Conference bookie::movies

    I enjoyed this a lot, too.  I went back and saw it a second time with
    my daughter, after having seen it with a friend first.
    
    I thought the plot was quite original, and the acting very good.  
    
    I especially liked Stephen Rae, the actor who played Fergus.  I had
    never heard of him before, but thought he was very good in this.
    
    It explores the themes of loyalty to a cause vs. personal ethics, as
    well as friendship and love.  I'd definitely recommend it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well - I though it was hopeless.
    
    The IRA-action-flick bits at the beginning worked OK, but then it 
    all fell apart.  London didn't look like London, the bar didn't look 
    like a bar, Miranda Richardson looked like some 70s Baader-Meinhof 
    clich� - and to me the "big thing" in the plot was just laughable.
    
    Disappointing, considering the quality of "Mona Lisa" (also directed
    by Neil Jordan).

I've only seen about 3 movies in the last 2 months (very busy), but I did get
to this on Sunday.  I liked it.

The opening minute or so was wonderful, and really set me up to enjoy the rest
of the film.

I wasn't able to sympathize fully with all of the emotional changes gone
through by Fergus/Jimmy, but he was an effective central character, whose
"nature" remained essentially consistent.  The story was very artfully
constructed.  Maybe I'm naive, but the big plot twist in the middle took me
completely by surprise.  The music was well-chosen, too.

A quite powerful and thought-provoking movie, certainly better than most.

-Stephen

    Re .2: Was Richardson the IRA woman? Yeah, she got pretty cartoonish by
    the end. It didn't bother me much, though it would have been
    interesting if she'd been more of a character than a plot device.
    
    -b

    Miranda Richardson played the IRA woman.  I didn't like her character
    (I don't think I was supposed to!), but she didn't strike me as
    cartoonish.  I do have to say I didn't care for the dark hair on her. 
    I think I was so taken in by the Fergus/Jody/Dill story that
    Richardson's character didn't matter to me.  I was struck by what a
    different character she played in Enchanted April.  In Enchanted April
    she played a sweet, quiet person, and in this movie she played just the
    opposite, a horrendously nasty person.
    
    I was also shocked by the plot twist.  I hadn't seen it coming at all,
    so maybe I'm naive, too!  :-)
    
    I was totally charmed by Fergus, though.  Has anyone ever heard of
    Stephen Rae before, or seen him in anything?  I thought he was
    wonderful as Fergus.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    
    Tell me more about the part Richarson played in Enchanted April.
    Was she the actress? I just can't place her. In The Crying Game 
    she looked just like my mother, I don't recall anyone in EA that
    had that resemblance.
    
    Jodi-

    Of the 3 main women in Enchanted April there was the rich, pretty one
    (played by Polly somebody or other), and there was the sort've loud one
    that first got the idea to rent the place for a month, and then Miranda
    Richardson was the other one.  She was married to the author who was
    having an affair on her, with the pretty one.  She was quiet, and mousy
    acting, at first.  But, then relaxed and opened up more on vacation. 
    Can you place her now?  
    
    She looked very different in the two movies.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .7, in the beginning of ENchanted April, when one woman is trying to
    convince a second woman (a stranger) to rent the villa, Miranda is the
    one who gets persuaded (not the one doing the pursuading).
    
    Lorna
    

    Thanks, Lorna.  I know the character you're talking about and now
    I can see her face.  You're right, they do look totally different.
    
    Jodi-
    

       re the closing theme:
       
       Even if `The Crying Game' had been a lousy movie instead of one of
       the best, it would have been redeemed by Lyle Lovett.
       
       I'm glad that I don't get paid to be a movie critic; I haven't a
       clue how I could  write a review about `The Crying Game' that
       made sense without giving away things that ought to be discovered
       only in the movie theater.
       
       (When I saw Miranda Richardson in her get-up, I thought of Patty
       Hearst's bank robbery video.)
       
       --Mr Topaz

    I haven't seen this movie yet, but I was interested to see a commercial
    for it on network television this morning, and I could have sworn I
    heard them say that  it "opens this Friday".  Since the movie has been
    showing for quite some time, I presume they mean that they are widening
    the distribution.
    
    -- Mike

    Yes Mike, it's going (already is in So Calif) 
    into general release. 
    
    

  I liked this movie a lot. In fact, so far, it's my favorite for the year.
  However, I was surprised that Stephen Rae was nominated for best actor
  and Jaye Davidson was nominated for best supporting actor. Granted, they
  were both very good but I just don't think their performances were Oscar
  material. However, considering the fact that this was the first acting 
  role for Davidson since a high school play, Davidson did a remarkable
  job. I did think Miranda Richardson was excellent and deserved a nomination
  for best supporting actress(which she didn't get). The actors who played
  Jordy and the bartender also were superb. Neil Jordan, did a great
  job and deserved his nomination for best director. I hope he wins it.

  The thing that really makes this movie a hit is the story. This is something
  that the average Hollywood movie pays little attention to, most of the
  time. It shows the reactions of people put in incredible situations that 
  they never expected to be in. The surprise(s) really caught me me off gaurd
  and just about knocked my socks off. Now that the movie is being released
  again, this time at the major movie theaters in addition to the artsy
  theaters where it was playing, they are advertising it as having the biggest
  twist and surprise in a plot since Psyhco. My impression is that they are
  correct. As incredible as the story was, at the end, I thought it all made 
  sense and was very believable.

  The last two sceens with Furgus and Del were unforgettable.

  It's very refreshing to see a low budget movie, like this one, make it big 
  time because of an excellent story and a job well done by all the people 
  involved in it's production.

