pacman

Close enough TC. The expert I listened to said that sufferers eventually get over their Schizophrenia. They recognise when an attack is coming on & after years of not coping, they eventually find a way to manage their feelings & carry on normally. Or as you put it - they learn to live with the voices. I was dumbfounded. I had never heard of it but he said almost all sufferers reach this point & can function the rest of their lives OK. I can't remember if he said they continued to need medication but maybe some do & some don't. However he did say there were the few who never come to terms with their condition & finish up seriously disturbed. Or more disturbed than when they started.

Not Alzheimers but on the basis of probability, some of them must get it. Or Dementia. The expert didn't refer to any other illness, he made an observation about the progression of the condition that had never occurred to me.

I was waiting for that Hefe. Yes they do but that wasn't what I found interesting.

It is bit of a lame question but a calculated guess will get it.

OK, here's a question that was raised in an interview I recently heard on the radio with a leading expert on schizophrenia with an answer I wasn't expecting. "What happens to schizophrenics when they get old?" I must point out the answer applies to nearly all of them, there is always the exception according to the expert.

Family Order Class... Not rocket science at all, it's anthropology science....

Oh come on, that one was easy. But ANY question you know the answer to is easy. ANY question you don't know is hard impossible. Like this one: WTF!! Hell would freeze over before I got that. Did I miss something earlier in the thread where this was discussed? Or is it considered normal for Snick to have an encyclopaedic memory? I googled Pristiophoriformes & got Saw Fish....

I want to revise my comments about 12 Years. I think I have unfairly represented it by talking about how grim it is. While it doesn't pull any punches, it is worth seeing & shouldn't be classified as "torture porn". IMO. I have reported it was something I didn't want to sit through again but I have been haunted by my words when I think I may have put some people off seeing a film that "deserves" to be seen. Or is of such quality that one should not dismiss it out of hand simply on the strength of something I might have written about it. I half expected somebody to post they saw it & didn't agree with my sentiments. In fact I was sure someone was going to contradict me. Now I am getting in first & correcting the record. I neither love nor hate it but I expect it to feature prominently at the Oscars. It would be a worthy winner of Best Picture thanks to its many qualities & the power of its story. Plus I keep thinking the Academy are going to give it their imprimatur as a sign of support for the descendants of those in the film. The slaves that is, not the plantation owners.

Who on earth wants to sit through a 4 or 5 hour movie? I hesitate when I see a film is 3 hours long. And I know almost nothing of Von Trier's work because he always gets such ambivalent reviews. The ones that say "very good but..." There's always some qualification added so the reviewer doesn't attract too much hate mail from people who feel they were tricked into going to see him. I must check out some of his better known stuff but when I read that Dogville which starred Nicole Kidman was filmed on a set without walls & you had to imagine they were going outside when they stepped through an imaginary door, I think if I will ever have those couple of hours to waste.

I also was unimpressed by American Hustle but it does stand a very real chance of winning Best Picture. It seems to be a generation thing, older folks like it more than younger ones. I have been defending it to a couple of teenagers who went to see it thinking it was some big deal. I pointed out they were not the target demographic. The director David O Russell & the stellar caste will both carry a lot of weight & I won't drop dead in surprise if it won. There have been many worse winners. I saw Jonah Hill asked that in an interview & he confirmed that was the case.

It's actually "A Separation", not "The Separation". Sorry to get pedantic but it will help you locate it online if you have the correct title. The writer/director is Asghar Farhadi & he released his latest film "The Past" last year. It hasn't arrived in Australia yet but I will definitely go & see it. Advance reviews are suggesting it isn't as good as "A Separation" but then again it's a very different film so it's one of those cases where one needs to see it & make up their own mind. I don't know how many times I have found myself disagreeing with a film critic. I do remember "Which Way Home" from a few years back & I regret to say I never saw it. It has been on TV so it's bound to pop up again. I remember the channel showing it ran a trailer for it & my impression was it was going to be a bleak movie. I can clearly picture the shots of the children hanging onto the train & the foreboding narrative hinting at some real sadness. It's so typical we allow ourselves to get upset about these cases where we get to see their struggle & for a moment can imagine being in their shoes. They are just the tip of the iceberg when the same thing is going on every day with 1000's of bad outcomes. What we can't see we don't mind. Or maybe we just can't handle worrying about stuff we can't do anything about? As for "Sin Nombre" I know nothing about it but it looks interesting. It had a short season when it was on here, really short if memory serves me correct but I will watch out for it. Always appreciate a good recommendation.

