(Mari), why didn't he quit after Windmill added their own buses according to his time schedule? (Karen), My own opinion is that he knew they wouldn't continue it. Windmill would revert to form and abandon the route. I agree, Karen. That was the madening part. Mari, I too wondered why he was not charged with manslaughter. It was a big miss in the script. I have come up with the reason why he was re-hired at the end...Too handsome to not have around. ;-)

(Karen) Now, it is done by private companies under contracts awarded through supposedly competitive means. Yes, lots of examples. Our DMV here just went private (to much improvement, I might add). I am still wondering whether competition was allowed once the contracts were awarded in the case that DQ illustrates. Probably, or else Windmill would have had an easy legal remedy to stop Q&P. Thanks for checking with your legal source about the wrongful death (also ask her about the sectioning rules;-) (Moon) I have come up with the reason why he was re-hired at the end...Too handsome to not have around. ;-) Hee, hee. I'm with you, Moon. One could overlook an awful lot while looking over DQ!;-) So he had a few lapses in judgement. So what. Picky, picky, picky . . .;-)

The garbage collection example was poor. Huge sectors of the economy were taken totally private. I'm no expert, but this involved many of the "Bs"--BT, BP, BA (British Telecom, Petroleum, Airlines, etc.), ownership of water and transport, airports, utilities, etc. Think of it on the scale of the breakup of Bell and banking deregulation. When these industries were taken private, they were definitely open to competition from anyone. But the government always sets minimum levels of service that must be provided. manslaughter/wrongful death Since Daniel wasn't driving, I don't think it can be manslaughter. DQ made certain decisions and set a policy in action. There could be a civil case against the company in *this* country, especially because of his trying to clear his conscience with the money. That in effect could be taken as liability for the man's death. I'll see what I can do about raising Kate (or Myretta, if you are reading, can you contact her?)

The privatisation process in transport involved bids from different companies for certain sections of the rail network and the bus networks. Once a company was awarded a franchise, it got to operate there in a monopoly situation, regulated by a goivernment watchdog, who could step in and fine it for poor service or ultimately award the contract to another interested party. The utility & transport companies were the biggest privatisations (the airlines having happened years before). I was going to say: it is highly likely that Mrs Thatcher would be referred to by an anti-privatisation writer (as openly as legally possible) so without having seen DQ, I'm sure that Mari is right and that Mrs G is a thinly-veiled Mrs T figure.

Thank, Mark. So maybe the garbage one wasn't so bad. ;-) No competition allowed? Strange then that DQ's startup bus company was allowed to operate within Windmill's territory. DQ also relates Windmill's past history of swallowing up the competition in other areas of Britain; that's when he mentions their tactics in the Midlands and Brighton, etc. Windmill not only had the buses, but also trains.

A little research on the web: The Mental Health Act 1983 governs the admission of people to psychiatric hospital against their will, their rights while detained, discharge from hospital, and aftercare. The Act applies in England and Wales. The Mental Health Act 1983 is, like any other Act of Parliament, divided into Sections. This has coined the term "being sectioned" to mean being compulsorily admitted to hospital. Section 1 attempts to provide a legal [rather than a medical] definition of the types of mental health problems the Mental Health Act is intended to cover. It gives a definition of Mental Disorder, which - for the purposes of the Act - is then split into 4 types: Severe Mental Impairment, Mental Impairment, Psychopathic Disorder, and Mental Illness. Section 2 provides the authority for someone to be detained in hospital for assessment for up to 28 days. The grounds for the Application, as stated in the Act, are that the person: is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) for at least a limited period; and he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons. Section 3 provides the authority for someone to be detained in hospital for treatment for up to 6 months. Sections 18 and 21 - Unauthorised Absence: Being Absent Without Leave, and Returning A person who is liable to be detained in hospital under the Act is absent without leave if he/she: . goes away from the hospital without leave being granted under Section 17 . fails to return when a period of authorised leave comes to an end, or when recalled from authorised leave . goes away from a place where he/she is required to reside as part of the conditions for authorised leave A person who is detained for treatment, or subject to Guardianship, and is absent without leave, can be taken into custody and returned at any time up to the later of: . six months from the date he/she went absent . the expiry date of the current Section / Guardianship order Read all about it: http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/#cont

Here's another good one and easy to read: http://www.mha.inuk.com/

Thanks Karen. At the end Lucy tells Daniel/Donovan: "It hasn't been that long..." and she mentions that Sandy and "Sweetie Pie have been married six months... .... returned at any time up to the later of: six months from the date he/she went absent So Daniel must just have been released.

(Mark) Once a company was awarded a franchise, it got to operate there in a monopoly situation, regulated by a government watchdog, who could step in and fine it for poor service or ultimately award the contract to another interested party. Thanks, Mark, that answers my questions. About what year did this privatization of the railways and buses take place? Early '80s? (Karen) No competition allowed? Strange then that DQ's startup bus company was allowed to operate within Windmill's territory. DQ also relates Windmill's past history of swallowing up the competition in other areas of Britain; Exactly, Karen, neither of those plot points make sense, given the fact that they were monopolies, and that the franchises were awarded by the government through a fair and square bidding process--not through unregulated gobbling up of the previous operators. I guess this is what I meant yesterday when I wrote that the film stacks the deck in favor of the point it is trying to make. The term 'revisionist history' comes to mind.;-) Obviously this makes for better dramatic tension--good guys vs. bad guys, David vs. Goliath. And I suppose if they didn't show Q&P as competing against Windmill, and if they didn't paint Windmill as totally ruthless, they wouldn't have a movie. Or at least not this movie. Gray areas are *so* boring.;-) ;-) Thanks, Karen, for the info on sectioning. Great research. I want to give those sites a closer look because I find the subject fascinating, but at first blush it appears that the UK laws are similar to ours (actually, the other way around--much of U.S. law is taken directly from our English founders). In other words, it appears that a person could only be involuntarily committed if an inpatient setting were deemed necessary for assessment AND the person is a danger to himself or others. Daniel wasn't dangerous, and your relatives can't put you away for giving away your money. We had a case here recently involving one of the duPont heirs--he was giving away all his fortune to a cult. The family was able to have a financial guardian appointed (sort of like a conservatorship), but tossing him into a mental hospital? No way.

