...except that this one is fiction. That said, Rachael looks amazing, great chemistry between her and co-star, Mike Shannon. On IMDB, in the "Languages Spoken" section, listed is English and Persian. It's Farsi, not Persian.The lands now part of The Old Persia is where Farsi is spoken, yes? Good cameo w Kathy Bates. This would have been better as short fiction or film short.
shareNot even close.
One was about a poor guy infiltrating a rich person's circle. These guys were all loaded.
GFW
Yes, you're right. I realized too late after my post that I was thinking of another film, one where the MC poses as a doctor then a lawyer...things like that. Maybe it was Phillip Seymour-Hoffman who played this real-life character, but when I looked up his filmography, I didn't see it.
Perhaps you know what film, who this person I'm trying to recall, is? If so, please post again so I'll remember, cause it's driving me nuts!
Thanks.
Catch Me If You Can! That's the film I meant; not The Talented Mr. Ridley. I get Leo, Matt Damon, Phillip Seymour-Hoffman & Jude Law all bunched up in my mind at times, who knows why!
shareYeah, but he was after money. She's just after getting away with it. Challenging herself. The moment someone who's listening closely or when they want to get emotionally intimate she's packs up and 'needs' more 'growth' when she's basically a coward.
GFW
Insightful. I think that he was after the thrill just as much as was she. But the differences which you point out in their motivation springs from their genders.. He, classic to the male gender, does it to seeek money and to the superiority that comes from duping others completely. Our fictional character however, is motivated to deceive for personal growth and avoidance of intimacy.
I wonder what the motivation would be for a real female chameleon.
"motivation springs from their genders."
Where the hell did you pick that up?
NEWSFLASH: Women like money and power, too. Men avoid intimacy.
It springs from an overgeneralization, that's where. And I agree with you, I think, in tihat to categorize one gender as having certain characteristics which, on their own, distinguish it from the other gender, is misogynistic and bigoted too. What I neglected to add is that this stereotypical assignment isn't accurate and despite that, is still assumed and therefore used again and again in media, which to some extent promulgates it. I apologize for the omission.
share