When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands.) And if he opens his fingers then —— he needn't hope to find himself again. Some men are capable of this, but I’d be loath to think your father one of them."It sounds trite to write of Scofield that he brought the words of screenwriter Robert Bolt to life. He was More, a man who chose to die rather than to lie to himself and live.--Sir Thomas More, Portrayed by Paul Scofield, A Man For All Seasons
Scenes from A Man For All Seasons Starring Paul Scofield
Paul Scofield, the British stage legend often hailed as the greatest Shakespearean actor of his generation and an Oscar winner for his soaring performance in 1966's A Man for All Seasons, has died. He was 86.His agent, Rosalind Chatto, told reporters Scofield passed away peacefully Wednesday in a hospital near his home in southern England. He was suffering from leukemia and had been ill for some time.Scofield was considered one of the giants of the British theater during its post-World War II heyday, playing virtually every major Shakespearean role and conquering both the West End and Broadway with his authoritative presence, weather-beaten countenance and low, rumbling voice.But it wasn't until he originated the part of rebellious Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More in the 1960 London stage production of Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons that Scofield finally earned the international fame he so richly deserved. He reprised the role a year later along the Great White Way, nabbing a Tony for his efforts.Four years later, director Fred Zinneman brought the thesp back for the film version, which garnered six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and a Best Actor Oscar for Scofield.More defended the obedience to "...man`s law, not God`s". That makes More a secular humanist--Oscar Winner Paul Scofield Dies, Josh Grossberg
Roper: So now you`d give the Devil benefit of law!Of course, the dialogue above was written by Robert Bolt, a writer of genius. But his words were graced by Scofield.
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil?
Roper: I`d cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh! (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you --where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws --man's laws, not God's [emphasis mine]--and if you cut them down --and you’re just the man to do it --d`you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I`d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety`s sake.
- Paul Scofield: an overlooked acting great
- Acting 'colossus' Scofield mourned
- Oscar-Winning Actor Paul Scofield Dies
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009Subscribe
Add to GoogleAdd Cowboy Videos to Google
13 comments:
Len, I've come across some excellent analysis by TerrorCell on Flight 93. The plane's wingspan is 125 feet yet the impact zone is only 75 feet wide. What's more, there's photos to prove it. I've posted it here.
I am checkin' it out now...
YEP!!! ANOTHER smoking gun.
No planes at either shansville OR the Pentagon. No ARABS on the flight manifest and, as as Dr. Olmstead pointed out, there were NO Arabs among the Pentagon crash remains.
Again --there is NO evidence in support of Bush. But there is plenty to utterly destroy this cacamamie theory of his.
Now --absence of proof for his theory may not constitute absolute proof that Bushco pulled it off. But as Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, pointed out, when you have logically eliminated every other hypothesis, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Bush and his minions, therefore, are guilty as hell and every guilty member of that administration should hang!
From the key photo in my posting the impact hole is approximately 5 car lengths which is 75 feet if the car length is 15 feet. That's a generous estimate. If the car length is more probably 12 feet then the impact hole is only 60 feet long which is less than half the wing span of a 757-200.
On any fairminded review the impact hole is somewhere between 50% to 65% of the actual plane's wingspan. There is NO chance a 757 crashed there. Flight 93 did NOT crash at Shanksville.
Just a minor disagreement, Len. I think there was a plane that crashed there, only it was a smaller one, and there are sufficient witnesses claiming this to make it likely (the witness Susan McIlwain appears to be reliable here). However, they would only be able to observe the general appearance of a plane in flight and would have some difficulty judging its actual size.
There are several other glaring holes in the official story. Officially the plane was inverted upon impact. There are voice recordings of the terrorists allegedly calling out to turn the plane over just at the end and the flight data recorder also has the plane hitting at 40 degrees to the horizontal. There are a number of problems with this:
(1) What local witnesses there are record a vertical impact.
(2) The only available photo of the smoke from the impact is consistent with a smaller aircraft (or even a bomb of some description).
(3) The plane would not totally be destroyed on a 40 degree impact; considerable debris would be cast forward of the impact area (yet officially it was all "disappeared" -- shredded, buried, "gassified", whatever the f***, into the narrow impact hole).
(4) With the plane upside down and inclined at 40 degrees to the horizontal the 40 feet high massive tail fin would have to make independant contact with the ground outside the major impact zone. There is, of course, no such tail impact shown anywhere.
(5) There is also the problem that insufficient plane metal wreckage was recovered of the 60+ tons that officially crashed at Shanksville. With such alleged destructive power why should officials be able to obtain largely undamaged personal effects such as passports (and even a prisitine red terrorist bandana, for Godsake!) but not 60+ tons of shredded metallic debris?