BTW, I don't mean to sound so down on the film. As a fable, I think it works wonderfully, and is at its best when dealing with the human relationships--primarily the way in which DQ is able to foster a feeling of self-worth in these people, playing to their strengths and helping them find a measure of self-respect. (Karen) There could be a civil case against the company in *this* country, especially because of his trying to clear his conscience with the money. I think there would be both criminal liability on Donovan's part and possibly the company's as well, in addition to civil damages for lost wages. This man had young children; his widow would easily be awarded an amount equal to his projected wages for the rest of his presumed working life. Obviously, I wouldn't expect the film to deal with this latter point, but it really should have dealt with the former, i.e., culpability for the man's death. Forget sectioning; that's jail time.

(Mari)I guess this is what I meant yesterday when I wrote that the film stacks the deck in favor of the point it is trying to make. The term 'revisionist history' comes to mind.; But this is not a docu-drama like "Tumbledown" or "Hostages"...this is fiction. Like, "not in real life".It is a very political film however, and like all films with a pre-set agenda, it exaggerates some scenarios to make a point. I can see why he had to make this film.It personifies his philosophy . In many ways, by being a "passionate crusader", as they author says, ODB is a Don Quijote.

We don't know the actual circumstances of the death. There could have been some sort of restraint barrier set up manned by police which the man violated and ran into the path of a moving bus. I believe it was referred to as an "accident" and the victim himself could have been declared partially liable. (Not to mention paid "witnesses"). We also don't know the time frame. Such an inquiry and court appearance and decision could already have been made, simply not referred to in the plot. When Daniel started to crack relative to the other events was not made clear... he may have reacted to a sense of injustice in the court findings or knew of dirty tricks used to keep the company from appearing liable. The thing with fiction is that you can manipulate the events to suit your premise...

(Mari) if they didn't paint Windmill as totally ruthless, they wouldn't have a movie. Or at least not this movie. Gray areas are *so* boring.;-) ;-) Did you voice this same criticism for The Insider? ;-) (Mari) much of U.S. law is taken directly from our English founders Not sure about this especially as it relates to civil liberties types of things? US law's foundation would be the Bill of Rights, which exists in no form in the UK. But before I put my foot firmly in my mouth, I have emailed our former resident barrister Kate. (Mari) Daniel wasn't dangerous, and your relatives can't put you away for giving away your money True, he can't be *put away* for that reason, but he could be put under observation for 72 hrs. If he left the facility and then went on to cause *trouble* demonstrating that he was delusional, then they could convince the authorities to keep him there for treatment. Here's a definition: The grounds for the Application, as stated in the Act, are that the person: is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) for at least a limited period; and he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons. Another from the Dept of Health, although not legally binding: Mental Illness means an illness having one or more of the following characteristics: - more than temporary impairment of intellectual functions shown by a failure of memory, orientation, comprehension or learning capacity; - more than temporary alteration of mood of such degree as to give rise to the patient having a delusional appraisal of his situation, his past or his future, or that of others or to the lack of any appraisal; -delusional beliefs, persecutory, jealous or grandiose; -abnormal perceptions associated with delusional misinterpretation of events; thinking so disordered as to prevent the patient making a reasonable appraisal of his situation or having reasonable communication with others. ~~~~~~~~ Seems broad enough to me. (Mari) both criminal liability on Donovan's part and possibly the company's as well, in addition to civil damages We, the jury, find for the defendent. We aren't given enough information to determine what Daniel's real role was and what occurred at the scene of the "accident." Daniel was a big time exec, but he wouldn't have said "run them over." He probably felt enormous guilt that a program he was associated with had resulted in a man's death. Could the company face criminal charges? Was there intent? Or was there some form of reckless endangerment or negligent action on their part? I don't know. The civil action would seem more likely to me, although when I did a search under "wrongful death," lots came up in the US, but nothing in the UK. If Mrs. Sapas sued the company, Daniel's offer of cash is very bad. However, the company's defense would be that Daniel was nuts. ;-)

Once a company was awarded a franchise, it got to operate there in a monopoly situation Sorry, old chap, I think you're possibly a bit off the Mark here... ;-) As far as I remember, there were no franchises in case of the buses. I can't speak for trains (the basis of operating is different, of course, though I believe they are similar in principle), but the interested private bus companies are free to run service along any separate line (route) at any time they choose, provided they register the details with the traffic authorities, subject to two weeks notice. That's it. No bidding (that happened only once in the beginning) and especially no franchises; what matters is the competition and profit. If there is only one company running a service, they can pretty near hold the public to ransom. They can withdraw a service if there are no profits - whilst in the "old times", a public company would run buses with the community in mind (the profitable routes would be used to cross-subsidise the less profitable ones: that was a huge part of the basis of an evenly balanced, integrated public transport for about 80 years: this is now disallowed.) And there is no monopoly s such: as long as you are a private enterprise, hold the requisite licence and (most importantly!) chase profits to death (often literally, too, as in DQ's case), you are allowed to run a public bus service. In larger towns and cities, there may be buses belonging to several different companies all running along the same route. The "one in front and one behind" squeezing manoeuvre is a classic in that situation. Buying out - big fish swallowing small fry instead of coexisting peacefully - is another. The buses were initially privatized in 1986, but the real misery started a few years later when local authorities were ordered to sell their interest in the companies. Lots of people lost jobs, but most significantly, the courteous, reliable, affordable communal transport has effectively started to disintegrate.

Oh, and perhaps I should add, by way of illustration, that there are villages within a relatively small radius of important regional towns where the bus service frequency is once or twice a week... And some places have no public transport at all. At the same time traffic congestion is growing. chase profits to death (... as in DQ's case) I mean the fatal accident which had such an effect on Daniel.

