[Magdalen] Oscars Schmoscars

[Jay Weigel]

We do go to movies, but the ones we like are often not the ones people here
will. "Gone Girl" will interest us not one whit. I may watch it when it
comes round on HBO or whatever...assuming I have nothing better to do...but
I can assure you that S/O will not, in fact will probably leave the room if
I do watch. We had planned to see "Jupiter Ascending" despite the bashing
it got from critics, because it's the kind of goofy movie we do like, but
weather did not permit while it was here, so we'll wait for it to come
round on the premium channels. Most of what we go out to see is either
fantasy, sic-fi, or animation, although we are waiting anxiously for "The
Second Most Exotic Marigold Hotel" and we absolutely loved "The Hundred
Foot Journey". (Need I say we are both suckers for those three great dames
of British cinema, Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, and Helen Mirren?)

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu> wrote:

> Oops - didn't get that quite done.  I always assume that EVERYONE loves
> movies as much as I do!  So I'm surprised that something that I regard as
> fascinating storytelling is a matter of indifference or even animosity to
> others that I "know" (or assume that I know).  And I mean this with a
> certain amount of self-deprecating humor.  So, Scott, it wasn't volume at
> all, but tone - and my own surprise!
>
> Ann
>
> The Rev. Ann Markle
> Buffalo, NY
> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I forgot to respond to Scott, and appreciate Roger including his
> > response.  Scott, it wasn't the lack of volume that I interpreted as
> > indifference -- I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  It was the statements
> made
> > about not caring for or actively disliking movies and/or the Hollywood
> > movie-making, award-granting system.  And it wasn't meant as any sort of
> > reprimand or criticism, really.  I continue to be surprised when people I
> > care about are different from me!  I know that sounds incredibly
> > narcissistic, so I suppose I am confessing to that -- but I always assume
> > that EVERYONE cares about things that I do, and that EVERYONE
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > The Rev. Ann Markle
> > Buffalo, NY
> > ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> > blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Roger Stokes <
> > roger.stokes65 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/02/2015 19:51, Lynn Ronkainen wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "Scott Knitter" <scottknitter at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> I've long believed you can't interpret the lack of volume on an
> >>>> Internet list thread as indifference. There are just too many factors,
> >>>> including timing of posts, technical mysteries, relative attention
> >>>> span, things going on in the background, and many more.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ...especially technical mysteries... I like that : )
> >>> Lynn
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can as well, especially since my email client has been reluctant (read
> >> - refused over prolonged periods) to download messages.  U can see them
> on
> >> my ISP's server but I Do Not Like using webmail.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >
> >
>