Yeah, it's good. It operates just like SMS. Only mobile.

Meanwhile back in Oz, our national movie show has released their Viewer's Poll for favourite movies of 2013. Here's the result: No 10 The Great Gatsby No 9 The Hunt No 8 American Hustle No 7 Zero Dark Thirty No 6 Armour No 5 Life of Pi No 4 Silver Linings Playbook No 3 Blue Jasmine No 2 Django Unchained & number one? OMG, it's Gravity!! What were the chances? (Sorry Azza) Nice to see I am not a voice in the dark. And Django number two! Never expected that. And I did want to see The Hunt, the Danish film about the teacher falsely accused of impropriety by a student. It was only on a few weeks & I missed it. Seems a lot of other people didn't.

I watched The Wolf Of Wall Street yesterday. I was impressed, it is a wild ride. Martin Scorese's attention to detail drags the film out, it could have been made an hour shorter. But by the end I really knew Jordan Belfort, he has lived one hell of a life. I can't think of another actor today who could have carried the film like Leo Dicaprio, he's in almost every scene, he narrates the whole thing & on a couple of occasions, he even breaks the "fourth wall" & talks directly to camera. That surprised me, I can't recall the last time someone did that. I think his performance should be rewarded with the Oscar for Best Actor, he is that good. As for the film, I will be surprised if it won, too much nudity & debauchery. And drug taking though that was so over the top it is an effective message to leave them alone. I can't believe Jordan & Danny are still alive, they must be due liver transplants.

News reports I have watched today are reporting that 12 Years A Slave is the frontrunner for Best Picture Oscar because of its success in the BAFTA's. They may well be right & I may be made to look foolish. Gee, it's not like that has happened before... I take their point & I am not going to argue too hard against 12 Years but I will say again, I did not enjoy it or find it very watchable. It's a strange position to be defending its qualities as a movie but denying its chances as a prize winner. The paradox for me is the last slave film I saw I really enjoyed. That was Django Unchained by Tarantino. In that the depiction of violence was as bad if not worse but that was fantasy, 12 Years feels very real. In Django, the worse the bad guys behaved, the more you knew they were going to suffer in the end. There was always going to be payback, I found while i flinched at the bad stuff, it didn't bother me because I knew I would be cheering for the good guys by the end. That doesn't happen in 12 Years. It gets grim & then it gets grimmer. Though I still can't understand one scene where the protagonist attacks the plantation owner & seems to get away with it. I was expecting him to be flogged to death but it didn't happen. I sat there waiting for it but maybe his punishment was implied & we were spared from witnessing another flogging. The tension & the atmosphere of 12 Years is undeniable & it has the gravitas of an Oscar winner. But so has Gravity & that is one I would recommend to everyone. And for me, that's the difference. One is a great film I don't want to see again, the other is also a great film that I have already seen again. Maybe it's not patriotism that will matter when the votes are cast. The members of the Academy might be swayed by racism. They may see a vote for 12 Years as showing support for the descendants of the oppressed. But I am only speculating, the result will be known in a month. There can only be one winner, I have no idea who that will be, I only know which film I prefer.

The BAFTA's are a guide to the Oscars. Only a guide but better than nothing. They have just awarded Best Film to 12 Years A Slave & Best British Film to Gravity. (Who knew Gravity was British?) IMO it's a two horse race between these two films for the Oscar. I have posted previously that I thought Gravity was a worthy winner & I have posted that 12 Years is a well made film that was not easy to watch. Based on that scientific assessment I predict Gravity will win Best Movie Oscar. I know Azza & others hated it but I cannot see the members of the Academy giving their vote to something as dismally depressing as 12 Years. Of course some will, in fact many will, but enough of them to carry the day? I doubt it. There's a difference between the people who vote for the BAFTA's & the Oscars. The first lot are British, they don't care how the film reflects on the US, that was touted as the reason why it took an English director to make it in the first place. The Academy members are predominantly American & they will care how the film is perceived. At least I think they will. The bottom line is 12 Years is far more divisive than Gravity. A good case can be argued for either as a worthy winner but I think an element of patriotism will sway the vote. When it comes to ticking the box I think some voters, no matter how much they appreciated the film craft presented by 12 Years will feel ever so slightly uncomfortable given it such an accolade. IMO. I will probably have to eat humble pie when some trivial piece of nonsense like American Hustle gets the nod ahead of both of them. Given all these considerations, one of the other 8 contenders might just scrape in under the radar.