(Mari), is at its best when dealing with the human relationships--primarily the way in which DQ is able to foster a feeling of self-worth in these people, playing to their strengths and helping them find a measure of self-respect. That, is closer to the book. In the book, Don Q is a baffoon, and draws a thin line between madness and his actions. Quick's madness or mental illness is not really apparent, Sandy is mentally ill as is the old aunt. Thanks Karen for all the info. So everyone thinks he was either under house surveillance or at an asylum and on some treatment? I did not get that. I thought he was living at home, going to work, till he saw Mrs. Salas to offer her his money and when she did not accept it, he decided to do some good with it. That it ended up being against Windmill was just by chance. In a sense, Lucy was a victim as Mrs. Salas had been at the hands of Windmill. He needed to correct it, for his own sanity. ;-)

(Karen) Did you voice this same criticism for The Insider? ;-) Clearly, that film was told from Wigand and Bergman's point of view, which I don't have a problem with. Having a point of view and creating a premise that could not exist are two different things. However, given Arami's post it may be a moot point. If there is no monopoly and competition is allowed, then the film is accurate on those points. (Arami, thanks for the details.) And I thought Russell Crowe was great.;-) RE: Daniel's role in the "accident"--DQ tells Lucy that "Daniel Quinn ordered the working drivers not to stop, and they didn't." He gave the order, so IMO he could be held responsible for the death even though he wasn't actually driving the bus. I believe he even tells Lucy that he is responsible. RE: Having him committed-- He tells Lucy that he tried to compensate the widow, then he tried giving away money to the downtrodden, then his family "had to do something" so they went to a solicitor and had him sectioned--committed to a "nice loony bin" where they set out to cure his hypomania. That doesn't sound like a short-term observation period to me, and neither does it sound as though he were a danger to anyone. So their ability to section him still seems shaky to me, but I'd be interested to hear what Kate comes up with. Now I have a really important question: When Donovan pours his heart out to Lucy after being beaten by Clive, and they start kissing, and then the scene changes . . .did they . . .umm . . .are we dealing with another moss loft situation here?;-)

Arami, Thanks for putting me straight. I admit I was majoring on the train situation, and guessing the buses would be the same. Here in London, I still believe that at the beginning (mid-80s) certain routes were "awarded" to certain companies.

The research embarked upon by those posting on this board is admirable, and from the standpoint of wanting to know the particulars can be called useful. I think, however, it is not germaine to the understanding or appreciation of the film "Donovan Quick". As has been noted it is fable, and is best accepted on those terms. The "Don Quioxte" parallel works much as the genre of science fiction worked as allegory to the social concerns of the 1950's and 1960's; affording the writer or filmmaker the luxoury of exploring the truth without muddling it with the facts. Quite simply, too much everyday minutiue obscures the story. "Donovan Quick" addresses the absurdity of what is condoned as socially acceptable behavior. Why is it considered aberrant for Daniel Quinn to give his money to street people -- there is no justifiable reason. It is his money and he should have the right to dispose of it as he sees fit. If by giving away what he views as his ill gotten gains, he salves his conscience, why not so be it? What is viewed as socially unacceptable is his mode of doing it -- giving the money personally to destitute individuals. Whereas, if Quinn had created a foundation named for Sapas to help the needy, that would have been lauded. The film reminds me of an old "Twilight Zone" episode in which a rather plain young woman is refusing to undergo required plastic surgery to make her fufill the societal demands of beauty. She wishes to assert her individuality by keeping her own face. Finally, she sucombs to the surgery and in the last scene says to her friend, "I look exactly like you". She had conformed to the norm. As Daniel Quinn learned again to be a good company man. Like Winston Smith had learned to love Big Brother. Perhaps Mrs. G was a bit of a distaff Big Brother as well as a symbolic iron clad Auntie Maggie.

RE: Daniel's role in the "accident"--DQ tells Lucy that "Daniel Quinn ordered the working drivers not to stop, and they didn't." He gave the order, so IMO he could be held responsible for the death even though he wasn't actually driving the bus. I believe he even tells Lucy that he is responsible. The driver could not use Daniel's orders as his defence in running a person over. A driver's responsibility is to drive not *regardless*, but *according to* the conditions on the road. He cannot claim that someone ordered him not to stop (i.e. forbade him to use the brakes? illogical) - though he could say that he was under duress due to the pressure from the management. But Daniel's responsibility for the accident is not so much legal as moral - and, surely, that's how he himself sees it. He is so shaken by the outcome of his involvement in the application of ruthless policies that he suddenly sees the company as a beast without mercy or conscience - and so tries to make personal amends. their ability to section him still seems shaky to me And to me too. I can't wait to hear what the UK media will have to say about that (if anything...) when the film airs here eventually. I was majoring on the train situation, and guessing the buses would be the same. Here in London, I still believe that at the beginning (mid-80s) certain routes were "awarded" to certain companies. Mark, apparently the situation with London buses was/is largely different from the rest of the country. (Come to think about it, most things in London are greatly different... ;-)) it is fable, and is best accepted on those terms I beg to differ; it's not a fable - it is a parable. (Btw, posting here in the last two days has been a problem - any reason why?)

Have no idea, Arami. From your post at 107 I gather this is the only topic you're having problems with. Anyone else? But Daniel's responsibility for the accident is not so much legal as moral My thoughts exactly. It's not very clear to me how much responsibility Daniel Quinn had through his directives to the drivers but Donovan Quick has decided to bear the responsibility himself, warranted or not. (CherylB) I think, however, it is not germaine to the understanding or appreciation of the film "Donovan Quick". Well, everybody appreciates the film in their own way. I'm not concerned about missing details either but it promotes plenty of conversation. There's always Mari's observation: When Donovan pours his heart out to Lucy after being beaten by Clive, and they start kissing, and then the scene changes . . .did they . . .umm . . .are we dealing with another moss loft situation here?;-) which is bound to provoke conversation of the more amorous kind - my own personal favorite to be sure. By the way, I say they didn't.

I thought they had... but I'd better go check again ;-)

I'd say they most certainly did, they were asleep when the police arived at the house to pick him up. Now what do most people usually do after a deed is done? I bet they don't go jogging????? As for DQ being sectioned, of course somebody can be sectioned for trying to give away a brief case full of money. In doing so you are placing the financial security of yourself and your family at great risk.

