Okay ladies - a James McAvoy interview for you...

Discussion of other topics not necessarily Keats or poetry-related, i.e. other authors, literature, film, music, the arts etc.

Moderators: Saturn, Malia

Okay ladies - a James McAvoy interview for you...

Postby Saturn » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:31 pm

I saw this in an Irish Sunday supplement magazine and thought you girlies might like to swoon some more over our potential Keats.

The bad news for you all is that he's taken :wink:

Ah he's the quintessential blue eyed boy - I'll give him that

Hope you can all read this okay.

[click on the images to enlarge]

Image

Image

Image
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Credo Buffa » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:26 am

Yup, I knew he was taken. We can still look at him though, can't we? :wink:

. . . and admire his awesome talent, of course.
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Saturn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:30 am

Yeah yeah :lol:

He's older than I thought...28.

They better get that movie into production soon :shock:
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Credo Buffa » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:01 am

Doesn't matter how old he is so long as he has can pull off looking younger. Appearance of age is extremely subjective, after all.
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Saturn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:06 am

Ah but don't you just hate those so-called 'teen-dramas' where not one of the stars is under 30? :roll:

Sabrina the 32 yr-old Witch anyone? :wink:

The whole tragedy of Keats works and his early death was his extreme youth and I think as much as possible there should be a young man of as far as possible the similar age as Keats.

Then again

"If wrinkles must be written upon our brow, let them not be written upon the heart; the spirit should not grow old."
~James A. Garfield~
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Credo Buffa » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:08 pm

Well, a 32-year-old woman portraying a teenager is a bit different from a 28 or 29-year-old man portraying a character just three or four years younger than himself. :P

In any case, I think that the appearance of age has a lot to do with context, not just physical features. I just recently discovered that one of my acquaintances here at the university isn't my own age, but 33 years old. :shock: Granted, if I had seen her, for instance, at a supermarket toting a couple of kids around, I might have guessed her age to be somewhere around there. As it is, however, I've only ever seen her on campus, hanging out with people my age (or younger), going out to clubs and dressing like you would imagine any trendy twenty-something woman, in which case I naturally dubbed her to be just that: a twenty-something.

You could also use the argument, in Keats's case, that based on the merits of the profundity and wisdom of his writings alone, one who is uninformed might be surprised to learn that he was only 25 when he died. . .
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Saturn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:23 pm

I suppose you're right there.

I was with my friend Claire last week and one of her classmates [they're twenty-one and nineteen respectively] and she was astonished to learn that I was 27 years old.

I suppose its about attitude and behaviour sometimes more than actual physical age.

Then again in Keats time you were a man at sixteen yeas old and expected to be working for a living. People left school [is they went at all] at this age.

Then again the mortality rate was appalling in those times so Keats was a man in his prime and not a mere slip of a boy that we would think of someone of twenty-five these days.
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Credo Buffa » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:14 pm

Saturn wrote:Then again in Keats time you were a man at sixteen yeas old and expected to be working for a living. People left school [is they went at all] at this age.

Then again the mortality rate was appalling in those times so Keats was a man in his prime and not a mere slip of a boy that we would think of someone of twenty-five these days.

Very true. I also have to imagine, by the same token, that a 25-year-old man back in Keats's day would probably appear to us to be rather a bit younger, merely by virtue of diet and its affects on appearance and stature. Of course Keats was short even for his day, and he keenly felt the effects of that at school when he was thought to be the younger brother of the taller George. But beyond that, I think that the ways in which modern food science and agriculture have affected the food we consume from birth and subsequently our physical appearance also makes us appear to mature earlier in life than people in the 19th century. . . or at least those of us living in prosperous Western nations.

Example: My mother's cousin and her husband have been living in Budapest for over fifteen years now, and their three children have essentially grown up there. However, she has noticed that, when she brings her family back to visit, her children appear to be several years younger than children of the same age in the States. Despite the fact that she and her husband are both of above-average height, her children are physically quite small. She attributes this to the fact that they have been raised on a diet much different than that of children in the States, particularly meat that hasn't been treated with hormones.