	Keith  

    re .13, I thought Stephen Rae was wonderful, and deserves the
    nomination.
    
    Lorna
    

  I saw "The Crying Game" over the weekend and my feeling is that it was pretty
good. Normally I'd be happy with that but since I was expecting to see the
movie favored to win the Oscar for picture of the year I was just a bit
disappointed. While the movie has some truly great acting and hangs together
very well to tell a cute little story, it lacks the power and scope necessary
to be a truly great film. 

  Forgive me if this sounds a bit confusing, but there seems to be something of
a requirement here that all critiques be careful not to reveal the gimmick ...
ah excuse me ... big surprise, so if I sound like I'm typing while standing on
my head, I am. 

  My main complaint with this movie is the same as my complaint with "Pretty
Woman". While the movie "An Officer and a Gentleman" was a truly great film
that explored many issues in depth and had a love story as one component,
"Pretty Woman", by comparison, while still having Richard Gear rescuing the
girl from the other side of the tracks, had nothing but the soap. The "Wall
Street" setting was pretty much a facade with predictable plot turns and
cartoon characters who's only purpose was to provide background for the love
story. 

  Likewise "The Crying Game" lost a great opportunity to do a 1st rate story
about the IRA, the people who join the IRA, their problems and their motives
while telling the gimmick ... ah excuse me ... big surprise story in the
background. Instead, the gimmick story takes over and the IRA story is reduced
to cardboard and stage paint. True it's a much better IRA story than what we
are accustom to and I give them some credit for that, but it still falls far
short of what it could have been. 

  If it were being pushed as a nice little movie to go see on a rainy weekend
I'd say sure, it's all of that with some fine performances and perhaps even an
Oscar level performance from Stephen Rae. A definite go see. But if this is the
favorite to win the Oscar for best picture, then it must have been a pretty
mediocre season.

  Good but not great ***,
  George 

    Re .15: Well, for me, one of the happy surprises about "The Crying
    Game" was that it _wasn't_ an in-depth study of the IRA, about which a
    number of other treatments have been done (and in which I am not
    particularly interested). So I s'pose it's a matter of expectations.
    
    FWIW, I saw "Crying Game" again this weekend, and found that I enjoyed
    it just as much the second time, even without a surprise factor. I
    liked seeing how it wove together, got just as involved with the early
    interactions between Fergus and Jodie, and enjoyed all the later
    character and relationship developments just as much as I had the first
    time. [I also _really_ enjoyed the fact that it was playing to a full
    house, to an audience who actually paid attention (very little
    extraneous chatter) and seemed to be pleasantly surprised by it all...]
    
    I like a movie that makes me walk out grinning. ;-)
    
    -b

    RE: .15  (George)
    
    I think you got it reversed.  The main story was the character 
    relationships and the IRA stuff was just the engine to drive the real
    story along - what Hitchcock dubbed "the McGuffin".
    
    I can understand coming out disappointed if the story you were
    following was the IRA story.
    
    - Dave
    
    BTW, did anyone ever catch Neil Jordan's previous film "The Miracle"
    (with Beverly D'Angelo), which got very good reviews but didn't play 
    much of anywhere for very long?
    
    And for those who haven't yet seen it, definitely check out "Mona Lisa"
    for something similar, and "The Company of Wolves" for something
    completely different.
    
    Word from Jordan - skip "High Spirits".  He disowns it completely.
    
    Stephen Rea starred in Jordan's first feature "Danny Boy".
    
    Forest Whitaker was also Charlie Parker in "Bird", and a dangerous
    pool-playing opponent  of Newman and Cruise in "The Color of Money".
    I forget what else he has been in, but I was definitely surprised with
    his English accent as Jodie.

    I agree with the noter who wanted more of the IRA story.  Frankly, I
    thought the first half-hour---the hostage situation---was the best. 
    Very well acted, extremely tense stuff.  Then, poof!  We're off to
    something completely different.  Though the story remained
    entertaining, including the over-hyped surprise, it got silly in parts,
    almost turning to comedy and standard romance schtick, with a few
    twists.  It had potential to be a hard-hitting, but ended up being just
    light entertainment.  And the ending was very dumb.
    
    -Rob

    re .17
    
    I believe Forrest Whittaker was in "Good Morning, Vietnam" as Robin
    William's escort of sorts.
    
    
    kim

RE       <<< Note 6.17 by 31113::WIEGLEB "Who is 'The Loneliest Monk'?" >>>

>    I think you got it reversed.  The main story was the character 
>    relationships and the IRA stuff was just the engine to drive the real
>    story along - what Hitchcock dubbed "the McGuffin".
>    
>    I can understand coming out disappointed if the story you were
>    following was the IRA story.
    
  No, I don't really have it reversed. I didn't mean to imply that I would only
like a movie if it were about the IRA. 

  My feeling is that a story has to be more than soap with a cardboard backdrop
if it is going to be on my list of great movies. Soap is ok as an added feature
but if that's all there is, then the story is limited to 3 stars out of 5 in my
book even if everything else is done perfectly. That was the case here. 

  I pointed out the difference between Richard Gear's two movies "Officer and a
Gentleman" and "Pretty Woman". Both had soap stories with Gear's character
rescuing the girl from the other side of the tracks, but "Officer and a
Gentleman" had much more. It was a great movie. 

  Likewise, Romeo and Juliet has a very strong soap component, but it too is
much more. Were it not for the feud between the two families and the tragedy
brought on by the impetuous of youth, Romeo and Juliet would not be considered
the greatest romantic story of all time, it would be just another romantic
story. 