Thanks, Arami, for all the background on buses. Was wondering when you would fill in the blanks. ;-) Mackie does, however, use the term "franchise" when referring to the local routes. That scene at the beginning when there's some kind of ceremony going on with Mackie...am rethinking. Isn't the old man wearing something across his chest/neck? Almost looks like a chain, as if there were a robe or cape. Could he be a government official? An MP? Another minor detail, can any old person just hop on a bus and become a driver? People here need to have special chaffeur licenses. However, if one walks into the right Illinois Secretary of State office and pays the right person, you can drive anything you want. (major scandal here) I agree with all you said Arami about the Daniel's role relative to the death, although I do think that having someone sectioned may not be that difficult. Daniel said that his family went to a solicitor and had it done. That wasn't for permanent commitment. But when he bugged out, then he could be forcibly detained. It would appear that the Sapas' lived in the W14 area of London (can be seen on the playground sign). Anybody notice the funny line about Speed? As they are getting their passengers on board quickly, one man makes a comment, "will the bus blow up if we go under 50?" :-) (Arami) it's not a fable - it is a parable. Agree. Anybody notice that Mrs. Gorman laid the Scottish accent on heavy in the video, but not at the meeting? (Mari) When Donovan pours his heart out to Lucy after being beaten by Clive, and they start kissing, and then the scene changes . . .did they . . .umm Fully dressed afterward. I'm voting no. Too much respect for her. Kate said she would check in with us next week and did watch DQ.

Karen: Isn't the old man wearing something across his chest/neck? Almost looks like a chain, as if there were a robe or cape. Mayors wear chains and typically attend ceremonies, but in practice have few powers. Of course, London being different, we're soon to vote for a mayor whose main policies will involve the transport system. can any old person just hop on a bus and become a driver? Bus drivers would need to possess a "large vehicle" licence, and would have had to sit a test for it. But some people own these anyway, having driven large vehicles previously. Next time I see my sister-in-law, who works in mental health, I'll ask the key questions about sectioning. These moss loft incidents really polarise people. Some are sure they did, some convinced they didn't. More debate from those who have watched, please...

(Mark) Bus drivers would need to possess a "large vehicle" licence, and would have had to sit a test for it. Theoretically, people here do the same, although we have more than one class of license. Large vehicles and driving people is not the same. I know for a fact that to drive a school bus here one needs to have a criminal record as well. ;-)

(KarenR)I know for a fact that to drive a school bus here one needs to have a criminal record as well. ;-) To have or have not? ;-)

Not a stated requirement, but seems as though they all do. Sad fact that the newspapers keep uncovering. :-(

I wouldn't be surprised to eventually read that the sectioning storyline was a bit contrived for drama's sake (it would be a tiny fraction of the dramatic license used for each episode of ER, believe me). As Evelyn said and others have pointed out using various terms, DQ is fiction. The pieces won't ever fit perfectly. DQ writer Donna Franceschild's hubby (a psych nurse) would know a thing or two about sectioning, though. I think they didn't. Too much trouble to put all of one's clothes back on before falling asleep (but I don't think they went out jogging, either, Maureen ;-)). Agree with Karen than Donovan has too much respect for Lucy--didn't want to merely stash the salami in manner of Clive. (Karen) I know for a fact that to drive a school bus here one needs to have a criminal record as well. ;-) Ohhh, you're bad. Had a sort-of DQ moment last weekend when hubby and I boarded a small NYC-bound bus which was poaching mighty NJ Transit's route--it came minutes before the regular bus was due and charged $1 instead of $3.20 for the trip. Of course, in DQ mighty Windmill was poaching little Q&P's route; besides, our driver didn't look a thing like Donovan :-P

(Eileen), hubby and I boarded a small NYC-bound bus which was poaching mighty NJ Transit's route-- Is it a small bus now? Last time I took one, it was a large van. Agree with Karen than Donovan has too much respect for Lucy--didn't want to merely stash the salami in manner of Clive. I agree. I wonder Heide what made you think that they had?

I side with the "no salami" bunch.

did they . . .umm . . . I say they didn't. I thought they had... I'd say they most certainly did, they were asleep... Fully dressed afterward. I'm voting no. I think they didn't. Too much trouble to put all of one's clothes back on before falling asleep... LOL! Keep going, please... of course somebody can be sectioned for trying to give away a brief case full of money Surely not. The only recourse his family would have would be to the court of law. The state of the person's mind is not a decisive issue here. He wasn't dangerous and he thought himself free to spend the money as he liked. If the ownership of the cash was disputed, then it's still only a civil court matter. The case doesn't seem sufficiently clarified in the film (editing fault?). Daniel said that his family went to a solicitor and had it done. That wasn't for permanent commitment. Presumably he was under observation, e.g. for mental exhaustion... The thing is, however, that apparently one must voluntarily agree to treatment, unless - again - the person is criminally insane and dangerous... I still say that it hasn't been fully explained. the sectioning storyline was a bit contrived for drama's sake Very likely. Mackie does, however,use the term "franchise"... It really depends what one means by that term. In case of unprofitable routes, local authorities in England put deemed socially necessary services to the open tender: any properly licensed bus owner can bid for it and the winner is then contracted (i.e. paid according to his bid) to run the service. If someone wishes to call this "franchise" then so be it, but officially it's a contract. Obviously there is no competition on those routes. In case of profitable routes there is no tendering and no contracts, but free competition (subject to certain rules, e.g. registration) is allowed instead. To be honest, I don't really know if the Scottish system is the same or different, but from the practice hinted at in the film, it seems largely similar. Mrs. Gorman laid the Scottish accent on heavy in the video, but not at the meeting That reminds me of another interesting thing. Throughout the whole sorry privatization affair an awful lot of bus companies in England - maybe even the majority - have been bought out by... Scottish owned companies. So there you have it...

(Moon) I wonder Heide what made you think that they had? Wha? I'm in the "didn't" camp. But I'll be they had the best night's sleep either one of them had in a loooong time.

