MovieChat Forums > ajr01
ajr01 (51)
Posts
Why did she take back the pen?
The sour waitress...
Edna, the store assistant
The cell phone in the Ritz's bathroom...
The last scene with Blair and the Queen
Pre-Marital Sex
Vaulting in the gym....
Phyllis Schlafly
What happened to the discussion "The Children"?
The culture of country clubs
View all posts >
Replies
What makes one think about the "gal for hire" scenario is what she says to Fr O'Malley at their first meeting, when she is trying to put her daughter in the school, "I supposed you're wondering as to how I have been supporting her all this time. So is she".
Based on the time frame, one has the impression that Gaby was a good Catholic girl, in Brussels. Remember, in that era, a nice girl wasn't supposed to do things like that. Before the scene with Jean's items, you hear her uttering aloud the counsels of religious life, including Jesus' words about if you would be perfect, sell what thou has and give to the poor and come follow me! But in the next breath, she can't forego something as simple as a fountain pen, indicating perhaps she really isn't suited to what she is embarking upon. As the story progresses, we see this again and again, which is even recognized by her atheist doctor colleague.
I trust I didn't give away too many spoilers then!
Well that was because, based on the story line, Mr Robin Javrin (the Queen's private secretary) telephoned the PM to indicate Elizabeth had been taken completely by shock at the public's reaction to Diana's death, and in her own mind, (based on past traumatic experiences like the abdication and her father's premature death), was in denial over the significance of this. Because the Royal Family weren't communicating with the public, Blair saw it as his duty to be a sort of spokesperson for them. As he said to Robin, "I'll see what I can do, but I can't promise anything. It's not me they want to see", in an attempt to reverse the terrible newspaper headlines attacking Her Majesty, and her family.
On the basis of the evidence presented at the court trial, the jury had no option but to find Kya not guilty, because of the lack of formal evidence showing she had means & opportunity in order to do this, in spite of the strong motive where she had been heard threatening to kill Chase.
But even accepting that she returned to Barkley Cove from Greenville, and returned there early the next morning, how could she have been with Chase at the top of a fire tower in the middle of the night, pushing him through the opening?
The damning evidence is of course the discovery by Tate after she had passed away, of the actual physical necklace, that it was known Chase had been wearing that evening. If the jury had been made aware she was in possession of this necklace, that most certainly would have convicted her.
I do understand that Burt finding Virginia, with his father, sent him off the edge. No question of that. But taking the side of those horrible two, they indicated to Millie, that all he does is lie, and that is true. What is the reason for that? Why when they just met that time in the restaurant, did he tell her he came from Racine, Wisconsin instead of his hometown of Chicago? Why did he lie about his military record? Virginia told Millie when they met that time, that they had discovered Burt had gotten involved in shoplifting and other misdemeanours. From that, Millie went to the store and found he was not the deputy manager of Hathaways, just a tie salesman, and there is no way he could have written off all those presents he gave her, she realizing he must have shoplifted those as well. Burt was obviously twisted, and him seeing the three of them together outside the apartment, made him wrongly conclude they were in cahoots with each other. But why all the other dishonesty, that bore no relationship to the problem in question, his father and Virginia? Particularly if he loved Millie so much. Burt's father told Millie just as she was to leave his hotel room that what he needs is to be sent to a hospital. Well in the end, Millie saw that was necessary too, and had him committed. Regardless of the illicit romance, could Virginia have been drawn to his father, simply because Burt was so unstable to begin with, and the tryst isn't really the reason for his madness?
As has been said, in another post, here there was a scene filmed in the Old Tuscon movie set, (presumably it would have been Sr Benedict's new home), but the scene was deleted from the final cut of the movie. It would be interesting to see what it was though.
I see what you are saying, but is also a fact that in the forties doctors were far less forthcoming about the actual details of sickness, believing if a person really knew what was wrong, it would only depress them further. Nowadays it is believed that a patient has the right to know the truth
I have been reflecting on a new argument to demonstrate the veracity of the report of the miracle of the sun, or at least that something compelling happened on that fateful 13 October 1917, in the Cova da Iria.
In various accounts I have read of the events leading up to that day, a number of clerics and even her own family (in particular her mother) tried very hard to persuade Lucia to admit that the whole thing had been a fraud.
They reasoned that if a huge crowd of people shows up there on the day and nothing happens, they would have cause to believe that the children (specifically Lucia as she was the eldest), had deliberately deceived them, and the multitude of persons would then vent their anger on them and their families, and may even kill them for their lies. The crowd that day was estimated to have been between 50,000 and 100,000 persons.
To make matters even worse, was the torrential rain that started to pour the day before, when crowds were starting to make their way to the site of the apparitions, which made the physical conditions in a mountainous area, extremely hazardous.
In spite of the threats of possible harm, the children however repeated their claim that the miracle would indeed happen on this day, where they said the lady had appeared.
Maria Rosa dos Santos (Lucia's mother) who had scoffed about the events right from the start, told her daughter they better go to confession beforehand, lest they receive the wrath of a disappointed crowd of people. Lucia said she was happy to go to confession, but not for those reasons.
After the miracle occurred, there are no published accounts of any group of persons, trying to seek vengeance on the children, or their families. If anything they now became the town celebrities, with so many people gathering around, and even entering the children's homes, in particular to give them prayer petitions. For months of course, the anti clerical press in Lisbon, had been mocking these events. But as we know, they published eyewitness accounts of the miracle, and no longer were derisive when speaking about the happenings at Fatima.
But would it not have been a different story, had nothing spectacular had happened? The children and their families would have been exposed as con artists, with the Church as their ally in this fraud having to deal with the persecution of an anti-clerical government, which they had already had dealt with since the revolution, for nearly a decade previously.
View all replies >