  Like I say, "Crying Game" was a cute little story with gimmick. It was done
very well and earns all 3 stars out of 5 for being the best that a soap opera
can be, but it has no depth, a cardboard backdrop, and outside of the feelings
of the two main characters, the romance means very little. True the IRA were
involved, but their story line was so weak and predictable that it hardly
counted. 

  By contrast, the Romance in "Romeo and Juliet" had a profound effect on the
dynamics of the warring families, which was a very well developed storyline,
and the romance in "Officer and a Gentleman" had a profound effect on his
friends, his Naval experience and the lives of the people in the factory which
again were well written, well acted, and well developed stories in their own
right. 

  Don't get me wrong, I'm not panning this movie. For me, 3 stars out of 5 is a
good solid rating because the 5th star is only given out once every couple of
years to a movie which practically changes my life. But this is not a great
film and hardly deserves the nomination for picture of the year. 

  George

    Perhaps somebody will make a documentary on the IRA that you will
    enjoy.  Personally, I think the exploration of love, relationships and
    personal loyalty is far more important that the IRA (a much rehashed
    lost cause).
    
    Lorna
    

  You can count me as another who thinks the performance by Forrest Whittaker 
  was overlooked by a lot of people. His accent was truely remarkable.
  He impresses me as a very versatile actor. 

  A few notes back I said that I didn't think Stephan Rae deserved the best 
  actor nomination. However, I do think that his performance was very, very
  good. At least better than 95% of the leading roles in all pictures I've seen.
  
  I hope to see more of Whittaker and Rae in the future. 
  
  I'd like to see this movie again. I could see it winning Best Picture.

	Keith

RE        <<< Note 6.21 by VAXWRK::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >>>

>    Perhaps somebody will make a documentary on the IRA that you will
>    enjoy.  

  Lorna, 

  Where in that note did you get the idea that I was looking for a movie about
the IRA. I distinctly said that it didn't have to be about the IRA. Any in
depth topic would have done. In fact I mentioned a couple great movies that had
nothing to do with the IRA. 
    
  Once again, and someone please explain if they see why this is not getting
through, the movie needed something


       L           I     K     K    EEEEEE
       L           I     K    K     E
       L           I     K   K      E
       L           I     K  K       E
       L           I     K K        E
       L           I     KK         EEEEEE
       L           I     K K        E
       L           I     K  K       E
       L           I     K   K      E
       L           I     K    K     E
       LLLLLLLL    I     K     K    EEEEEE


the IRA to give it some depth. As it was, it's just soap.

  Very good soap, but soap none the less,

  George

    Clearly some differing opinions here as to what "depth" means - I, for
    one, would not have included "An Officer and a Gentleman" in the "deep
    movies" category. If anything, it felt more "soap-y" to me than "The
    Crying Game" did.
    
    'course, I'm perfectly willing to give 5-out-of-5 stars to a simple
    little romance, or a simple little character study, or a simple little
    <whatever>, if I think it's done well. Some movies make me think, some
    make me feel, some make me laugh, some make me do all of the above -
    and the ones that I get the most from aren't necessarily the ones that
    have the "most" in them...
    
    -b

    re .23, .24, yeah, personally, I felt there was a *lot* of depth to The
    Crying Game.  I thought the relationships between the characters were
    explored with a great deal of depth.  So, I guess it's just a matter of
    opinion.
    
    Lorna
    

Note 6.26                        The Crying Game                        26 of 26
6729::PATTON                                         11 lines  24-FEB-1993 13:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I just saw this one last night and liked it very much. I agree
    that it filled the scope it set for itself (if that makes sense)
    and it had the grace to be funny as well. 

[Mild spoiler warning]

    
    Not having heard any of the hype about the plot twist, I was taken 
    by surprise, and enjoyed the new spin that put to things. I was
    speculating this morning what life might be like for Jimmy/Fergus 
    and Del in a few years...I like it when a movie stays with me after
    I've left the theater.
    
    Lucy

According to the USENET databases, here's what he's been in:

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Tag: The Assassination Game (1982)
Vision Quest (1985)
Color of Money, The (1986)
Platoon (1986)
Bloodsport (1987)
Good Morning, Vietnam (1987)
Hands of a Stranger (1987) (TV)
Stakeout (1987)
Bird (1988)
Criminal Justice (1990) (TV)
Downtown (1990)
Johnny Handsome (1990)
Article 99 (1991)
Rage in Harlem, A (1991)
Consenting Adults (1992)
Crying Game, The (1992)
Diary of a Hit Man (1992)

    Saw this last night.  Pretty good stuff -- I think it rivals
    "Unforgiven" for the best character study I've seen all year.
    Can't decide which I liked better in that sense.
    
    It didn't knock my socks off, but it certainly provided for a bit of
    conversation post-viewing.  I understand the gent who made the film
    couldn't get any big studio to back it.  After seeing, I understood
    why, it's not a Paramount/Touchstone/Universal 'kind' of picture.
    
    *** out of ****  (flawed by some inplausbilities)
    
    kim
    

>I understand the gent who made the film
>couldn't get any big studio to back it.  

  It cost 4 million dollars to make the movie. 

	Keith

    
    re. last
    
    Which is dirt cheap by today's standards.   
    
    Has the film been doing good box office, by any chance?
    
    
    cheers,
    
    kim

    RE: box office
    
    The "SF Chronicle" had an article the other day about how well 
    marketed this film is.  It was compared to the marketing of "Fried
    Green Tomatoes".
    
    It was started small in (I think) 4 cities, word of mouth got around
    about how good the film was - leading to high ticket demand, and the
    audience refused to give away the elements of the film that were better
    experienced than explained.
    