Been away. Sorry to dredge up old stuff... (Moon) Sandy is mentally ill as is the old aunt. Gram is most certainly showing signs of senile dementia, but Sandy's Learning Disability (as they call it now) is not considered a mental illness in this country (nor in the UK, I would surmise), merely a developmental disability. Depending on its severity, those who have it are still capable of caring for themselves, can circulate freely in society, take jobs, and even marry as Sandy has done. And the "Wean" on the way may very well be perfectly normal. (Mark G) Bus drivers would need to possess a "large vehicle" license, and would have had to sit a test for it. . . . Right after they bought the bus, I think they are seen exiting some government bureau office or other for permits, so I think that that, and the technicalities of operating on the route got covered OK. (Mark G) But some people own these anyway, having driven large vehicles previously. . . . Who knows how far Daniel had to come to get into the top eschelons in England? And even so, it doesn't hurt to be able to operate one of the main machines (especially during a strike... Who knows? Management have been known to take over the reins temporarily before...) (Mari) . .did they . . .umm . (Karen) Fully dressed afterward. I'm voting no. Too much respect for her. . . . yeah, but respect aside, and in consideration of how battered his face (and body) had been, I was already saying "Ouch!" at the first kiss, too... ;-) KJ

of course somebody can be sectioned for trying to give away a brief case full of money Not for giving away the money. DQ was shown venturing into bad parts of the city to give away money. The family could argue his own personal safety was in danger. He could get mugged, killed or both and he was delusional.

Some answers - it could have taken time to get the bus working - in that time DQ could have obtained large vehicle licence - he had plenty of money still then. 2. Being sectioned, a tame psyciatrist, two tame doctors, a tame solicitor - yeah he could easily have been sectioned - money could have been handed over. Sandy was too much of a slow learner - he could read. He was quite capable of earning his living. Last time I was in the U.K. big companies were taking over. In the villages in Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, hardly any public transport, no libraries, no pubs and no post office - nearly all had been closed down. Its like the bush here in Oz - everything is closing down. I felt very sorry for elderly people, it was quite terrible. D.Q. is important - it shows what the government is capable of privatising everthing. And as I said on 129 it makes Colin politically unreliable - if Blair can stop is nanny writing - well he is capable of anything.

(Arami)did they . . .umm . . . I say they didn't. I thought they had... I'd say they most certainly did, they were asleep... Fully dressed afterward. I'm voting no. I think they didn't. Too much trouble to put all of one's clothes back on before falling asleep... LOL! Keep going, please... (Karen) Fully dressed afterward. I'm voting no. Too much respect for her. (KJ). . . yeah, but respect aside, and in consideration of how battered his face (and body) had been, I was already saying "Ouch!" at the first kiss, too... ;-) If they didn't (and who says you have to take your clothes off?), I don't think "respect for her" is the answer.

(Gi) and who says you have to take your clothes off? True, but they were home, so why wouldn't they? (not like it was the backseat of some car);-) (Gi) I don't think "respect for her" is the answer. Chivalry. Lucy was Dulcinea. He put her on a pedestal. She was a symbol of love and perfection. It would've been profane to desecrate his symbol. All he wants to do is serve her and, in this case, cuddling and kissing would've meant far more to Lucy. Does that work? ;-)

Yes, the idea of cuddling does work. I find the key to that in Lucy's speech on what you (retorical you) will put up with just to feel loved. She knew Clive didn't care for her, not really, all he wanted was a place to put it. In Clive's reasoning, he didn't have to put much effort at all into his relationship with her, as she was a plain woman and should fall on her knees in graditude that any man would bother to notice her. So she went through the motions as it were, just to convince herself that there was the small chance of companionship. That is what she wanted above all, companionship, to be liked, to be esteemed, to be loved for herself alone. To have someone who felt she was beautiful, because she was a worthwhile person. The cuddling would work mutually between Lucy and Donovan, since Donovan was injured from the fight, she would want to comfort him but not hurt him. He, in turn, would want to hold her to say that he does value her.

I think I'm with Gi on this one. Making love to Lucy wouldn't have been disrespect; they are two troubled people who have just confided their innermost secrets to each other and are seeking/giving mutual comfort and affection. A far cry from how Clive uses her. (Karen) All he wants to do is serve her Mmmm . . .Yes???? ;-) Poor Lucy's been through so much. I say let's not deprive her of a night with Colin Firth.;-) ;-)

Next time I run into Colin in a lobby, I'll ask him. ;-)

He may well reply that it is whatever you think. Then again, he may give a definite answer. I agree with Karen, I don't think they did.

let's not deprive her of a night with Colin Firth.;-) ;-) It would have been a quickie, really... anyway, judging from Lucy's subsequent behaviour, I'd be inclined to think they didn't. It was more of a sister-brother embrace at that point. He may well reply that it is whatever you think Yes, the subject of more discussion! But having considered all the pros and cons here, I'm beginning to think that, whatever each of us may think and feel about it, ultimately it doesn't really matter whether they did or didn't. ... Or does it...? ;-)

Arami I'm affraid it does matter. The Movie industry is all about inspiring ones imagination. Now whats the point of any discussion if we cannot at times, let are imaginations run free and explore what might have, or might not have been???? For my part I am absolutely, completely sure that they did it. Of course, you all know what I think, so as Forest Gump says "thats all I have to say about that". Now I believe that some of you may have read the book, I think I remeber you Karen referring to it? This I promise will be the last mention on the subject, but does the book reveal what happened in that particular scene any more than what we saw in the film???????

Maureen, can't help you with what happens in the book as I haven't read it. I am basing my comments on what I know about the character (gathered informally) and about books of that type. Others have read the book, however, I do not think that Donovan Quick is that closely based on the book, which is a very long series of adventures. And feel free to discuss any aspect of the story you wish. We are well-known for picking stories/films apart, as you once commented to me long ago. Some people will agree with you and some people won't. That's what makes it all so fun.

(Maureen) The Movie industry is all about inspiring ones imagination. I know you meant this well, but most of the movies currently prodruced do not. The movie industry is about making money, lots of money, for the investors. If you can fire someone's imagination, that's very nice, but not even a requisite.

