Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!ut-sally!topaz!harvard!lo From: lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: A BRAZIL question (SPOILER?) Message-ID: <718@harvard.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Feb-86 19:53:38 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.718 Posted: Sat Feb 15 19:53:38 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 02:49:03 EST References: <11000015@ada-uts> <10700133@uiucdcs> <378@watdragon.UUCP> Organization: Harvard University Lines: 34 In article <378@watdragon.UUCP>, wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes: > I doubt Jill is that concerned about losing him - she wasn't that interested > in the first place, so it's probably not that bad for her either. I doubt she is concerned either since, by my understanding, she's dead. > I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no > terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using > fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to > anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in > the film. How exactly was the government using the "terrorists" to control the population? Nobody seemed the least bit phased by the bombings, except, of course, for the injured. By the way, to whomever said that the movie was "jumpin'", I would be interested in hearing some of the things you found worth discussing about the movie. As I said, I liked the movie but it seemed that most of the ideas you mention the movie presenting aren't fleshed out enough. They all seemed to be drowned in the style and pace. ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::