top of page

Uzman Grubu

Herkese Açık·17 üye

Secret Agent(1936) ((HOT))

However, a coded telegram informs them that Caypor is not their target. The General finds it very funny, but Elsa becomes terribly distraught when they are told. She decides to quit, despite having told Ashenden that she fell in love with him at first sight. In the lobby, she encounters Marvin. With no destination in mind, she persuades him to take her along with him. Meanwhile, the other two bribe a worker at a chocolate factory (the secret "German spy post office") to show them a very important message received the day before. They discover that it is addressed to none other than Marvin.

Secret Agent(1936)

British stage legend John Gielgud (also known for his Oscar winning role in the 1981 film Arthur) stars as Ashenden, a secret agent and author who is sent to Switzerland to locate a German agent en route to Arabia. Ashenden is told specifically to murder this agent. He is assisted by Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll), posing as his wife, and The General (Peter Lorre), an assassin also known as The Hairless Mexican. Along the way, Elsa is pursued by the charming Robert Marvin (Robert Young).

Secret Agent is a 1936 British espionage thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock and adapted from W. Somerset Maugham's short stories and a play by Campbell Dixon. In 1916, the British Army officer and novelist Edgar Brodie (John Gielgud) undertakes a secret mission to identify and eliminate a German agent who heads to stir up trouble on the Middle East and currently stays in Switzerland. Brodie gets the new identity of Richard Ashenden. In his mission he is accompanied by false Mrs. Ashenden - Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll) and by an assassin known as "The General" (Peter Lorre). But soon Edgar and Elsa understand that the mission of cold-blooded murder conflicts with their consciences.

The plot of Secret Agent is somewhat problematic and may actually be one reason why the film is no longer very popular. The beginning, about a person whose death is faked in order to provide a good secret identity, is elegantly told but leaves only a really, really thin layer of credibility, if any. The ending is also somewhat blunt and not entirely satisfactory.

All these trials aroused, to put it mildly, very grave doubts in the minds of observers abroad. But what was to follow surpassed all previous human experience, not excluding that of the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages. In a series of world-staggering trials, practically the entire Old Guard of the Russian Revolution publicly confessed to all the crimes in the Soviet calendar, and were duly despatched from this world by a bullet in the back of the neck in the cellars of the Lubianka, or else, in a few instances, hidden away in secret prisons from which they have never since emerged. At the same time, nearly the whole of the General Staff and many minor officers were tried in secret, condemned as traitors and shot, while hundreds of thousands of real or alleged opponents of the regime were executed without trial or exiled to remote regions of the country under conditions amounting for most of them to slow death from starvation and disease.

This does not mean to say that all of the purged were innocent of any hostility towards Stalin. Many nursed in secret a passionate desire for a change in the regime. Stalin could not but know how much he was hated, and that was enough for him. This was treachery! Vengeful, almost (one hesitates over the qualification) pathologically suspicious, Stalin smelled treason everywhere; and, once launched, the purge acquired a momentum of its own, independent of its author, impossible to stop till at last it bogged down of itself in the blood and filth churned up in its path.

To establish that the complainant will be irreparably damaged unless a preliminary injunction is issued, the complainant alleges that the board and its agents threaten to cause investigators to enter its offices, to examine its records, interview its employees, and otherwise interfere with its business and its relations with its employees; that these defendants further threaten and intend by subpoena to compel the production of its records and the attendance of its representatives and employees as witnesses and to make public its confidential files; that they propose to take a secret ballot of complainant's employees to ascertain and certify the representatives selected for the purpose of collective bargaining by a majority of the editorial employees of complainant; that if complainant refuses to bargain collectively with the employees so designated, it will again be charged with unfair practice by the board and further proceedings will be had under the act; that in the event of a finding by the board that complainant has been guilty of unfair practice, it will be held up as an object of public ill will and scorn, and as a violator of law; that complainant will be injuriously affected in entering into contracts of employment; that complainant is threatened with a multiplicity of proceedings under the act, because demands for collective bargaining may be made in each of the many cities wherein complainant maintains offices; that defendants threaten and intend to order the complainant to restore Morris Watson as an employee without the right to discharge him again without being threatened with further complaints or a multiplicity of proceedings to compel his reinstatement; that the charges made by the board cannot be resisted except at great and irrecoverable expense; that the defendants threaten to require many employees to appear before the trial examiner as witnesses, which will interfere with its business of expeditiously gathering and disseminating news without interruption twenty-four hours daily, and these employees will be compelled to disclose confidential information pertaining to complainant's business; that if it should seek to resist or interfere with the board or its agents in the performance of their duties, complainant is threatened with a fine or imprisonment or both as provided by section 12 of the act (29 U.S.C.A. 162); that the continuance of the proceedings by the board will destroy harmonious relations between the complainant and its employees, injuriously affecting their work, and will impair complainant's public good will. 041b061a72


Gruba hoş geldiniz! Diğer üyelerle bağlantı kurabilir, günce...
bottom of page