(Arami) I'm beginning to think that, whatever each of us may think and feel about it, ultimately it doesn't really matter whether they did or didn't. ... Or does it...? ;-) What mattered was that they came to an ultimate understanding of the depth of loss and pain that both had endured. How they expressed that understanding and empathy may have been important to them at the time, but either way, for us it is irrelevant compared to the insight and compassion they both experienced. We will inevitably read into it our own philosophy as to what we believe is an appropriate form of expression, and that is why it is better for the moviemaker to leave it up in the air... it is more satisfying to more people when they are allowed to fill in the blanks wisely left for them to create their own version of the way it should have been! ;-). KJ

Cheryl, I should have perhaps referred to the story telling industry but when it comes down to grass roots, its all about making money these days.

(Arami) It would have been a quickie, really... anyway, judging from Lucy's subsequent behaviour, I'd be inclined to think they didn't. It was more of a sister-brother embrace at that point. Ok, then let's not deprive her of a quickie with Colin Firth.;-) Seriously, that kiss and embrace on the bed is hardly a brother-sister type thing . . .although . . .in certain parts of Mississippi . . .hee, hee;-) And they do wake up in each other's arms. Later at the hospital, Lucy looks a bit wide-eyed when told Donovan/Daniel has a wife. It could go either way, I suppose, and no it really doesn't matter, but it's fun to speculate. (Karen) Next time I run into Colin in a lobby, I'll ask him. ;-) LOL! Exactly what I was thinking. Your time will come, I'm confident.;-)

(Karen) Next time I run into Colin in a lobby, I'll ask him. ;-) (Mari)LOL! Exactly what I was thinking. Your time will come, I'm confident.;-) The guy's gonna think she's a pervert;-)

Anyone notice during the Screen Actors Guild awards an upcoming commercial for a TNT special? Don Quixote!! It'll be on Sunday, April 9, and stars John Lithgow and Bob Hoskins, with Vanessa Williams and Isabella Rossallini. Since Maureen asked about the book, I picked it up at the library and skimmed through the ending sections to see what I could find about Dulcinea and DQ. A key part of the relationship between DQ and Dulcinea is that he "serves" her. DQ is told that Dulcinea has been enchanted and he attempts to disenchant her but fails. Toward the end, another knight challenges him and the terms are if he loses he must give up arms and return home for a year. DQ loses and would rather die rather than allow Dulcinea's perfection to suffer from his weakness. In other words, he remains faithful to her (his ideal of perfection), but feels he has lost his honor. Now the bad part, which could alter your views of the ending at the railroad station. He went home and fell into a melancholy state, which people attributed to his being vanquished and not being able to restore Dulcinea. In bed he asks forgiveness for his sins, to which his niece ask what they are. His answer: "My judgement is now undisturbed, and free from those dark clouds of ignorance with which my eager and continual reading of those detestable books of chivalry had obscured it. Now I perceive the absurdity and delusion of them, and am only sorry I am undeceived so late, that I have no time left to make some amends, by reading others that might help to enlighten my soul. I feel myself, niece, at the point of death, and I would fain so order it, as not to leave the imputation of madness upon my memory; for though I must confess I have been a madman, I would not confirm the truth of it at my death." To his friends he says the following: "Give me joy, good gentlemen, that I am now no longer Don Quixote de la Mancha, but Alonso Quixano, for his virtues surnamed the Good! I am now an utter enemy to Amadis de Gaul, and the innumerable rabble of his descendants; now all the histories of knight-errantry are to me odious and profane: I am now sensible of my folly, and of the danger I was led into by reading them; and now, through the mercy of God, and my own dear-bought experience, I detest and abhor them." DQ then confesses to the priest and makes his will. He asks Sancho's forgiveness for making him into a madman as well and making him believe in knight-errantry. About three days later, he died. His epitaph: Here lies the valiant cavalier, Who never had a sense of fear; So high his matchless courage rose, He reckon'd Death among his vanquish'd foes. Wrongs to redress, his sword he drew, And many a caitiff giant slew; His days of life tho' madness stain'd, In death his sober senses he regain'd.

Thanks Karen sounds very interesting, I may start looking for a copy myself.

Thanks Karen. But what happened to Dulcinea,Sanch Panza and the others he befriended. Did he make an impact on their lives, for the better? Or did they return to their hapless existence.Because here is where Ms. Francechild (author?)and Cervantes might part ways.When he left, Donovan might have had the despondent attitude that Don Q. has.At the railroad station, however, Donovan sees first hand that his time at Clyde brought positive results on the llives of the Pannicks..

Argh, this is a long book (over a 1,000 pages of itsy bitsy type). Not real sure about Dulcinea but it seemed like they weren't at all close, i.e., she put up with him as he was a lunatic. Sancho is at his death bed and attempts to revive his idealism. DQ is real sorry about failing to get him a governorship of some island. BTW, Sancho has a wife named Teresa.

Let's take the easy route and wait for the film on April 9th :-)

Maureen, my bark is worse than my bite. I wish what you said were true about the film industry. My gripe is with said industry, there are so many trite and/or crappy movies. The best art requires that you bring something of yourself and experiences to the appreciation and understanding of it. As a character kept asking in a play I once saw, "Did they have it off or didn't they." POV. It's all in your point of view. I don't think that Lucy and Donovan "had it off" as it were. That just doesn't jibe with my perspective on the story. It's not wrong or right, it's just perspective.

Cheryl, mine is just wishful thinking, thats what I'd like to think that happened. Lucy had such low self esteem, wouldn't it be nice for her to think that a man like DQ wanted her for who she was. Lets face it, whether they did or they didn't, if we were Lucy what would we have wanted?????? If I had the oppertunity I would just settle for a kiss and a cuddle, even if it is only acting. Then again an autographed picture would do just fine. Evelyne, where is DQ screening on the 9th of April? Karen, did you ever resolve the lighting problem with the movie? I have just received another copy from a freind who taped it in QLD. Transmission was fine, no snowy pictures, but I've just realised how dark some of the scenes really were. Initially, I had put it down to the poor transmission in this part of the country but it seems I was wrong.