    The marketing folks got hold of the fact that the audience basically
    refused to divulge much information and started expanding the release
    in the initial cities with the tag line "The movie that everyone is
    talking about, but no one is giving away its secrets".  This has built
    the audience even more, and it has just now gone into general release.
    As a result, it is doing "boffo box office".
    
    The downside of this approach is that something essential to the story
    is being dismissed as "a gimmick" by some viewers who were probably drawn 
    in by the marketing of "the secret" aspect.  It draws the audience in,
    but perhaps diminishes the film by creating false expectations/focus.
    
    Bottom line is:  See the film and ignore the marketing.
    
    - Dave

    RE: .17  by 31113::WIEGLEB 
    
    >BTW, did anyone ever catch Neil Jordan's previous film "The Miracle"
    >(with Beverly D'Angelo), which got very good reviews but didn't play 
    >much of anywhere for very long?
    
    Yes, I saw it.  Come to think of it, I think I actually saw it in
    Dublin, which made the DART (Dublin Area Rapid Transit) all the more
    familiar as I had ridden down to Booterstown on it the day before and
    the scenery was very much like the seaside town where much of the story
    took place.
    
    

    I agree with George M's analysis back about .15 or so.  Pretty good
    movie, with a gimmick.  It wasn't even a surprise for me or my wife,
    but then we had been "prepared" by all the advance press.

    Nice choice of songs at the beginning and end.
    Good acting all around.
    
    I thought "Metro" was a poor name for the bar, confused me into
    thinking Forrest W. was talking about a bar in a subway.
    
      John
    
    Spoiler!  Only for those who have seen the movie:

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    On second thought, never mind.  :-)

    I rented The Miracle a few months ago, and liked it quite a bit.  Not
    as much as The Crying Game, but thought it was quite interesting.
    
    I liked the music a lot, especially Boy George's version of The Crying
    Game, and also appreciated the humor of the last song.
    
    Lorna
    

    FWIW, "Forest Whitaker" is correctly spelled with only one "R" in the
    first name, and one "t" in the last name.
    
    - Dave

    
    Well, I brought myself to see this over the weekend.  It was enjoyable,
    but it had a couple of weak points for me.
    
    The first is related to something other people have mentioned.  I
    thought the I.R.A. plot was oversimplified.  Even given that it existed
    largely to set the real story going it would have been better if the
    movie had not reduced the situation almost to a cliche.
    
    Even bigger for me was something that happened once the real story got
    going:  Possible spoiler, I guess:
    
    The Fergus character tells a really obvious lie, and Dil doesn't pick
    it up.  Maybe I'm just abnormally sensitive to this, but I did not
    believe for one second that 'Jimmy' was Scottish.  Now admittedly, I
    wouldn't expect Dil to leap to the truth, which is pretty bizarre by
    anyone's standards, but I would have expected her to smell a rat.
    
    
    DFW

    re .36
    
    spoiler warning
    
    
    My take on it is that Dil is kidding around when she says to Fergus
    "You're American, right?"
    and then when he says "No"
    she says  "then you're Scottish"
    and he says "Yes"
    
    IT is very obvious to both of them that he's Irish from the accent but
    they're just playing out a joke, not lying.
    
    This is clear when Dil says about Jude "She's Scottish, too, right?"
    when she meets Jude, realizing that their connection has something
    to do with being Irish or from Ireland.
    
    I don't think they were lying- just playing out a joke. It would be
    like saying to someone with a thick Greek accent- "You're Swedish,
    right?"
    
    Cheers,
    George

    I saw this last night and really enjoyed it. 
    
	Spoilers follow...
    

    I dont agree with the term "soap" because I saw Dil & Fergus's
    relationship as much more complicated. Dil's personality itself could
    be called "soapy" for want of a more accurate term, but that relation-
    ship, to me, was built on some SERIOUS guilt... from a scorpion who
    longs to be a frog.
    
    The scorpion/frog story is one I've heard before. I really liked how it
    was woven into the film. And I agree, Forest Whitaker was AWESOME. I
    couldn't believe that he was actually speaking - I figured it was a
    voiceover. But I was totally impressed with the points he was making
    about the fact that people looked at him as a ni**er... despite the
    fact that he was born in England. I felt a certain suspense in watching
    him weave out a thin strand of hope for himself in talking to Fergus.
    I wondered whether his life would end.
    
    As for Jude/Miranda Richardson, when she turned up in the second half
    of the movie, admittedly as the appropriate "next complication", I was
    annoyed. I'd already decided that I couldn't stand her, and wanted to
    see her blown away. 
    
    The person I saw the film with caught on to the gimmick in the first
    glimpse of Dil, so I wasn't surprised when the truth was finally
    revealed. And in fact, the way various people talked about the film,
    and based on the circles I run in, it couldn't be too much of a
    surprise.
    
    But I guess that's why I didn't see the relationship as soapy. I think
    Fergus loved/appreciated Dil as a person, and as Jody's lover. I think
    Fergus was attracted to Dil as a woman, but I think he mainly just
    wanted Dil to stay alive because he just couldn't have Dil's death on
    his conscience.  
    
    I also think that some people may have been put off by the fact that
    Fergus chose to stay in Dil's life, to be gentle with her, loving, but
    not a lover, and even to kiss her, because she needed to be kissed, and
    he needed to feel human. I think Fergus was having some trouble with
    his humanity...
    
