WOW. Here this link has been online for well over a couple hours now
and still no proper schtupping genuflections of gratitude?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...nema-1984.html

Man! What a bunch of ANDROIDS I've been in all futility fooling
myself to suppose are worth my compassion and generosity here. Where
is that ever so hard to find tiny minority of the Cognoscenti?

Suzanna Hamilton is cast SO FINE as "Julia" and Richard Burton as
"O'Brien" in the last role of his career, before his demise in August
of 1984.

You got it for free, babe! No need to kiss my ring. A simple, "how
cool!" will do.

Vincent Canby, as he reviewed the film in January of 1985 could not
have got it both closer to and further from the mark when he
said . . .

'This ''1984'' is not an easy film to watch, but it exerts a
fascination that demands attention even as you want to turn away from
it. That the Orwell tale still works so well - and this version works
far better than the 1956 film adaptation - also makes it apparent that
the novel was always more cautionary in its intentions than
prophetic.'

Now let's just see if dumbing this down a bit may help . . .

In context of the time in which Orwell wrote, 1948, he was seeing his
vision entirely in terms of the then popular forms of social/political
repression, suppression, and oppression he knew. Sexual repression is
what he knew, and so it was that of which, primarily, he wrote, as he
had it carried to fictional extremes by his red sash wearing volunteer
organization, the "Anti-Sex League." And just as such, it could not
have been more literally reflective of the late Victorian culture in
which Orwell himself was born and bred--his time, not ours. And
literally speaking, it could not have been less prophetic of the
liberated sexual expression to come into our world, nearly two decades
before 1984.

On basis of such a cursory and literal take on the story, you would
almost certainly see this repressionary element of Big Brother's
society as merely "cautionary" indeed, as if Orwell were getting a
glimpse into a future ruled by Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority"?

Hardly. No, that is not it. That is not Big Brother's style. Neither
morality nor majority would have anything to do with such a
totalitarian society, as all the speeches of O'Brien clearly indicate.
The sexuality of those subject to Big Brother simply had to come under
government control right along with every other facet of social life.
No form of free will, of individual taste or decision could be
tolerated, lest the least personal liberty should lead to sedition and
rebellion against the state.

Orwell's vision for the sex-life of 1984 was a self UN-fulfilling
prophecy, insofar as *his book* itself made so powerful an attack on
Victorian morality, to leave it all the more weakened and ready to
fall in a day when it should come time for the true, sexually
liberated 1984 to roll around. So, no. Not at all. That little item of
social engineering, Orwell's own, had nothing whatever to do with
prophecy, but with a major work of advocacy and polemic which
contributed in no small measure to the downfall of the very thing he'd
envisioned for it. Literally speaking, the ASL was neither cautionary
nor prophetic.

But prophecy is nearly never literal, and almost always figurative,
allowing that we most figuratively can have the ASL (Anti-Sex League)
in this day, post 1984, and have it most unexpectedly, in altogether
so repressive a form as Orwell's fiction had made it. Yes, and you
would find no less than the highest discomfort in watching John Hurt
and Suzanna Hamilton in Michael Radford's "1984" if it should so
happen that you are the sort of mind-controlled drone which finds
regimentation of the contemporary workplace under Sexual Harassment
legislation a real swell, forward thinking, progressive idea.

Yes, someone who "thinks" like that would have every good reason to
squirm in their seat while watching free sexual beings arrested and
tortured in a film of 1984--no two ways about it.

Yes, and what's more? What of a world, as prophesied by George
Orwell, where it is no less than an act of high sedition for a woman
member of the Party to be found wearing a dress? Can a figurative
image like that mean anything to you? Look out upon the world around
you. Then look back to this video screen, where all members of the
Party rank and file are all dressed alike, both man and woman, in the
same drab uniform that looks for all the world like the coveralls of a
gas station attendant?

Look around you and see the men and women of this post 1984 world,
where there is hardly any distinction between the genders anymore,
where all are dressed alike in billed caps, jeans and t-shirts; both
men and women--an entire society of gas station attendants; sexless,
classless, drab, colorless, characterless figures right out of George
Orwell's 1984.

And the worst horror of this dystopian nightmare from which we do not
awake, is the awful truth about who the real "Big Brother" of the
real post-1984 world really is! Take a look. It's right on the wall,
as always where you can see his face. Check it out, next time you
brush your teeth, or comb your hair, or try on a new ASL uni-sex suit
down at Old Navy or Kohl's.

BIG BROTHER is watching you!

On Jul 12, 8:59 pm, Just Me wrote:
Look around you and see the men and women of this post 1984 world,
where there is hardly any distinction between the genders anymore,
where all are dressed alike in billed caps, jeans and t-shirts; both
men and women--an entire society of gas station attendants; sexless,
classless, drab, colorless, characterless figures right out of George
Orwell's 1984.

In my cubicle farm, the only prohibition I know of, clothing wise, is
shorts. Which isn't always observed.

Dresses and skirts are somewhat rare I guess, but feminine clothing is
not. I wouldn't say most wear drab jeans and t-shirts.

Furthermore, non-ear piercings, fluorescent colors of hair dye and
tattooing tantamount to murals are also perfectly acceptable.

Also, people flirt, not to mention sleep with each other, gossip about
it, and so on.

So no, I don't observe anything like your blather. I think the world
you're writing about is as fictional as Orwell's 1984.

Get a life SICKO!
Go play with yourself or something.
This is a productive forum when we can get by the weirdos like you.