On April 9th, a US television production of Don Quixote will be shown, not Donovan Quick. Still have no word on if/when it will be broadcast here. Maureen, we have transmission interference at the beginning (during the credits) and then a few intermittent hiccups. I've also decided that the interior lighting at the Pannicks was intentionally kept dark, as the other scenes (outside and at Windmill) are just fine.

I thought the hiccups and transmission interference were just my machine. It's temperamental. (Just like it's owner.)

its owner

Correct. Should read, "Just like its owner."

Are we the only souls discussing DQ at the moment??? If only it was screening in more places, I'm sure we would be getting more feedback. Karen I tend to agree with you that the lighting or lack of, in some parts was intentional. I have another movie of his arriving from the UK this week Fem Fetal??? (please excuse poor spelling). I have not seen this one yet, is it appropriate for me to discuss it here?????????

(Maureen) Fem Fetal??? (please excuse poor spelling). I have not seen this one yet, is it appropriate for me to discuss it here??? I think we changed the title over here...but sure,the bosses say you can discuss any CF production here..and you'll love Joe Prince:-)

Maureen, you can use topic 98 (Film Discussion) for Femme Fatale, since that's an oldie. I thought that Kate was going to post here, but here are her legal opinions: Sectioning The traditional position was that you need two doctors to sign you in, but I'm sure that's changed in these enlightened times. But his behaviour was probably sufficiently bizarre to justify some sort of intervention, especially since his family was in favour. Mr. Sapas' Death Well, that's tricky. If he ordered the drivers not to stop, knowing that someone was likely to be hurt, then conceivably he could be charged with some kind of conspiracy, or aiding or abetting offence to murder or manslaughter. But it would very much depend on the circumstances of the events. As to civil proceedings. Again, it would depend on the circs. But it would seem reasonable that he could be seen as being negligent with respect to the death if death or injury was the reasonably foreseeable result of his actions, and he was in legal terms, in close 'proximity' to the death. That would really depend on to what extent the driver of the vehicle took into account what he had said. But yes, it seems to me there would be good grounds for some kind of litigation there. You make the call. ;-)

Are we the only souls discussing DQ at the moment??? If only it was screening in more places Amen to that... I'm having to take comfort in knowing that the long awaited DQ does actually exist out there from all the chatter (and pix) about it from drool and cannot wait until the Summer , Christmas, sometime, never when it will be screened in the UK ;-(

Don't worry about your spelling Maureen, it can't be worse than mine.

Counselor Karen, thanks for the legal view on sectioning and culpability in the Sapas death, and please extend our thanks to Kate as well.

Mari ditto on the comments, and Karen thanks, not only for the legal explanations but the correct spelling of Femme Fetale.

Femme FATALE.

...besides, Maureen might be referring to the unnamed Cynthia/Elizabeth personality shown in Doctor Daddy's video. ;-)

Listen, Passionate Colin, it's really time to say something positive now. Please?

Yes, come on now Passionata/Colin we're all friends here...let's have some positivity.

I've noticed several people who've referred to Clive as having a "heart of gold" or some such like. From what do you get that impression? The apology and promise to redo the direction of his ambitions? Sorry, that isn't enough to release him from my impression of "same-old, same-old" promises that type are forever citing and never doing. So what gives rise to this more favorable impression of the character?

FYI, saw another Scottish film last night called Orphans, the directorial debut of Peter Mullan. It was set in Glasgow and it was totally subtitled. There's hope. BTW, this film was made in 1997 and look how long it took to get here. ;-)

(KJ) I've noticed several people who've referred to Clive as having a "heart of gold" or some such like. Where? I've gone back to the beginning of this discussion here (message 143) and checked the print articles/reviews at The Bucket. Don't see anything.

And I don't believe anyone here would refer to Clive as having anything but a functioning salami ;-)

Hey, don't knock it.

Clive may well have had a functioning salami, but he had all the technique and finesse of a moldy cold cut. He even had the personality to match.

(KJ) ...referred to Clive as having a "heart of gold" or some such like. .. (Karen) Where? I've gone back to the beginning of this discussion here (message 143) and checked the print articles/reviews at The Bucket. Don't see anything. ~~~I couldn't find it either although I remembered reading *something* ("which is why I said "Some such like.."), yet I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Finally remembered last night. At Murph's DQ site, there were 2 reviews, one from her and one from Jane: (Murph) I particularly liked O'Hara as a thuggy loser with a heart. ~~~ (Jane) and her abusive boyfriend Clive, a loser who takes a woman for all she's got simply because he can. This is the saddest part of the tale. \...\ By the time the film ends you feel like you have been through it with all the characters and the sympathy you have for them is very strong. It is a good tale, very finished. Even Clive is just a man with human failings. I could have sworn it was one or more of you guys. Mea Culpa. I guess I'll have to ask them... (both reviews at: http://www.geocities.com/%7Emurphyat65/quick/quick.html )

Hi all just dropped in to see how the discussion is going thus far. Sorry KJ, can't help with the liking Clive bit. The only positive thing about the role was the actor who played it. What I mean is he played a very convincing nasty type and what a pitty that there are people in this world who are actually like that. One question here, and call me ignorant if you will, but the guy who played Lucy's brother is he intellectually disabled in real life??????I thought his role was very convincing also.

(Maureen)The only positive thing about the role was the actor who played it. Hear hear. Cheryl, to have a functioning salami is not anything to write home about and I did not mean it that way :-)

Two articles (Melbourne Age's supplement and the Irish Times) mentioned that David Brown, who played Sandy, was learning disabled. I thought he did a great job. http://www.spring.net/karenr/mdbro/DQ.html Let's see, as I remember, Clive told Lucy, "you have to have it here, here and here." Don't remember him pointing out his heart. ;-)

I didn't think you did Gi. I thought Clive was scum, but the actor's performance was wonderful and the part well-written.

Bugger, why in heavens name, did not the Sydney papers have Colin on the front page of the TV guide. I can't believe we missed out up here, had I known at the time, I would have ordered the Age from the newsagent. No need for anyone to answer that, I'm just kicking myself after having made the discovery 2 months after the event.