    I will admit that the ending was a tad hokey, but I think a lot of that
    is because of Dil's throaty "dahling"'s and "honey"'s. Again, its a
    matter of whether you can deal with who Dil is, or who she wants to be
    and how she wants to live. I also think that Dil wants Fergus to accept
    her and love her as a person, far more than she cares about having him
    for a lover. And in the end, there is a special relationship/friendship
    between two people who are keeping some pretty deep secrets. 
    
    After all, Fergus never kills ANYONE... he's just not really scorpion
    material.

Spoiler Warning

I recently became aware that the title song is sung by that old Karma Chameleon
Boy George. Now that I think of it, who else would be more appropriate. :-)

Regards
Barry

    I liked the exploration of human depth and feeling in relationships but
    I can't believe they would nominate this for best picture.
    
    Overall, too morose and depressing for my taste.

    re .39, if you'd read .34 under this topic, you would have known it
    sooner, since I mentioned it there.  
    
    Lorna
    

	[Spoiler Warning]

	[Last Chance, Major Spoiler Warning]

.38>     The person I saw the film with caught on to the gimmick in the first
.38>     glimpse of Dil, ....

	Before the secret was revealed, I too thought she could almost
	be a he because of the facial features, voice, and small breasts,
	but I still didn't catch on (shame on me) and was major surprised
	when it was revealed.  Especially when I had been thinking that
	she (not he :-) was somewhat attractive and that I had thought
	she (again not he :-) I saw her in a movie before!!!

	Was he/she in a movie before?  Like maybe "Paris is burning"?

    
    Jaye Davidson's previous acting experience consisted of a play in
    secondary school, according to an interview I read.
    
    
    gloria 

       Jaye Davidson, who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, is
       interviewed in the current (April 1) issue of Rolling Stone.

Stephen Rea can currently be seen in NYC on the Broadway
stage (I forget which theatre).  He and Alec McCowen
are in the play "Someone to Watch Over Me", transferred
here from London's West End a month or so ago.

dcl

nb  Loved the film!

    I saw an ad on Ch. 2 in Boston this morning (during Sesame Street!)
    for Masterpiece Theater, with Stephen Rea in "Hedda Gabler". 
    It said that it will be shown on Sunday, 3/28.
    
    Lucy              

  According to the Boston Globe, Siskel and Ebert got into a big fight over
this movie during their Academy Award show. It wasn't their usual type of
fight where one likes it and the other doesn't, rather Ebert got angry because
Siskel gave away the big secret on the show.

  Ebert claimed that they should have discussed before hand weather they were
going to do that but Siskel pointed out that they never discuss things like
that before hand.

  What's really strange about this is that it's been my experience that during
regular reviews, Ebert goes much further in giving away story lines, using
movie punch lines, and hinting at endings than Siskel does.

  In spite of this, the Globe speculated that the two would keep working
together since their squabbles have made each of them into millionaires.

  George

Re: .47

	FWIW, I saw the show, and Siskel gave a warning to those who
	haven't seen the movie and who care, to turn down the volume
	on your TV set.  Whoever edited the show also put a banner
	accross the screen saying the same thing, and after Siskel was
	done, they put another banner up saying it was ok to turn the
	volume on your set back up again.

	Ie. it's not like he just blurted it out with out warning.

	It's going to be interesting to see what happens March 29th
	during the real award show.  I have a feeling the secret is
	going to have to be let out then ..........  (?)

    By the way, the latest Harper's Index reports that Siskel gives four
    thumbs up for every five given by Ebert.
    
    -- Mike

   Seems like Siskel and Ebert still have the knack of pulling a 
   realistic publicity stunt once in a while. All this means more $$$
   for everyone Siskel, Ebert, TV networks, E! and Entertainment Tonight.

   Nari

   

    
    The secret's out to anyone who has seen a copy of the April 1 issue of
    Rolling Stone, and this week's issue of either People or Entertainment
    Weekly. 
    
    gloria
     

	Also David Letterman let the secret out last night in one
	of the items on their Top 10 list.

    Well, the movie has been out for quite awhile now.  Frankly, I think
    that people can't expect movie secrets or surprises to be hidden
    forever.  I can't help but think that anybody who is extremely upset at
    having the surprise spoiled by this time, should have made more of an
    effort to see the movie when it first came out.  (It's been playing for
    weeks in Natick, for example.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: the secret
    
    Actually, Entertainment Weekly let the secret out a couple of months
    ago, even before the movie had a wider release.  To be fair, they
    included a "spoiler warning" at the top of the article, but it was
    presented in a way that wasn't obvious to me so I scanned right by it
    and read the big secret.  I had not seen the film.  And I wasn't happy,
    but in this case, it was my fault.
    
    I still haven't seen the film and I probably won't until it hits video
    but I must take exception to .53's opinion that anyone who wants to be
    surprised should have "made more of an effort when it first came out."
    
    What about all those people who prefer to wait for the film to come to
    video??  Or can't make it to theatre to see it and thereby wait for the
    video release??
    
    I myself don't get out to the movies as often as you do or as much as
    I'd like for that matter.  These days, I probably see about one film a
    month and I'm very picky about what that film is.  I likely will wait
    to see "The Crying Game" when it hits video.
    
    But that doesn't mean I should forfeit my right to enjoy it as much as
    those that have seen it in the theatre.  While I'll grant you that this
    particular secret would be, and has been, hard to keep, especially in
    light of the coming Oscar celebration, the idea that I should have
    made more of an effort is ludicrous.  Especially in this case.  I
    believe that the "big secret" is the main reason that this film is
    enjoying great success.  It certainly has a lot of people curious and
    eager to find out what the big deal is.  But that doesn't mean that the
    folks who rent aren't as curious or as eager.  They deserve the same
    courtesy.
    