I knew what you meant, I was only playing with the meaning of the word "great" as it applied to the movie. It won't matter what you do, read first or watch first. Movies leave out a lot from the book on which they are based, usually. And all the conversations & scenarios in the film will have been invented by the screen writers so maybe read the book & then you can see whether the film is faithful to it or not. And the film will take its place in the genre of early American slave tales, I know of no other film that has taken the subject on quite so forcefully. Whether you like it or not is another story but please don't let my comments stop you (or PDogg) from seeing it.

Don't write it off too quickly PD. It isn't a date film but people will be talking about it for a long time & you really can't offer an opinion without seeing it. The main reason why I decided I should catch it is because it has generated so much talk here & I can't follow the debate without some understanding. Maybe you can take it in alone or with one of the lads. And just because I don't expect it to win Best Picture, it would serve me right if it did. I stopped arguing the case for Gravity to take out the big prize, I was all alone there. My preferences in film does not qualify me as a pundit on the matter, I just know what I like & what I don't. Maybe others have a view as to where the film stands?

Great? I assume you mean reading the book first will be great & you are not referring to the movie. I will be most interested in your opinion of it because great isn't the first word that came to mind after I saw it. It's very powerful full of scenes designed to provoke & engender empathy for the life led by slaves. It has some wonderful acting performances apart from 10 minutes of Brad Pitt who seems to have given up acting in favour of walking through roles as himself. The last few movies I have seen him in he has done the same thing, most odd IMO. As a contender for the Oscar for Best Movie, I will be shocked if it wins. It has every element to justify success, it is a beautifully crafted film, well edited, well cast, well directed, it has so much going for it except one thing. Watchability. I wasn't expecting something overflowing with joy but two hours of it was hard work. I can't really criticise it for much else but when I am looking at my watch wondering how much longer I had to last, the thought crossed my mind that Oscar winning films shouldn't engender such feelings in those watching them. YMMV.

That makes sense. I imagine most katoeys are aware of what to expect in Pattaya these days. And the type of clientèle they are going to meet. No offence to anyone in Pattaya but if the girls wish to only deal with polite well dressed Japanese, Koreans & Chinese, where are they going to find them? Not in Pattaya. And I am not suggesting that Pattaya visitors aren't polite or that we don't share our time between both places, it is just a general observation that the girls are going to follow the money & in their minds, that dictates Bangkok as their preferred option. Opinions to the contrary are welcome but I don't intend getting into an argument about it. Worry not Mr Ciobha, I often read threads without time to respond. I think to get back later but these days I often don't. I need to learn the art of the ironic rejoinder. There isn't a "vast array" of jobs out there, not for a katoey & not for an uneducated Issan farm girl. But this thread is about "superstars", those special one-in-a-thousand beauties who come along & take our breath away. There are always jobs for the special ones, whether it is modelling or promotional work or serving drinks on some billionaires private aircraft. (I once met a Thai GG who had that job, she didn't mention what else it entailed.) I think I recall that post but did I say they were practically useless in any other department or was it the post where I said the half Thai / half farang offspring produced from unwanted pregnancies in the bar scene were unwelcome in the village & they were "helped" into becoming productive members of the family? And to make enough money to help the family, their future lie in the bar scene of Pattaya or Bangkok. And to be fair, I am sure there are many of them living & prospering in Issan & other Thai regions. As straight males. Statistically there must be. And I agree with you about the role social media has played in wising up the next generation. We will see a new website one day - FarangReview aimed at the girls of the bar scene where regular foreign tourists will be featured with vital information such as generosity when it comes to paying, sexual voraciousness, likely requests for deviant behaviour, etc. Maybe it's up & running now... No we won't. Now whose buy is it?

Singapore? I've seen the photo a few times & I should be certain but I'm not.

This would involve watching the movie more than once... that counts me out. I think Robert Duvall is one of them, he was in AN & he was always popping up in westerns. I can only remember Marlon Brando & Martin Sheen being in AN & if I had to guess out of those two, I would pick Sheen. Duvall & Sheen & no idea of their screen names in either.