Ta da! Have seen SLOW tonight. Sorry, only on video - it has not miraculously opened on these American shores. Good or bad first? You've all warned me SLOW is not a masterpiece and now I certainly can't argue with you. I'd imagine this film had a lot more to it when Colin signed on for it. He wouldn't intentionally make such a shoddy film. The story is sound - it just seems that so much of it is missing. I'm sure I missed much in the first viewing regarding the traditions and culture of the Nigerian community - so much of it seemed assumed. His relationship with his wife was very sketchily drawn. Matthew is chasing Nimi before he's even seen her. Nimi's engagement to the reverend seems on, then off, then on again with little explanation. The boat business is contrived and Matthew's illness unreal. Still I think it could have been so much better with some of these pieces filled in. Dialogue could have used some beefing up as well - pretty lame. Still, no surprises since I'd read all the comments here when this film was seen in January. Now the good parts - I thought there was good chemistry between Colin and both his leading ladies. Nia Long was lovely and I thought quite good. Perhaps Colin winced at some of the lines he was given but of course delivered them quite naturally. He does tongue-tied so well! Why did the writer complain about the focus of the film being taken away from the women? I thought there's was the bulk of the story. And then the man himself - that oh-so-familiar stride when we first see him - only the waist down but no mistaking who it is. Most times he was looking oh so good and oh so tall. Nia must be quite tiny. Great smooches with his wife.. He looks absolutely the best in the very last scene. Camera looking down at him as he's surrounded by the tomatoes. Terrific shot of that fine jaw. I'm a sucker for his chin. Plenty of dimples too. I remember someone saying that before. Now I'll have to re-read the early comments to compare to this most nascent view.

(Heide) The boat business is contrived and Matthew's illness unreal. Definitely, two of the weakest plot points. Dialogue could have used some beefing up as well - pretty lame. So you don't think Missan got to Screenwriting 102? ;-) Why did the writer complain about the focus of the film being taken away from the women? I thought there's was the bulk of the story. Had to complain about something, didn't she? I agree there was an appropriate balance of Nimi's community and her relationship with Matthew and I really enjoyed the women's banter, but what there was was sufficient. Sounds like that rewind button is going to get a major workout, my dear. ;-)

Sounds like that rewind button is going to get a major workout, my dear. ;-) You betcha! SLOW is definitely a must-have to that Colin collection for anyone who can get it.

A flawed film, but a first class Colin watcher.

Definitely, a must-have for drooling. On the big screen it was overwhelming. On the TV, hit the mute button, you won't have to listen to the dreadful script. I'd imagine this film had a lot more to it when Colin signed on for it. I hope so.Remember the reviewer who said..."What possessed CF to take on this film?" I thought the reviewers (esp. The Times) were v. kind. I can see why it sat on the bank shelf so long.And no distrib would touch it in the US.The guys at Optimum are my heroes.

Have to concur with Heide, though I've not been able to finish watching the video yet (realtors have turned house into Grand Central Station). My initial feelings were that, besides the flawed (to say the least) script, CF starts off a bit on the wooden side (found myself thinking 'c'mon Colin, you can move your lips a little more'). Loved the playing with guns bit when he falls backwards off the stone wall. LMAO at those fakey-fakey garden stills! Veddy, veddy baad.

CF starts off a bit on the wooden side Colin - wooden? This is sacrilege! 'c'mon Colin, you can move your lips a little more' Maybe he doesn't want to. My lips would also refuse to move if I had to say some of the crap lines they give him. ;-)

This is sacrilege! Waddaya going to do, stone me? :-P Have now watched SLOW twice. It does improve on second viewing, IMO. Have been commiserating about the MLSF vs. SLOW quasi-debate (of sorts) over at the CF topic. Have developed a comparison of the two films, using my own rating system (these are my ratings, I tell you, mine! Copyright me, me, me! ;-)). Here we go: Key: 4 stars = excellent; 1 star = pffftttt (Bronx cheer) CF's costumes MLSF **** SLOW * (does art imitate life here? If I saw that royal blue shirt one more time...) CF's hair MLSF *** SLOW **** "Huh? What just happened?" moments MLSF ** SLOW * (had more) Camera angles MLSF **** SLOW * (how 'bout that bed scene? Great view of their nostrils) Accents (hee hee) MLSF ** SLOW ** Ending (US version) MLSF *** SLOW * (sentimental, yet *barf*) It couldda been a contenda (i.e., the premise was good, but...) MLSF ** SLOW *** There you have it. Disclaimer: Eileen is expressing her own opinion, which should not be construed, express or implied, as the opinion of anybody else.

A classic, Eileen. A real keeper. I'll take your word, that SLOW improves with viewing....this is a fun topic so I won't go into the fact that IMO it is an insulting film to the black culture and I can see why it was never picked up by a US distrib for the US. So you see... ...some of us say tomayto and some of us say tomahto;-);-)

LOL, Eileen. Have registered *your* rating system with copyright agencies worldwide. ;-) BTW, have you adjusted *your* ratings for size of budget? May account for ever-present royal blue shirt and inability to photograph more than nostrils. ;-)

(Karen) Have registered *your* rating system with copyright agencies worldwide. ;-) You must have applied to LTO Ratings International, then. ;-D have you adjusted *your* ratings for size of budget? Aww, that would spoil the fun. Of course 99.99% of the nominal costume budget went to the Nigerian women. Matthew's attire was quite reminiscent of Brian Smith's, though.

(Evelyn)IMO it is an insulting film to the black culture I believe in North America people are much more sensitive to possible insults to different groups. I know there are a number of jokes I cannot tell my sister anymore... But is there a general black culture? Or is saying that insulting in itself? ;-)

But is there a general black culture? There are ethnic cultures...black is just part of it.One has to be pretty careful not only about what one says, but how the culture is portrayed. "But I don't wanna go there...."

(Evelyn)IMO it is an insulting film to the black culture... That's an interesting observation, since wasn't the film writtem by an African woman, who is herself black? I think you are right in your assertion that this topic should pretty much stop here, Evelyn. Like you, I do not want to go there.

One has to be pretty careful not only about what one says, but how the culture is portrayed. All right, we won't go there, but I just can't help noticing that the above statement gives me creeps.