    I mean, how would you feel if you sat down to watch "Citizen Kane" for
    the first time and someone came up to you and told you what "Rosebud"
    was all about??
    
    I appreciate that most of the discussions that give away endings, etc.,
    are done with spoiler warnings and behind form feeds.  But then, that's
    only fair.
    
    - Skip

    _I_ wish there wasn't so much focus on "the secret," even if that _is_
    drawing lots of people; this is a fine little movie in its own right,
    highly enjoyable even on repeated viewings (when, unless one's memory
    is very short indeed, one knows all).
    
    However, I find it rather jolly that so many kept it so quiet for so
    long, and will remind everybody to use spoilers (including form-feeds,
    please) if you must discuss it. Even if it winds up on the cover of TV
    Guide the week after the Oscars. ;-)
    
    [I kinda hope TCG _doesn't_ win anything; it's so, so, like, 
    "establishment," y'know?]
    
    Btw, does anybody remember the name of the actor who played Dick(? the
    skinhead boyfriend)? I thought his character's transition was nothing
    short of masterful - poor guy...
    
    -b

    Ever since seeing this movie, I had been trying to figure out where I
    had seen the actor who played Fergus's boss in England.  

    Tonight, while perusing a course catalog, as I ran across a course on
    improvisational acting, it suddenly hit me.  He was a regular on the
    British improvisational TV show "Whose Line is it Anyway?" 
    Unfortunately, the %*&$% cable system in my current home town doesn't
    carry Comedy Central, and I haven't watched the show for several months
    now (I don't know if Comedy Central even carries the show anymore.)  As
    I recall, he was one of the funnier participants on that show.

    I can sleep better now that this nagging question has been solved
    (don't ask me his name, though.)

    -- Mike

    I saw the movie after already stumbling upon the secret, so I knew what
    to expect.  Having that knowledge didn't affect my opinion of the
    movie.  Of course, that probably makes it easy for me to say this, but
    it is my view that the movie would have been just as interesting if the
    audience had been let in on the secret well before the protagonist knew
    about it.  The movie is not about a gimmick, and making such a big deal
    out of the secret implies otherwise.  In fact, I had come to the movie
    expecting that this great secret would be revealed at the end, as some
    sort of surprise ending, when in fact it was revealed only about
    halfway through the movie.

    -- Mike

    re: .58
    
    I can see your point, though I personally do not find spoiler warnings
    obtrusive or interrupting.  But gees, thanks for ruining "Romeo and
    Juliet"... :-)
    
    However, in all of the hype created around TCG, I have not read or seen
    one review in the media that did not make a big deal of the *SECRET*. 
    You'd almost think that it's the secret itself that makes the film and
    that's certainly the impression I've received from the critics.  
    
    In fact, I'd dare to say if it weren't for the secret and the
    surrounding hype, "The Crying Game" would not have received as much
    recognition and attention as it has to date.  That's not a reflection
    on the quality of the film itself, but rather a comment on the business
    of Hollywood.  The secret generated a lot of positive word-of-mouth and
    a lot of curiosity, which in turn, led to a wider release and a handful
    of Oscar nominations.
    
    - Skip

re .57.  I've never seen Stephen Rea on WLIIA, but he
does have a passing Celtic resemblance to John Sessions
(who is Scots).  Looks more like Sessions than Slattery
to my eyes.

dcl

    It's all over the front page of this week's issue of Variety, along
    with an interesting discussion about the problems facing the Japanese
    release.
    
    [Warning -- obliquely worded spoilers follow]
    
    
    The Japanese censorship laws prohibit full frontal nudity, but since
    this is a case where it's not only justified, but integral to the plot,
    and never referred to verbally, the distributors are thinking of
    fighting it -- except that it might generate publicity, which would

    RE: .62
    
    The note requested the name of the actor who played Fergus's boss, not
    who played Fergus.  The correct answer is indeed "Tony Slattery".
    
    PS.  you can see John Sessions in Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" in a
    small part.
    
    - Dave

Sorry about that.  Funny, I didn't even notice
Slattery in TCG.  I'll have to go back and look again.
The IRA boss I remember most clearly was the fair
one (who is definitely not Slattery OR Sessions :-)).

Slattery can be seen more recently in the disappointing
"Peter's Friends".  Sessions shows up in all sort of
unexpected places.  He had a minor part in the Gibson/
Hopkins version of "Mutiny on the Bounty".  But that's
irrelevant, since he's definitely not in "The Crying 
Game".

dcl

    Aha. We weren't talking about Fergus' IRA boss (dunno who played him),
    but his boss at the construction site.
    
    [Btw, I saw Stephen Rea in the PBS airing of "Hedda Gabler" last night;
    not a bad job, but (I thought) nothing special. The all-Irish cast was
    good, and I didn't find their use of Scandinavian names too jarring,
    but I did get a chuckle out of it when Rea's character mentioned
    throwing something into the fjord... Just didn't sit right, somehow!]
    
    -b

    Re .57: That's Tony Slattery, joining Paul Reiser in the "comedians who
    do damn fine jobs of playing obnoxious corporate types in movies"
    category. (Well, OK, Reiser's sneaky exec in "Aliens" WAS a more
    complete character than Slattery's walk-on boss; the former was an
    integral part of the movie, while the latter seemed mainly like an
    excuse to (a) let Fergus/Jimmy blow off a little steam, and (b) give
    the audience a wee bit of relief from the emotional stuff via an almost
    Python-esque construction-worker-slapstick scene.)
    
    -b

    Finally I got to see this movie!  I loved it, and although I kind of
    suspected what the secret was, I tended not to dwell on it while I
    watched.  My boyfriend, though, was totally shocked as he didn't have a
    clue what the movie was about or the controversy surrounding the
    "secret."  After the movie he said he was glad he didn't know ahead of
    time; it would have tarnished his view of the characters.
    
    Frankly, I thought the movie was a class act all the way.  Everyone in
    it was wonderful and the character studies were something else.  I'm so
    glad I avoided all those spoilers and the magazine articles!  So how
    did I suspect the secret?
    
    Spoiler to follow:
    
    I really felt that Dil looked great as a woman, but there was something
    about her (besides her voice) that just seemed male to me.  And when
    the bartender started to tell "Jimmy" something about Dil just before
    she started singing, I knew what it was.  While she sang, I thought
    back to the prisoner who said she "wasn't his type" just after telling
    him that the blonde who set him up wasn't "someone he fancied."  And
    that remark about Dil being his wife: "you could say that ...."
    
    

    Did anyone else pick up on the Forest Whitaker as Christ symbolism?
    
    
    
    He was betrayed by a Jude ass.
    

    Jaye Davidson, by the way, is now in a full-page magazine ad for the
    Gap.  Saw it in the recent New Yorker.
    
    -Rob

    Did he have those tattooes in "The Crying Game?"
    
    Richard

     This film was absolutely terrible. I am so surprised that it even got
    nominated for best picture! The Academy has always done a poor job in
    this regard.

    re:.69
    
    Yes, Richard, he did have the tattoos....I saw it for the second time
    Friday night and they were there, although, I never noticed them the
    first time...
    
    				Donna

    I saw this film on video over the weekend, and was suprised by it.  I
    cannot say that I enjoyed it, I recognize it as a very well made, well
    acted film with compelling characters and a strong look at an unusual
    relationship.  It was not what I would call an uplifting film however,
    nor an inspiring one, just a very well portrayed story.
    
    The IRA angle was not very strong, but I do not think that the IRTA
    angle was intended to be strong.  This was not a political movie, not
    to my mind.  It tends to portray the IRA in a negative light, all
    characters, other than Fergus, came off as violent radicals, which may
    be true of the dedicated IRAers, but is immaterial here.  
    
    I did not think my money wasted, but the film did not strike me as
    strongly as I thought it would.
    
    Andrew
    

    Risky question, but I have to ask it....
    
    How is it possible to protray the IRA in a positive sense ?
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen

    
    Awful film, one of the worst I've ever seen...
    
    Neil..

    RE 6.73
    
    It is not possible nowdays. They are a bunch of cowardly murders, who
    should be locked up for eternity.

    Please, lets not rathole this into a political discussion.
    
    Thanks
    Joyce
    

    
    Re:1
    
    Good idea, even better let's not talk about this droll film..
    
    Neil..

RE          <<< Note 6.73 by TRUCKS::BEATON_S "I Just Look Innocent" >>>

>    How is it possible to protray the IRA in a positive sense ?
    
  I'll try to avoid being political and stick to movie portrails. 

  My gripe was that the IRA part of the movie was a cartoon backdrop for the
soap opera in the foreground. Regardless if you believe in someone's cause or
not, you can delve into why people behave the way they do and you can show
characters as individuals, exploring why they would go into a radical movement.

  The movie started out this way with the hero showing sensitivity and going
through a struggle over shooting the prisoner. He was hardly a cowardly figure.
They were doing really well showing the conflict brought about by a basically
peaceful individual being drawn into a revolution and the friction between him
and the more dedicated IRA members. 

  But once the movie shifted to London, the IRA part became a shallow depiction
of radicals with no thought behind who they were or why they behave the way
they do. Instead it concentrated on the soap opera relationship between the two
main characters. 

  Had the movie started off as a soap I would have accepted it, but since it
started of as much more than that, quickly killed of it's best character and
turned into suds, I was somewhat disappointed. Any continuation of the in depth
analysis of the IRA would have been more positive in my opinion. 

  George 

    re 6.76
    
    Sorry force of habit (won't do it again...... promise!!)

    I rented this movie over the weekend, but was unable to watch the last
    1/2 hour or so.   
    
    Could someone please send me off-line the ending of this movie?   I
    don't want to spoil the ending for someone who hasn't seen it yet.   
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The last that I saw was when Fergus took Del to the beaty salon after
    she said, "she'd do anything for him".   
    
    
    I really appreciate it...
    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Donalea
    

    Re: -1
    
    Having seen this movie several times, I would say the rental is worth
    paying twice. There's quite a bit of action from the point you
    mentioned to the end of the movie. It would be worth a re-rent. Spoiler
    effects won't give you the "feel" of the movie.
    
    Catherine
    

    Well I just rented this movie last night and I can't believe how
    dissapointed I was!!!!! BOOOOOOORRRRRRIIIINNNGGG!!!!!!!
    
    I don't know maybe I missed something but......
    
    I can't believe anyone was suprised that she was a he....it seemed
    pretty obvious to me from the get go. Even without that overrated
    "secret", the storyline in genral is dull.
    
    
    Natalie

    Your not the only one, the wife and I watched that movie last night
    didn't care for it too much.
    
    

    Oh good....I hate being the only one! ;-)

    Yup, I second and third some other critics that this was extremely
    boring!

	Re: previous few

	Hmm, interesting.  Seems the majority of those of us who
	saw it on the big screen thought it was great.  But those
	of you who are now catching it for the first time on
	the small screen feel it's boring.  Obviously something
	got lost in the transition from big to small :-((

RE      <<< Note 6.86 by 12368::michaud "Jeff Michaud, Pathworks for NT" >>>

> Obviously something
>	got lost in the transition from big to small :-((

  At this point we are dangerously close to some really crass jokes.