Shoot you down? Why would I do that? Unless it's over your use of the word "otherworldly" which implies my insights are not of this world. No Ciobha me old china, I have no issue with your opinion, I can only add a few thoughts of my own. Worldly ones. No one has added anything to this thread that I don't broadly agree with but there are a few reasons why we haven't seen any special new talent emerge in the LB scene lately. And it isn't because they stopped coming along, trust me, they are out there. I think education is the main reason for the new hotties choosing to stay out of the scene. They are more aware than ever that a lifetime of servicing farang's sexual needs is not all beer & skittles. They all know stories about girls returning from the bright lights to die miserable deaths from AIDS. Most of them have been wised up. I'm tempted to say all of them but who knows. So now it is the plainer girls facing the Pattaya option for the real beauties among them will always have other employment options. I am talking about the creme de la creme here. I think it will be an aberration if we ever see one of these great beauties turn up in a bar offering short times for a 1000 baht. If they do go down the road of selling themself, it won't be in Pattaya, it will be for some agency dealing with high end clients who will pay 10 to 20 thousand a night. Dollars that is, not baht. And being katoey is sure to drive the curiosity factor. Something we can all relate to. BTW, in regards to my comment "they are out there", I was at a trade show in Bangkok & I was struck by the Thai hostesses walking around dressed in ball gowns. There were at least 20 of them & they were all tall & beautiful. I spoke to a couple & found them both professional & delightful. The thought of asking one for her number did cross my mind but they were so stunning I thought I would achieve nothing but make a fool of myself. It was only later that it occurred to me they were katoeys. Six foot plus in their heels with the most willowy figure, what else could they be? I never picked it at the time I was talking to them but if just one of them appeared on this forum the place would go into meltdown.

I've heard all the arguments about legalising drugs & remain ambivalent whether it happens or not. Though based on stories reporting the breakdown of Portugal society after they did it, I don't wish to live anywhere it happens. What does amaze me is that some people can smoke dope every day & can function as per normal. I know I can't. I was never a stoner, I never even bought weed myself. But I knew many people who did who would always share it around. I partook on occasions over the years, maybe 20 times until I finally had to say no more. It knocked the shit out of me. If I was stoned on Saturday I didn't recover till Tuesday. I had a low grade headache for days at a time & I found it very hard to concentrate. My work suffered & for me it was far worse than drinking alcohol every night. I also had a regular smoker living in my house one time who completely fucked her life up. She was always stoned & was completely useless. I hate to think where she ended up. But these aren't the reasons why marijuana leads to narcotics. I don't believe that being stoned on dope leads anyone to wanting to try something harder. Well, maybe it does for some but not the average punter who likes a little recreational weed. Where its role lies in this 'gateway drug' theory is in the way it lowers ones inhibitions. Ask someone straight if they want to try heroin or similar & most people will decline. That's 'most' in my experience. But ask them when they are under the influence of dope & many will say "why not?" I've known a few people who died from overdosing & they all started with marijuana. And the major naltrexone clinic we have here is run by a doctor who has saved 100's of lives & he claims the drug that causes the problems he deals with is marijuana. One conclusion I draw from my experience when I read about the US states that have legalised it is we can't be talking about dope of the same potency. They must have some milder form or something because the stuff I remember would have half the room off their face for the entire evening. And that would be on one joint passed around. I could never even hold a second one let alone smoke it.

WOW!! That's the best response to an allegation of impropriety I have ever read. Woody really makes the case that Mia Farrow is a malicious liar. He rebuffs her story at every turn & comes across as both sincere & wronged. Mia has never recovered nor forgiven Woody for marrying Soon Yi. And Mia's threat to Woody's sister when she told her "He took my daughter, now I'll take his" is damning. She is as they say in the classics a "fucked unit". Don't let your dislike for Woody affect your judgement. You & I are on the same page but I don't give Mia & Ronan any credibility after reading Woody's response. Given the time that has elapsed since these events allegedly happened & the fact that it isn't Mia making the case further castes doubt on any of their story being true. I think Ronan's hatred for Woody has made him irrational. He should demand a DNA test so he can exclude him completely. He has shut him out of his life, he needs to shut him out of his mind. A quote from Woody: I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that. I love this paragraph. The family needs to address this but Mia doesn't want to go near it because it will hurt her credibility & Ronan hasn't because he has a need to keep vilifying his father. If I were Woody I would demand his paternity be settled once & for all. This story has a way to run but I believe Woody's response above has rebalanced the dispute in his favour.