(6) Only tiny slivers of human remains were officially recovered.
(7) I haven't been able to identify it but some commentators say that in the compressed sides of the V-shaped impact zone there is grass growing. LOL. Draw your own conclusions on that one.
Spooked covers most of these issues very well. Killtown's photos are good.
Just keep in mind when anyone parrots the bullshit on Flight 93: the impact zone is 75 feet wide and the plane is 125 feet wide -- and we can prove it with photographic evidence! As that otherwise reprehensible Johnny Cochrane almost said: "If the plane doesn't fit you must acquit".
damien, we can certainly agree that NO 'airliner' crashed in PA. I recall well seeing the first network footage from PA. I kept looking for wreckage and never saw any wreckage. As I have mentioned, I've covered plane crashes of all sorts. They all left wreckage. The worst was the crash of an air force fighter at a very high speed. Lots of wreckage. There was no doubt about what had happened and, even at that high speed and the result high intensity fire, two charred bodies did NOT disintegrate or get spread over a huge debris area in tiny pieces.
We've been lied to. The PA site never looked like any crash site I've ever seen. Crash sites DO NOT look like this. The ditch always looked like the kind of ditch you would get with a backhoe.
I am inclined to go a little further. I would wager that whatever crashed in PA was not an airplane of any sort. I think we agree that whatever it was, it was no 'airliner'.
You correctly point out the 'selective' nature of the destruction. Once again we are expected to believe that an airliner body completely vaporized upon impact. That's bullshit.
Thanks for the pics. My very first impression of the very first 'network' footage that I saw was that the 'ditch' was created by the BACKHOE that I had seen in the first network video. But when I can never seem to find a backhoe in the stills that wound up on the net, I forgot about it.
But --thanks to your link --there it is! The very BACKHOE that I had seen once on TV and never again.
I've seen lots of ditches and I've covered plane crashes. Based on my own experience, the infamous ditch was NOT caused by any aircraft of any sort. It looks just like the kind of ditch that you would get with a backhoe. Occam's razor strikes again.
I have no axe to grind on this one, Len. I simply note that there are some alleged witnesses to an aircraft crash of some description -- but, like you, I find the debris remains ridiculous. What we know for sure is that UA93 sure as hell didn't go down there. Cheers.
Nor me, damien. Certainly, the Bushies come up short in either case. I am amazed, however, that so many people were so easily fooled. I think you've posted the nail in the coffin that holds the "official conspiracy theory".
Bush should have hired David Copperfield. He made the Statue of Liberty disappear much more convincingly. The formula for pulling off a false flag operation has not change since Hitler: 1) create a state of shock and/or panic, 2) have a cover story that people will swallow without thinking too much about it, 3) claim that shutting down investigation is one's patriotic duty, and 4) go to war before people de-hypnotize themselves.
Again --the link to the pics is greatly appreciated. The presence of that backhoe, at least, proves that I had not hallucinated.
Very nice eulogy ;)
We are, each of us, ever-so-slightly diminished, or a part of us even dies, when a luminary like Paul Scofield, who has given so much enrichment and pleasure to ordinary people, passes on.
Arthur C Clarke is another who has just left us.
But, thanks to celluloid tape and the printing press, they will continue to live on through the legacy of the fruits of their artistry.
Thanks Christopher and Dusty and thanks, Christopher, for the reminder of Clarke's passing. Certainly, his work will endure.
More: Oh! (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you --where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws --man's laws, not God's [emphasis mine]--and if you cut them down --and you’re just the man to do it --d`you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I`d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety`s sake.
The "devil" sits on the "throne" as we speak. The laws cut down and he has made himself a shield to escape his own high crimes and misdemeanors...
thepoetryman said...
The "devil" sits on the "throne" as we speak. The laws cut down and he has made himself a shield to escape his own high crimes and misdemeanors...
Well put, poetryman. Indeed, the 'rule of law' stood between us and tyranny but Bush has removed that last barrier to despotism.
I am reminded of William Butler Yeats
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
can cowboys really exist in uate...
have been on a riting campaign to save the school that gave me the basic...friendsofhyatt.org..of which I have posted a piece, on my blog, roscoebeauregard.blogspot.com...
in my most recent letter to the state attorney general, remarking about several intellectual cow poets who I know through the Elko crowd...that some do, yes some Cowboys do...yes do, KANT...Cowboys Kant...and, it appears that you as a West Tejan Kant..
I read some years about, where a cowboy from Montana had a line of Sartre carved in his saddle...my thought and response to that was, that man had some heavy sitting. alas, to Sartre and Ride
that man had some heavy sitting
Written like a cowboy! Happy trails, podnuh!
Post a Comment