  :*)}
  George

    re .86, I noticed that, too.  I saw it in the movies, when it was first
    out, before I even knew the big secret, and I loved it.
    
    Lorna
      

For those who felt it was boring and didnt care for the movie - I am curious, 
when you first learned about Dell didnt you think about what you would do 
in the same situation?  Thats what carried the rest of the movie for me.

    re .89, yes, and the basic question, once you love somebody does it
    really matter who or what they are....or does it?
    
    Lorna
    

RE                       <<< Note 6.89 by 21068::PILOTTE >>>

>For those who felt it was boring and didnt care for the movie - I am curious, 
>when you first learned about Dell didnt you think about what you would do 
>in the same situation?  Thats what carried the rest of the movie for me.

  I didn't find it boring, but it wasn't all that great either. As I said
earlier, it degraded quickly into a soap opera and those things only hold my
interests so long.

  I was really disappointed that they killed off their best character so fast
and let the IRA stuff turn into a cartoon backdrop. 

  It was clever and had some good acting, but it was really limited in scope.

  George

    The *secret* seemed quite obvious to me from the start so it had no
    magic for me.
    
    
    Natalie

I saw this on tape recently and thought it was brilliantly acted by all. I'm
so glad that the IRA storyline was there merely as a backdrop to the real
story. Incidentally, I thought the central relationship was hellish close to
Mona Lisa, another superb Neil Jordan film , eg. black versus white, not
consummated, surrounded by and culminating in violence etc., plus
wonderful performances by Bob Hoskins (ML)and Stephen Rae (TCG).

Bob

PS. Regarding the "secret" being revealed before I saw the film, you can
thank the preposterous Academy Awards for that. The film was still on its
first run (in England at least) when they decided to nominate Jaye Davidson.
And we all know in which category.

    Well I'm going to give this movie another try but with a different
    perception that my mom thought of.......
    
    
    that the reason the guy told his kidnapper (sorry I forgot everyone's
    names) to make sure to go see her was because he did know about her
    *secret* and that the kidnapper would fall for her and THAT was his
    revenge on him.
    
    I like the idea......it gives the movie a little more depth. 
                                                                Natalie

    re .94, I assumed that was the case all along!!!  Didn't everyone
    else????
    
    Lorna
    

    re. Lorna:
    
    Nope.
    
    
    kim

    Really?  wow.  It just seemed obvious to me.  Oh well.
    
    Lorna
    

    No, my perception was that the guy who was kidnapped at the beginning
    of the movie truly cared for the Jaye Davidson character, and was
    perceptive enough (or desparate enough) to believe that Fergus would
    honestly look in on her and take care of her if trouble arose. revenge
    didn't enter into it because that would hurt Jaye as much as Fergus.
    				Jim

    re .98, I saw it as a combination of both.
    
    Lorna
    

    I totally agree with Lorna.
    
    Good movie.
    
    Gary

  No, that's too much of a stretch. I have two problems with the revenge
theory. 

  First, people don't think of handing off someone that they love to someone
that they hate as revenge. That would be more revenge on the old "girl" friend
than on the new guy. 

  And 2nd, have you ever tried to fix up two people you "know" would be great
together? What happens? About 80 times out of 100 they get along fine as
friends but there are no sparks. Another 19 times out of 100 they can't stand
each other and maybe 1% of the time it works, probably less. 

  I still believe that if you think "soap" with a gimmick you are a lot closer
than if you try to read any deep meaning into the plot.

  George 

    
    My take on it is that it has more to do with hostage psychology
    than revenge.  Hostages often forge a strong emotional bond with
    their captors, especially if one of the captors performs some
    small services for the hostage or displays some human kindness,
    as Fergus did for Jody.  The other thing that happens with
    people in extreme danger is that they crave contact, even the
    most tenuous, with the person closet to them.  I think it's
    perfectly consistant that Jody put his trust in Fergus, and
    that he asked Fergus to contact the person he loved most.
    
    Ron

    Well actually I think the revenge theory can work because he does say
    something somewhat derogatory about her when he's first captured.....so
    it may have been a duel revenge. And as far as turning it into a "soap"
    that is hardly what I'm trying to do....I just thought it was an
    interesting twist and for me this movie needed ANYTHING to make it more
    interesting.
    
    Natalie

  Who said you were trying to turn it into a soap?

  No need, it's a soap on it's own. A good soap, but a soap none the less.

  George

    My mistake! ;-)
    
    	But I wouldn't go as far as to call it a good soap....I think
    Zest or Ivory is a good soap but NOT this movie! ;-) :^}
    
    Natalie

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.  A little background...
    
    I have two children under two.  In other words, I have zippo time to
    myself.  I'm reminded that I have a television when I dust it on the
    weekends :^).  "My" treat is to rent a movie on a weekend night (I must
    admit, I haven't made it to the end of one yet without falling asleep).
    Of late, we were renting one bad movie after another, so I turned to
    this notesfile and voila "The Crying Game".  
    
    We rented it three weekends ago - I'm still singing the theme song.
    Dil sang it so well.  I loved it!  I watched most of it Saturday night
    - fell asleep - rewound to the singing part again on Sunday morning
    and finished it.  I loved the dialog between Fergus and Dil from the
    moment she was washing his hair, but especially at the Metro bar.
    
    The next movie on my list is Benny & Joon (if it's available).
    
    One happy customer
    Patricia