Posts by rodgerd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"who said Tony got whacked? did you seeTony get whacked?"
Most Yanks will never have heard of the "Blake's 7" ending.
-
And they have run some good features over the years.
I'd certainly take North and South of 10 - 15 years ago over Listener now. My main beef with them back then was that for a Magazine that was supposed to be nationwide - a counterpoint to Metro, if you like - Langwell's vision seemed to begin and end at the North Shore on more than a few occasions.
-
3. I can still appreciate the policies of the Blair led Labour party and see what affect they have had and still have in Britain and the rest of the world.
ASBOs? The removal of double jeopordy protection? An extension of the ability of the police to incarcerate without trial beyond the powers Thatcher granted during the height of the IRA bombings in London? The mass killings in Iraq? Covering up corruption by BAE? Cash for honours?
How's the legacy of that most delicate of euphemisms, "extraordinary rendition", coming along? RIPA? Comuplsory IDs?
The problem with New Labour is the same as the problem with the Neoconservatives: their connection with their Marxists roots remains less in a concern for social justice, and more in a desire for power, for control, and for the untrammelled exercise of power for the good of the state. It is no wonder Blair gets along so well with his Republican contemporaries.
-
If Blair was concerned about the media, I'm surprised he relaxed rules around media ownership, no doubt completely unrelated to his endorsement by Murdoch's UK organs such as the Sun.
Step back from there: anyone claiming to be concerned about the state of public discource and hiring Alistair Campbell as his spinmeister ought to explode from hypocrisy.
But no, apparently the real problem with the British media are the few remaining indepentendly owned papers. All that pesky reporting on BAE corruption, Iraq, and so on is the very height of mucky, irresponsible journalism.
-
One suggestion that I haven't seen advanced: our window to Tony's life is essentially through the proxy of Melfi, an outsider treating him. The series starts with the events leading to him seeking therapy. By the end, she's deciding not to treat him. The blackout is the abrupt closing of that window.
-
1 and 2 seem a bit inconsistent. (And did his outfit actually change?) If he's already dead, why would people try to kill him? 3 makes sense, though...
Well, I guess in that interpretation you're seeing Tony looking back at his last moments, then it goes black as he dies - rather than "it's all just a dream", "it's his life flashing before his eyes."
Another explanation for that is that it's another dream sequence (roll on the Sopranos movie for the resolution), or that it's symbolising one of Tony's fundamental problems thoughout the series: is a mob man ultimately alone, a sociopath who's disconnected from the rest of us, or is he a family man?
-
Some of the interesting theories in favour of death I've seen note that:
1/ Huge amounts of the series have homage to the classics of Mafia films; the shifty guy who goes to the toilet is emulating Michael Corleone's first kill.
2/ Tony's outfit and surroundings chop and change. Ghost? Dream?
3/ There were foreshading conversations with characters earlier in the series along the lines of "you never hear the one that gets you" - hence the abrupt end.
-
I'll put it this way, how many ministerial spin doctors or PR flacks have you seen leave the profession and go back to journalism,
Well, there's Richard Long, although I'd be inclined to characterise his tenure as editor of the Dom as spin doctoring and political PR, anyway. David Kirk wasn't a journo, but he's in charge of them now.
-
And then she placed her hand on my knee
This is the sound of me rolling my eyes at a muppet.
-
Oh, and congratulations to all involved. I do wonder to what degree we need to see more of this sort of thing as the quality of reporting in NZ seems to be continuing a decline.