(no subject)

[raincitygirl]

Holy shit, Megaupload. Wow.

Lawyers for phone hacking victims claim News Group Newspapers deliberately tried to destroy evidence and misled investigators. Granted, people have been saying that for months, but that LAWYERS are saying it now, in public and on the record, is making me blink. Lawyers are generally pretty damn careful about what they say. Also, isn't the settlement announcement traditionally the part where everybody makes nice and pretends they're all on the same side? Here, have the same story from a different newspaper.

I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy again tonight, and I think I actually liked it better the second time, because I already knew what was coming, so I could pay attention to how the clues and misdirection were presented. However, Ann Smiley's dress in the Christmas party scene is even more hideous the second time around. I realize the scene takes place in 1972, but surely even in 1972 that dress wasn't high fashion? If it was, well, I'm glad I wasn't born then. I noticed the little things in Gary Oldman's performance more this time (not to mention the other performances), and I noticed the music more. Anybody know the name of the French song that was playing at the end? Okay, I promise I will now shut up about this movie.

I figured out how to copy and paste on John Henry, so yay me. I know that as a fully paid-up version of the cult of Apple I should be extolling the virtues of John Henry's mouse, but I miss my old mouse with its highlight and right-click paste function. So much simpler.

Comments

[legionseagle]

To me the interesting thing is not that they are saying it (though you are right that it's highly unusual), but why. Traditionally, the settlement wording begins, "This agreement is in full and final settlement of all causes of action arising out of...." and may well include a blanket signoff on claims that the claimant might have but doesn't know about, arising out of the same facts. This is to discourage multiple bites at the cherry. Jude Law et al have specifically reserved the right to come back if a) destroyed evidence is restored and b) that evidence reveals further cases of hacking against them.

[raincitygirl]

Interestinger and interestinger. Why the heck would NGN agree to a settlement like that?

[legionseagle]

Because if they continue and lose in court (and, seriously, after the Levenson enquiry and the Guardian, could any hopeless optimist hope they were going to win? Especially given the Michael Silverleaf opinion from 2007(?) - I know Michael and he's one of the sharpest cookies in IP law and if he gives an opinion which amounts to "You are so fucked" I'd listen) the same result applies, their costs are trebled (at least) and all their witnesses and the other sides' witnesses get to give damning and absolutely privileged in the law of libel statements when in the box.

[raincitygirl]

It must be frustrating for him, having outlined the problem for them four years ago and having had his advice ignored. Talk about an “I told you so” moment (although I’m sure he wouldn’t actually SAY that to a client, it would take an absolute saint not to think it).

Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I suspect if NGN had cleaned house back in 2007 instead of trying to cover everything up, it would’ve been a whole heck of a lot cheaper than it will be now. Plus, News of the Screws would probably still be open and profitable.

[legionseagle]

I'd not put it past him to say "I told you so" in the privacy of the conference chamber.

[twistedchick]

I won't say that dress was 'high fashion', but it wasn't unusual. The moviemakers took great care with sets, costume and setting in Tinker; it's about as precise as possible to the time. (I was a senior in high school that year; I remember it pretty well, and Cumberbatch was wearing a suit I saw on some of the guys I knew.)

[raincitygirl]

I suppose it makes sense to have Ann Smiley wearing the most eye-catching outfit in the whole room, from a filming POV. I mean, since they never show her face, they have to convey her presence in another way, like a very recognizable dress. But wow, it’s gaudy.

What did you think of the movie?

[twistedchick]

It reminded me very much of the 70s. Besides that, I though it had excellent acting for the most part, and some very bad plotting -- I really dislike women being treated as disposable, and that bit of plot wasn't terribly necessary; they could have done what was necessary without that bit. Good writing, more or less. It doesn't make me long to read the books again; I read them at the time, ending with Little Drummer Girl, and decided that it wasn't for me. It's kind of a cop-out, isn't it, the way they did it, so that there were no choices to be made?

[raincitygirl]

Yeah, it seemed very much like a movie from the 70’s, rather than a modern movie set in the 70’s. Personally I loved it, but sometimes a movie or a book just speaks to me, and I love it even though I’m aware on an intellectual level that it has issues. And yeah, I suppose it was…convenient the way everything worked out so nobody had to make a choice at the end.

One thing I thought was interesting, if a bit depressing, was that the movie was thick with talented middle-aged white male actors. If you made a movie with that many middle-aged white female actors, it’d be considered a radical statement. There seems to be a lot more work out there for men who’ve passed their physical prime.

Only two women with meaningful speaking roles, and 50% of them being fridged is a lousy ratio. Mind you, I’ve started reading the book, and so far the commodification of women seems to be MUCH worse in that than in the movie. Ricki is *blatantly* exploitative of Irina, for one thing (and Irina has even less agency than in the movie, is a complete mess). Plus, Ricki seems to have any number of wives and children scattered around the world. Oh, and he’s known to have killed his girlfriend when he was 18 for leaving him. Le Carre’s Ricki makes Tom Hardy’s version look like a saint in comparison.

And Peter Guillam not only runs a network of girlfriends who are “not inter-conscious”, he’s in what seems like a pretty exploitative relationship with Camilla, a girl who’s twenty years his junior and seems very emotionally vulnerable. It’s all leaving a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. It may well be a realistic depiction of how men in this espionage world treat typically the women in their lives, but it’s not hugely pleasant to read about.

[twistedchick]

From what I understand (from long-past reviews), LeCarre's books don't misrepresent the people in that world. Unfortunately.