gnostic21

My issue is with how the 'crime' is framed - the words 'assault' and 'rape' are tossed about liberally. What is never mentioned is 'seduction', the enticement of naive young women /girls by appealing to their romantic fantasies, which has a long social and literary history. The need to feel 'loved' and 'special'. No violence is ever used. A plot point unnoticed or unmentioned by any of the posters is the father's profession. Advertising. Marketing stuff to 'tweens' using highly sexualized images. Tweens are children between the ages of 9 or 10 and 13. They're fed a constant diet of the ways to be 'desirable' and 'sexy, usually by buying stuff to make them look older and more sexually available . How can parents overcome this barrage of noxious merchandising - especially if that's what provides their good upper middle class life. It also provide the psychological conditions, along with the anonymity of the Internet, for the seduction of very young girls. Charlie is an utter creep, but he's aided and abetted by an economic order that will do anything to find new 'markets'.

Peter Peterson is one of the chief proponents of 'entitlement' reduction; i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Never in any discussion of deficits are the exorbitant sums spent for military boondoggles, outdated ineffective weaponry (corporate welfare) , uncontrolled and unexamined payments to our corrupt 'allies' (Karzai, Pakistani Intelligence Services, Israel). So be careful, especially if you're a boomer and just about ready to get Social Security - it may not be there if Peterson has his way. His argument sounds so sensible, unless you include the elements he's ignored. It's noticeable that there are almost no voices on this panel to protect Social Security & Medicare.

The rave reviews of this version are due more to contemporary audience's total ignorance of Dickens' writing, comfortable familiarity with the actors playing the roles and limited attention span. I saw the 1974 version first, with utterly unfamiliar actors, and a 300 minute length, as opposed to 186 minutes. Massive amounts of plot were excised. The only actor whose performance was worthy of Dicken's intentions was Pauline Quirke as Pegotty. In the 1974 version, Martin Jarvis played Uriah Heep, an icon of unctuous, oily, perfidy and criminality, so much richer than the current one. And Mr. Micawber (I love Bob Hoskins, mind you) but the script gave much greater depth to his pecuniary failures in the 1974 version. And the actor chosen to play Copperfield - what were the producers thinking? Copperfield is an alter-ego of Dickens himself, not some wimpy pretty naive boy. An intellectual, a writer. Everything came out right at the end (as Dickens always arranged)but it was so neatly done and so unsatisfying. If you're a Dickens fan, I enourage you to watch the 1974 version.