MovieChat Forums > Vidas privadas (2001) Discussion > please help me !!!spoilers!!!

please help me !!!spoilers!!!


can someone please help me with this movie.

1. Is Gael's character her son?
2. Was the gael's "Dad" the guy who raped her??? (no, cause he said he couldnt have children right??
3.Who were the people in the picture ana showed to gael? (was it carmen and her husband who looks alot like gael)
4. Did she fake her death? If so, did gael know that she did?

i am sorry i feel like an idiot but i really dont know the answers to these questions. Well i am pretty sure gael is her son. Ahh please help!!

reply

1.He's her son.
2.I don't think so. I think that Gael's biological dad was the guy in the picture because that WAS Gael in the picture lol. That's when you know for sure that he is her son because he looks just like the dad.
3.Yeah, it was Carmen and her husband.
4.I think she attempted suicide. I don't think she was faking it.

reply

ahh thanks so much. i was confused.

reply

No prob. Glad I could help!

reply

2º No, hw didnt raped her. He was a retired militar... and adopted ilegally the son that Ana had in captivity during the military government between 1976-1982

reply

I will see it tonight &* have my review in tomorrow, since I am a fan of both Roth & Beranl I am sure I will like this one.

BTW did you see IMAGINING ARGEBTINA , same period of time, & stars Antonio Bandares & Emma Thompson I liked it very much

Aa always


To thine own self be true
Sir Jay Harris---Sirbossman

reply


David Traversa
Unfortunately by the time you´ll read this message, you must have seen this film. Pity.
I would have told you to stay away from it since it must be one of the worst movies ever made.

reply

LOL, David, he didn't get back.
I guess he hated the film (and deservingly so).
I wish I read your message prior to wasting 90 minutes of my life to this utter trash.
Even "Gigli" had a bit more of entertaining value (and that was botom of the "worst" pit).

reply

David Traversa

Hi Eugene! (On "Vidas privadas")
I was nicely surprised by your flattering email. At the same time utterly baffled, and I tell you why: When I finished that critic and sent it, I never saw it again on any place on IMDB!!

For a while I was quite puzzled, eventually I forgot about that critic, maybe because I thought I've been too tough on that guy Paez (totally and incomprehensibly considered in Argentina A GENIUS --that will give you an idea of the miserable levels of un-culturization that this poor great country has been suffering throughout several decades of awful governments-- Poor Borges if he could see the cultural condition of his beloved Buenos Aires!...

Where did you read that critic of mine? I checked my listing of film critics and it doesn't figure at all there!!
Could it be that it was reported as offensive by some reader (Fito Paez himself for instance?).

I wouldn't doubt it since I had several critics reported by offended readers..., mainly on religious matters, but then I wonder where is that boasted "Freedom of the Press" that some democracies are so proud to congratulate themselves with having (nobody else praises them about that).

There is a national newspaper here in Argentina (La Nación), that came out with a couple of very interesting solutions for that problem of the "Happy censor trigger", at the beginning they would eliminate completely a comentary explaining: "Deleted because it offended the sensibility of some reader or other" (something like that), but obviously they had many complains so they change it so something really brilliant: The printed the text of the condemned comment with GREY INK, so it's there and at the same time IS NOT THERE. You can read it or leave it, but is not condemned because of a single person's complain and eliminated forever.

The second solution: They deleted it, but left a message: "If you want to read this comment, click here". You do and the comment appear in full black ink.

That's cool.

So far, IMDB didn't dare to come up witn any of those solutions (or any other). I suppose it must be due to the heavy puritanical moment that the USA is going through (it always had, but now more than ever).
Best,
David Traversa [email protected]

reply