This also goes a long way toward explaining how average height has risen so dramatically over the past hundred years or so. It seems to me, then, that with a change in physical size there would also be a similar change in the physical appearance of age. After all, they are saying now that kids are starting to go through puberty at younger and younger ages. So, oddly enough, I guess that even though a person like Keats would be expected to enter adulthood as early as 16, teenagers today are probably actually more physically adept for it (though their mental capacity for such demands certainly is suspect :roll: ).
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Saturn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:26 pm

Yes, you're last line certainly is true :lol:
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Malia » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:38 pm

Interesting discussion--so true that people grew up a little more slowly physically-speaking back in the 19th c. I remember reading somewhere that women back then (and even up to the early to mid-20th c.) did not usually start having periods until they were 15 or 16 years old. Now, due in large part to increased nutrition and, unfortunately, added hormones in foods such as milk, girls as young as 8 or 9 are starting their periods--way *too* young, if you ask me.
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Postby dks » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:07 pm

Saturn wrote:Then again the mortality rate was appalling in those times so Keats was a man in his prime and not a mere slip of a boy that we would think of someone of twenty-five these days.


Saturn's right--the mortality rate was much higher in Keats's time--it's the increased longevity today that helps explain the mentally younger teens we have now. Today's 16 is probably equivalent to 19th C.'s 8 or 10. People just live longer and yet blossom earlier...quite scary to think of impending generations who overpopulate (due to earlier physical maturation) and don't mentally mature until they're 50 or die until they're 200! :shock:

On another age note--it certainly is a state of mind...when Edward and I are out and about, people don't automatically guess that we're 16 years apart in age--he's 20, I'm 36...I keep trying to point out the young ones to him...but he's got that Irish thick headedness... :!: :wink:
"I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of Imagination."
User avatar
dks
Dante
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:14 am
Location: Texas

Postby Credo Buffa » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:47 pm

Malia wrote:Interesting discussion--so true that people grew up a little more slowly physically-speaking back in the 19th c. I remember reading somewhere that women back then (and even up to the early to mid-20th c.) did not usually start having periods until they were 15 or 16 years old. Now, due in large part to increased nutrition and, unfortunately, added hormones in foods such as milk, girls as young as 8 or 9 are starting their periods--way *too* young, if you ask me.

Fascinating fact, Malia! I was wondering about that very thing as I was typing up my previous post.

And I hope to God that people don't eventually live to be 200, Denise, unless of course science finds a way to cure the natural ailments of old age. As my aunt rightly said a few months ago, modern medicine has allowed us to live longer than ever before, but in the process we have begun to outlive our bodies and our minds. There's hardly any point in prolonging your life if your life is only physical pain and mental confusion.
"Holy Kleenex, Batman! It was right under our nose and we blew it!"
User avatar
Credo Buffa
Lamia
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 1:42 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Malia » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:59 pm

Credo Buffa wrote:And I hope to God that people don't eventually live to be 200, Denise, unless of course science finds a way to cure the natural ailments of old age. As my aunt rightly said a few months ago, modern medicine has allowed us to live longer than ever before, but in the process we have begun to outlive our bodies and our minds. There's hardly any point in prolonging your life if your life is only physical pain and mental confusion.


I hear you there, Credo. I've known several close friends and relatives who ended their lives in dimensia and it is quite painful to witness. I do think if I had to choose between quality and quantity of life, I'd go for the quality.

If medical scientists do find a way to prolong healthy life to a very old age, we would have another problem--overpopulation. But, frankly, I don't think we'd have to worry too much about that even if people were to live active lives until they were 200; war and disease of one sort or another would continue to wipe people out, I'm sure.

On that note, I hope everyone everyone has a happy day! :) :lol:
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Postby Saturn » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:52 pm

We all look younger these days anyway.

I think its all the preservatives we ingest.

You look at old photos of people in their fifties and sixties and they all look twenty years older than someone of that age today.

I took this photo of myself earlier and was almost shocked at how young I look in it:

Image
"Oh what a misery it is to have an intellect in splints".
Saturn
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:16 am

Postby Malia » Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:05 pm

Saturn wrote:You look at old photos of people in their fifties and sixties and they all look twenty years older than someone of that age today.


I've noticed that, in general, too. As I've told you all before, my current "thang" of interest is the story of football player Brian Piccolo--I've been reading his biography/memoir and he looks a few years older than the early-mid 20's he was in most of the pics that are included in the book. These pictures would have been taken in the late late 1960's. His wife looks older than her mid-twenties, too. I think part of it is the fashions of the day--they dressed in a way that made them look older. . .at least in my POV.

Good pic of you, btw, Saturn. Nice to see a smile once in a while--you've got a good one. :)
Stay Awake!
--Anthony deMello
User avatar
Malia
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:55 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Next

Return to Miscellaneous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests