explaining how I saw things. In some cases, agreement and mutual acceptance may be necessary but not all. We have to know the difference.
The problem is not disagreement in itself, it is rather when there is violence made by one party to impose its view on the other party. Disagreement within a tolerance context is more than OK.
When people keep pushing for others to adopt their views, that's when problems tend to occur. Respect and tolerance doesn't mean we suddenly agree with and accept other people's views; it just means we acknowledge they have the right to their views just as we have the right to ours.
I've noticed that a lot of people who expect tolerance are themselves very intolerant. They act as if anyone who refuses to embrace their way of thinking is out to attack or persecute them. That's simply not true and it's where the hostilities begin. Personally, I will not be denied my right to hold and express my own opinions. Thank God I live in a country in which I can openly say that!
So you see, we do agree on quite a lot yet we still see things differently. I think that's the point Harry was trying to make to the others in the movie. He knew there were many things about Jonathan that drove the others crazy and made them want to avoid him completely but he wanted them to see they could work with him despite their differences.
If they decide to work with Jonathan, they can't go into it hoping to change him. It would only cause frustration and lead to one dispute after another.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share