Re: "My God. It's full of stars" ( was: re: A.I.)

["Sweet & Tender Hooligan" <cirhsein at yahoo_com>]

> about henry - did it mean to imply that women bond more easily? was it
> ever intended ftruly for the childless couple? it doesn't seem as if they
> ever addressed how to multiply bond.  there was some wierd competition
> impleied only at the end between henry and david, and that only through
> the narrator.

I think the answer is much more ho-hum: Henry was a stand-in. A plot device
used as needed and then discarded by the writer (be that Spielberg or
Kubrick). Henry was needed to bring David on the scene, but once there was
love between the mother and child, he was needed to instigate their
separation. And then he was unnecessary.

FWIW, I thought the movie was extremely disappointing - not just as THE
SPIELBERG/KUBRICK EPIC, but as a movie, period. I'd outline all the problems
I had with it, but I've written about them far too extensively in a number
of other forums, and I'm all AI-ed out.

paul christian glenn  |  pcg at runbox_com

"between you and me
  it's hard to ever really know who to trust
   how to think
    what to believe
 between me and you
  it's hard to ever really know who to choose
   how to feel
    what to do..."


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/

---

References:

• Re: "My God. It's full of stars" ( was: re: A.I.)
• From: rhys daily <shadow at teuton_org>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Fwd: A.I. (obviously no OTR)
• Next by Date: Re: A.I. Gripes (absolutely no OTR content)
• Prev by thread: Re: "My God. It's full of stars" ( was: re: A.I.)
• Next by thread: re: A.I.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread