To thine own self be true

Might I recommend Measure for Measure In which two abused women are allowed to speak of grave injustices to them by men and finally get justice?

One of the Great One’s best with many of the familiar Shakespeare patterns:
-a wise ruler suddenly giving up power at the beginning of the play as a test
-later returning in disguise to observe the effects of his decision
-an untested figure proving to be untrustworthy and of shaky moral character
-abuse and corruption in and via power
-the overstepping of ego with personal agenda
-temptation revealing basest motives and inner nature
-‘gulled’ characters
-comeuppances, punishments and rewards
-the usual questions: how far can man fall? How bad can things get?
How can order become disorder and chaos?
-various characters will get their just deserts
-many truths will out.

A truly unique Shakespeare play with elements of King Lear, Titus Andronicus, The Tempest, and some of the comedies. Acting-wise, an excellent duke (this BBC production features Kenneth Colley) in two distinct, equally credible roles, Kate Nelligan as Isabella, a strong, articulate Portia-like character, Tim Pigott-Smith as a very nasty Angelo–the duke’s chosen replacement-gone-wrong, and smarmy John McEnery as Lucio (previously of Zefferelli’s Romeo and Juliet–Mercutio) who reaps punishment for his two-faced chorus-comments and shameless hypocrisy.

Desmond Davis serves up a visually interesting, realistic staging in this 1978 classic from the famed Shakespeare DVD boxset series done of all the Bard’s plays. There are themes and conflicts galore in this thoroughly entertaining play: control vs. temptation, surfaces/illusion vs. deception/reality, justice vs. injustice, human frailties and character flaws, lust vs. love, reason and truth vs. lies and betrayals, and trickery and masks.
Even-handed justice, though, (as in the play’s title) is amply doled out in the end, though some may feel Shakespeare gave Angelo more of a break than any other of his villains.

A solid 9/10 easily on all counts.

A play of individual voices in clonflict with society to begin with. Then, in the last act, a coming together of the voices and ‘parts’ in an attempt to find purpose and resolution. A response to WWI with the usual Shavian comments on human hypocrisy. His least conventional, resolved play. Recommended: the BBC version shown above with Sir John Gielgud as Captain Shotover.

see things across disciplines and have playful curiosities. They have resilience and imagination. Above all, they can see patterns, themes , and The Big Picture easily. This gives them a serious edge and human advantage over computers and machines.

Still Tasty.com
which lists expiry dates for food and beverage products of all kinds.
A product you’re using can expire within days or last months regardless of the expiry date shown on the product (which is just the latest date for first opening and using the product.).
Everyday people make themselves needless sick because they don’t know that distinction. Consumers, left to the wolves by government, need to take more responsibility for what they eat and feed others. It makes sense to check this website before serving any food or beverage once it has already been opened. Why poison your guests or family, let alone yourself?

Why did they ban the story of the mother who worked her fingers to the bone knitting hosiery to pay for her daughter’s music lessons?
Too much socks and violins.

American writer (Van Johnson) meets a prominent British politician’s (Peter Cushing) wife (Deborah Kerr) during WWII. They are fascinated with each other in a case of love at first sight and begin an affair which one day stops abruptly when the mysterious woman leaves him for unknown reasons. The writer seeks to understand her motivation, but she remains elusive to the end of the movie, although family, marriage, and religious histories are gradually revealed.
Though this film (based on a Graham Greene novel) is superficially a wartime romance, it is more an odd character study of the woman who becomes the ‘source material’ and quest of the author. Ironically, she turns out to be a ‘writer’ herself and the director (Edward Dymtryk), as did Greene, plays with viewer/reader expectations and assumptions.
The two principal, talented actors are convincing, especially in their confusions. Cushing is also well-cast as the wishy-washy politician who loves, but fails in practice. John Mill has a strange guest turn as a private eye’s agent.
Dymytyk’s direction holds the viewer in suspense until the ambiguous ending. There are no easy answers in Greene’s work and in The End of the Affair, much as there aren’t in real life. People, their motivations, choices, and confusions often elude complete or satisfactory understandings and resolutions, resisting whatever analysis.
This movie is a curiosity and one of the most curious works originating from Greene’s prolific, engaging pen.

As 2 female profs at Wilfrid Laurier discovered when they received $6000 bonuses that none of the male profs got. Wrong gender.
Expect more of this reverse discrimination spawned by pc-ness down the road.

Changes and returns:
Daniel Craig is back; the toughest Bond in the series.
Blofeld is back.
A new M–Ralph Fiennes.
A new Moneypenny and Q.
A jaw-dropping opening: the helicopter sequence.
The grand opening musical theme sequence.
A decent quota of violent action otherwise, including a train fight sequence to rival the one From Russia with Love (it doesn’t).
Also the requisite number of car chases, warnings by M, plans to decommission Bond, a maiden in distress several times, scenes with Bond ‘hopelessly’ captured and tortured. (Those scenes are at their uncomfortable max in the series).

Well, otherwise, the visceral Craig has made the role his own (witty, debonair Connery a distant memory). He has now apparently signed on for another movie after holding out on the producers.
It’s ironic, the Bond franchise has survived numerous changes of leads, but continues to draw in and entertain audiences around the world. Box office-wise, it is in the top 5 after a 6 decade run.

‘Starting out’: what could that 1st ‘upper class’ girl (not pictured here) have seen in working class gr. 9 me at that first church dance? Ironically, the only girl (from here) at my school’s 100th anniversary was the one beside me wearing a jumper skirt (note my de rigeur white socks, slim tie, and black Beatles jacket). We rode the bus on day 1 to U of W and that’s the last time I saw her for 50 years until the reunion.)

If you were a teenager you could start dating, especially around grade 9. Certainly, you would begin noticing the opposite sex by grade 7 and paying more attention to your looks, making yourself more presentable by then.
You normally did not begin dating or going steady till high school (grade 10 and up). Though in/by grade 9, you might start to pair up with someone of the opposite sex, hanging out as a duo or with friends. “Going steady” meant you were more serious and loyal to one another.
Sometimes, even in ’65-66, that might mean a girl wearing a guy’s (school) ring–something which was returned when “it was over”.. I can remember giving a Winnipeg girl in gr. 12 (1967) a Stetson hat which I had bought in Ottawa, but she refused to return it, claiming it as a trophy/memento no doubt.
Kissing, nuzzling, ‘necking’, and hugging were all ok and expected in these relationships. Petting was more common in high school, often increasing by grade level.
Curfews for dates were usually 10-11 pm though in special cases, 12 midnight was the absolute limit on weekend functions. (My mother definitely noticed my first post-midnight return after the first fall evening I spent with an ‘upper class’ girl at her riverbank house when we were both in grade 9.) Church dances with live bands were becoming common (even a Sunday one at a local Catholic church) and I went to my first ones in grade 9 (’64-’65) These were a place to ogle the opposite sex while listening to the music of the day and dancing.
Guys typically went to girls’ houses, sometimes meeting family members (siblings or mothers; fathers seldom or rarely). Sometimes the girl planned to have the boy over when no one else was home, which gave more freedom and privacy. I remember, in grade 12, an ‘upper class’ girl inviting me over to her place and being surprised when we had the run of the house all evening.
But in 1967, things began to loosen up in the Summer of Love (Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was a turning point in June of that year.) I can remember going with a gr. 12 girlfriend to a u dance and surprised at couples lying on top of each other in corners and everywhere on the floors; this was clearly a step up, freedom-wise, from high school. Things certainly changed in 1967 and definitely by the time one got to university (dances).

–John Burroughs