E equals Q x
Edith Head in 'Incredibles'
November 14, 2004
Q: In your review on "The
Incredibles," you mentioned that the character Edna Mode was
inspired by Q from the Bond movies. I'm pretty sure she was more
based on the facial features and occupation of Edith Head, the
Oscar-winning costume designer.
Mohsen Ghofrani,
North Canton, Ohio
A: J. Oyen of San Mateo,
Calif., adds: "Edna's uncanny resemblance to Hitchcock's favorite
costume designer and the fact that Edna is a world famous clothes
designer in the movie seems to support the Edith Head
connection."
I am persuaded Edith Head is the inspiration for
the character, but that her role has been enriched by Q behavior.
Q. In your Ebert & Roeper review
of Michael Wilson's "Michael Moore Hates America," you blurted out
an erroneous opinion, expressing your doubts about the film's claim
that the Canadian crime rate is double the U.S.
rate.
I checked with www.statcan.ca,
listed as "the official source for Canadian social and economic
statistics and products," and with the U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The bottom line: These sites agree
with Wilson's assertion that crime in Canada is much worse than in
the USA.
James Elias, Highland Ranch,
Colo.
A. Astonishing. For the year 2003, per
100,000 population, Canada had 8,530 crimes, and the U.S. 4,267. For
crimes of violence, 958 vs. 523. For property crimes, 4,275 vs.
3,744. Michael Wilson, director of the film, tells me: "There was
originally a comedic segment in the film that attributed this to the
proliferation of Tim Horton's doughnut franchises, but I could not
make it work."
Q. A terrible thing has happened.
You've probably heard that Theo van Gogh, a fine and most courageous
filmmaker, was murdered by a Muslim extremist in Holland. Saw him
the night before I left Holland some two weeks ago and we laughed
about his bodyguards!
Theo dared to speak out.
Dared to face the truth as he felt and perceived it. His aim was not
to entertain or to reap success and glory for himself, but to
transmit a message of purpose through our medium. What a tragedy
that he could not escape the fate of all great humanitarians -- to
be sacrificed.
I'm devastated by this blow. Have
worked closely with him throughout the years. It doesn't happen --
filmmakers being killed because they have something to say and dare
to speak! But it did and the world has moved one step closer to the
abyss. May he rest in peace.
Paul Cox, Melbourne,
Australia
A. The list of living directors who
honor the cinema by remaining true to themselves in their work has
been tragically shortened by one more name. But it still contains
your name, Paul (your classic "A Woman's Tale" was my Great Movie
last week)
Note: Van Gogh's film, "Submission," can be
viewed online at ifilm.com.
Q. Regarding your Answer Man item
about "What the #$*! Do We Know" being a hoax perpetrated by the
Ramtha School of Enlightenment: Did you or your readers go out and
sign up for Ramtha's school? No, and neither did I. Instead I walked
away absolutely astounded by the insights into my own life
experience and the direction that I needed to go in order to affect
my life in a positive way.
Whether the
scientists in the film are "experts" or not (who defines these
terms, anyway?), I found their insights and perspectives extremely
helpful. The filmmakers encourage us to begin to understand the
theory of quantum physics and start to ask ourselves questions that
will lead us to a mindful life.
Kiara Lee,
Berkeley, Calif.
A. I also received a sharply
worded letter from Mark Vicente, Betsy Chasse and William Arntz, the
co-directors, defending the stature of their experts and the
integrity of the film.
"What the #$*@!" has turned into a
sleeper hit around the country, drawing repeat audiences and
generating strong word of mouth. I felt a certain affection for the
film, although as my original review indicated, the "movie that
attempts to explain quantum physics in terms anyone can understand.
It succeeds, up to a point. I understood every single term. Only the
explanation eluded me."
Among the experts on the screen, I
wrote, "only one seemed to make perfect sense to me. This was a
pretty, plumpish blond woman with clear blue eyes, who looked the
camera straight in the eye, seemed wise and sane, and said that
although the questions might be physical, the answers were likely to
be metaphysical. Since we can't by definition understand life and
the world, we might as well choose a useful way of pretending
to."
This woman, I later learned, was the psychic JZ Knight,
who channels a 35,000-year-old mystical sage from the lost continent
of Atlantis. Still later, a letter to the Answer Man from an actual
physicist, Rubin Safaya, informed me: "The individuals who are
quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum
mechanics."
The film is what it is, a group of people trying
to explain the nature of reality. The confusion comes if you think
they are discussing physics, when in fact they are discussing
metaphysics. There is nothing wrong with having a belief system and
using it to fashion your worldview; the error comes in ascribing
scientific truth to what is by definition a matter of
faith.
The argument between Darwinians and Creationists is
similar: Darwinians use science, Creationists use faith.
"Creationist science" is laughed at by reputable scientists because
it tries to use its easily refuted "science" to explain a belief
that grows from and depends entirely on faith. By the same token,
although the Ramtha School may indeed have valuable insights into
the nature of reality, it is misleading to present them as science.
Q. Regarding your Answer Man item
about the moving chair in "Citizen Kane." I carefully reviewed the
famous tracking shot that goes from a young Charles outdoors to his
parents indoors. You claim a chair wiggles in this shot because it
has just been put down, having been offscreen to make way for the
camera's backward movement.
The chair does
indeed move, but not for that reason at all. If you watch carefully
(as I'm sure you do), the chair is visible in the corner of the
screen. It is not moving at all. It only wiggles when Mrs. Kane
walks by it, suggesting that she has brushed it with her skirt. Why
would the chair sit still and then suddenly start wiggling unless
Mrs. Kane had touched it?
Matt Johnson,
Chicago
A. It's not the chair, but the top hat is
jiggling because the table has just been moved into position. The
chair movement I'm referring to takes place toward the end of the
scene, as the three adults walk back toward the window, and the
camera again moves "through" the table. You can clearly see the
chair being pulled away.
Q. Just a comment about your review of
"Enduring Love." You said that if all the people who grabbed hold of
the ropes attached to the hot-air balloon had held on, they might
have been able to keep the balloon from rising again, and that
whoever was the first person to let go of the balloon was probably
responsible for the death of the man who held on until he was so
high that letting go caused him to fall and
die.
I'm not a licensed balloon pilot, but I
also have friends who are involved as crew of the Goodyear Blimp.
One of the first rules of handling lighter-than-air craft is that if
you are holding on to the craft in any way, the moment your feet are
lifted off the ground, you let go. No ifs, ands or buts about it. I
have to say that every single person I know of with lighter-than-air
experience would take the view that the guy who held on and was
lifted skyward was responsible for his own
death.
Karin Chevalier-Cozzolino, Lomita,
Calif.
A. Invaluable advice. Readers: Clip and
save!
(11/9)