Petula Clark seems like Kirsten Dunst...
Anyone have noticed that in some scenes Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst ?
shareKirsten Dunst was born years after this film was even made.
shareKirsten Dunst was born years after this film was even made.
That's beside the point. The OP said there were times Petula Clark looked like Kirsten Dunst, not that it was Kirsten Dunst. share
Nevertheless, the more accurate way to make the statement would be to suggest that Kirsten Dunst resembles Petula Clark since the latter is the original in this comparison.
For what it's worth, I agree that Kirsten Dunst does favor Petula Clark, especially around the mouth and chin.
No, I don't find that more "accurate" - not in view of what was actually written. The OP simply stated there were certain scenes in which Petula Clark resembled Kirsten Dunst. The fact that Dunst was born years after the film was made remains an undeniable but irrelevant point.
It would have been inaccurate if the OP had said Petula Clark had copied Kirsten Dunst's looks & mannerisms, or that Bob Fosse had directed the film, or that Stephen Sondheim had written the score - now, those would have been inaccuracies. But the OP never said anything like that - an opinion was expressed, and nothing more. No correction necessary.
No need to be an arrogant, condescending, bossy boor.
shareAnd I'm simply saying there was no need to attack the OP's statement, or to suggest it was inaccurate in some way. The statement was nothing more than an opinion, and it was very clearly qualified - ie, that there were certain scenes in Goodbye, Mr. Chips in which Petula Clark resembled Kirsten Dunst. Hey, I once overheard someone in an art gallery saying that, in a particular portrait, Empress Elisabeth of Austria looked like Vivien Leigh. There was no implication that one person came before the other; a physical resemblance was noted, and that was all. And it's the same case here.
However, if you feel the need to say something nasty and childish, go ahead. But I had no problem understanding the point the OP was making.
I agree that the OP was clear enough, but I would still argue that, in sentences like
(Sometimes) Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst,
the paradigm should follow the particular example. It would be just plain odd to say "Brigitte Bardot looks like my girlfriend."
Besides, this problem can be avoided by using a construction that doesn't imply some sort of priority, such as:
(Sometimes) Petula Clark and Kirsten Dunst look very similar.
This may seem like pedantry to some, but I'm more bewildered by the endless attacks on defenders of nuance. This campaign against "pedantry" and "grammar Nazis" has produced people who will happily say nonsensical things, such as "I could care less about mass starvation," with no sense of self-mockery at all.
But the OP didn't just say "Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst." The OP's exact words were "In some scenes Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst." Meaning the subject here is Clark's appearance (in certain scenes), and what they suggest to the OP in terms of a modern day counterpart.
I remember someone looking at a 1930s photograph of Beatrice Lillie and remarking, "She looks like Julie Andrews in this photo." And I knew exactly what this person was saying - that Beatrice Lillie THEN looked like someone we were familiar with NOW.
Now if the OP said Petula Clark copied Kirsten Dunst's mannerisms (for a film she shot in 1968), that would be a problematic statement. But nothing like that was said. And I still see no need to attack the OP's post or criticize it in any way. I understood it perfectly.
And now, back to the action...
Ah, but the OP makes two different claims:
1) "Petula Clark seems like Kirsten Dunst…” in the title, and
2)"Anyone have noticed that in some scenes Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst ?”
The latter is fine, but the title is not.
Ah, but the OP makes two different claims:
1) "Petula Clark seems like Kirsten Dunst…” in the title, and
2)"Anyone have noticed that in some scenes Petula Clark looks like Kirsten Dunst ?”
The latter is fine, but the title is not.
The latter is fine, but the title is not.
The word "seems" has been defined as "appearing to be something, or appearing to have a certain quality." Which indicated, at least to me, that the OP didn't just find a similarity in the looks of Petula Clark and Kirsten Dunst, but also in the way they carried themselves onscreen. So I find nothing objectionable about the OP's subject heading; it's simply a statement of personal opinion - just like the one expressed in the text.
Once again, if the OP had said Petula Clark had copied Kirsten Dunst's mannerisms or ripped off her vocal intonations, then that would have been problematic. But the OP never said anything like that. I've seen objectionable statements made on countless message boards here, but this isn't one of them.
However, I can't keep people from getting their panties in a wad, so say whatever you like; I'm outta here. share
Thank you, Mr. Chips.
Ordinarily, critiquing the grammar or syntax of posts in the opinion boards would seem silly and pointless. For this particular movie it strikes me as appropriate.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.