The theatre they're in looks a lot like Pantages in Winnipeg, the Weakerthans' home town. I'm somewhere in the crowd, around row 10. Fantastic show from one of my favourite bands.

I'd prefer "niche audience" to "ahead of its time". That's neither a good nor a bad thing, it's not a value judgment. Lots of movies, like this one, are well made and acted but fail to get mainstream recognition. Occasionally that changes with the passage of time, but I'd say that belongs to the more exceptional cases.

>> ^bareboards2:

I walked up to a theater in a town I didn't know, just looking to kill some time. Had never heard of it before, but it was Tom Hanks, so what the heck.
Only one other person in the theater. First run movie.
I LOVED IT. And I knew it would fail -- it was too ahead of its time, I think.
My favorite moment? Right before they jump in the volcano and he asks her to marry him.
What follows next is the perfect statement of modern neurotic life....
Thanks for posting this. I may have to watch it again, just to revel in it.

>> ^budzos:
Underrated movie that I'm glad I saw when it was new in theatres 20 (jesus FUCK) years ago.

I walked up to a theater in a town I didn't know, just looking to kill some time. Had never heard of it before, but it was Tom Hanks, so what the heck.

Only one other person in the theater. First run movie.

I LOVED IT. And I knew it would fail -- it was too ahead of its time, I think.

My favorite moment? Right before they jump in the volcano and he asks her to marry him.

What follows next is the perfect statement of modern neurotic life....

Thanks for posting this. I may have to watch it again, just to revel in it.


>> ^budzos:

Underrated movie that I'm glad I saw when it was new in theatres 20 (jesus FUCK) years ago.

>> ^budzos:

Underrated movie that I'm glad I saw when it was new in theatres 20 (jesus FUCK) years ago.


I also saw it in the theaters. Holy crap. Twenty years ago? D:

Underrated movie that I'm glad I saw when it was new in theatres 20 (jesus FUCK) years ago.

I saw this film late in its theatre run. It had a lot of hype. I didn't want to like it. The opening scene here had me in stitches. So funny.

And lol: Before acting in films and television, Wayne Pygram was a regular on the Australian theatre circuit. In 2005, he made a brief cameo in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as a young Grand Moff Tarkin, because of his resemblance to Peter Cushing, who portrayed the same character 28 years previously in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.

Due to the brevity of his Star Wars cameo, and the makeup he wore on Farscape, Pygram's real face may now be known best for his appearance on the TV show Lost, as a faith healer named Isaac of Uluru.

Pygram has also played the drums in numerous bands over the past 20 years, the most recent being a band named Signal Room (formerly called Number 96) along with his co-star in Farscape, Anthony Simcoe [D'Argo]. He also teaches the drums at Kildare Catholic College, an Australian Catholic school based in Wagga Wagga. (WikiPedia)

The Music Theatre of Idaho production features Erick Pew as the crabby Scrooge In this theater the dialogues are including the christmas quotes and Love quotes.

Yes, Animatrix is essential Matrix viewing. The Second Renaissance pt 1&2 is what Matrix Reloaded should have been.

I saw Dreamcatcher in theatres back in 2003 because they showed the premiere of Final Flight of the Osiris (Animatrix segment 3) as an accompanying short. Was totally worth it, even if I had to sit through Dreamcatcher afterwards. If you haven't seen Dreamcatcher, there is a large focus on aliens that come out your asshole and you know you have an alien in your ass because you can't stop farting powerfully. Not joking, there are full scenes which are meant to be serious in which actors are grimacing in medium close-up while loud farting noises are laid on top.

Almost getting violent is not illegal.

Your link and your examples support my point completely. There are limits to free speech: when they cause harm to others. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or my examples of inciting violence or causing discrimination, all cause harm.

Being an asshole on the subway does not cause harm.

She never threatened anyone (so there goes any "uttering threats" charge) and harassment is almost by definition a repetitive act (which means this likely can't be called that either, legally).

With regards to freedom of speech not superseding other rights, here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point out which one her freedom of speech was superseding. There is no "everyone has the right to never be offended and to be sheltered from the opinions of others."
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.
The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.
I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

I went with the description at the channel page, which elaborates on what "more" includes: Welcome to the high culture channel where we rejoice in opera, classical music, ballet and musical theatre.

It would be good to see a channel for applauding a good effort in any category.>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

It said classical music and more. I interpreted that to being anything you would clap for in a live setting. We need that channel. >> ^messenger:
I didn't notice any classical music.
nochannel
Geek
Engineering
Timeshift
Magic
Money

Ah yes---own property, as opposed to it owning you. I don't believe one can own property, but I believe it can be claimed by someone.

And as goes the example of positive liberty, of course they can impose it with violence. They can also craft multiple ways around the whole argument by policies that hold down black individuals in other ways (Which they have done so a thousand different ways.) So instead of being out in the open, they are now cloak-and-dagger, which still is better than the old days I suppose.

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...

But no, I read it right then.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.
Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.
From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.
Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.
The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.
That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

Ratigan is such a hack most of the time, it's impossible for me to take this rant as anything but theatre.

It's a Roland Emmerich movie. About Shakespeare.

I can only assume the theatre explodes at some point.

Coming soon, Michael Bay directs a romcom chick flick.....

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

I think you're reading it wrong.

Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.

Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.

From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.

Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.

The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.

That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.