KudoZ home » English to Spanish » Art/Literary

roll \\\'em

Spanish translation: ¡A rodar!

Advertisement

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:roll' em!
Spanish translation:¡A rodar!
Entered by: xxxcsm
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

09:33 Dec 2, 2003
English to Spanish translations [PRO]
Art/Literary
English term or phrase: roll \\\'em
Se trata del título de un artículo periodístico y no hallo la forma de traducirlo para que quede bien. El título completo es:
'Wealth, hypocrisy and videos! Roll 'em!'
xxxcsm
Spain
Local time: 11:53
"Riqueza, hipocresía y videos. ¡A rodar!"
Explanation:
Hola, Carme.

Un título más "directo" sería:

"Ricos, hipócritas y videos.¡A rodar!"
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
"Rodar" se puede tomar en su doble sentido:
1)¡A escena!(=¡filmadlos!/¡que salga todo a la luz!):
"...TO LET A CAMERA INTO THEIR CLOSED WORLD".

2)¡Por los suelos!(= ¡empujadlos!/
¡pasadlos por el rodillo!)
:(

Esa es mi duda, Carme, y por eso he dejado "rodar" para que cada uno le dé el sentido que quiera.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Encontré el artículo que "pego" aquí para justificar mi traducción y para que pueda ayudar a dar otras versiones a los compañeros, que han expresado su deseo de saber de qué va.

Así puede ver Valentín el enfoque que se le da a la riqueza:¡buena pregunta la suya! La respuesta está clara tras leerlo...

El resumen sería :
"BASURA EN VIDEOS Y EN LA POLÍTICA NORTEAMERICANA: TODO VALE SI DA DINERO. TODO VALE SI SON LOS RICOS LOS QUE LO HACEN".

Al menos esta es mi impresión tras leer el artículo, con cuyo contenido no me manifiesto ni a favor ni en contra.

Como la "tele-basura", vaya, el "morbo"
y todos esos temas tan "culturales" que tanto atraen a las masas y que dan tanto dinero a los aprovechados y caraduras de turno.
El articulista arremete contra la hipocresía de la clase alta norteamericana.
La conclusión del artículo, claramente en contra de la política de Bush:

"Are her exhibitionist efforts any less ridiculous than those of rich men purporting to be hayseeds while campaigning for president among the livestock in Iowa? At least Hilton doesn’t want to run the country — not yet, anyway".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Los puntos principales del artículo:

- DINERO:
"Their real pull has to do with capital, not carnality".
"Money remains the last guilty pleasure in America".
- HIPOCRESÍA:
"the general hypocrisy about the upper class".
- VIDEOS: Pornografía
"If it’s sex you’re looking for, America’s two most widely viewed porn videos of the year, starring Paris Hilton and L. Dennis Kozlowski, are nothing if not limp".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Pongo entre asteriscos los puntos que me parecen más importantes.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
"Frank Rich: Wealth, hypocrisy and videos! Roll ’em!
Frank Rich NYT

NEW YORK.
If it’s sex you’re looking for, America’s two most widely viewed porn videos of the year, starring Paris Hilton and L. Dennis Kozlowski, are nothing if not limp. Hilton’s unimaginative exhibition, still playing on an Internet site near you, is as darkly lighted as a faded stag reel from the silent era.

The hot parts of Kozlowski’s $2 million toga party in Sardinia — so risible they were edited out of the version shown to jurors at his fraud trial — **include a guest ‘‘mooning’’ the camera** and a life-size woman-shaped cake with sparklers protruding from her breasts. Low camp hasn’t had this high a budget since Bob Guccione made his movie of ‘‘Caligula.’’

But of course we want to see these videos anyway. *Their real pull has to do with capital, not carnality*. **Money remains the last guilty pleasure in America**. The obscenely rich engaging in conspicuous consumption or conspicuously idiotic behavior is the only excess that hasn’t lost its power to amuse, titillate and shock.

People watch Paris Hilton make a fool of herself because she’s an heir to the $300 million Hilton hotel fortune, not because her wares top the thousands of competitors in this country’s **overstocked erotic supermarket**. We watch Kozlowski’s bacchanal not because we want to see his parade of go-go boys in Speedos but because he has been charged with helping loot Tyco of more money than the Hiltons may possess.

It’s more fun to watch someone caught in the act of being rich than caught having sex. Could Kozlowski possibly top that $6,000 shower curtain, that $15,000 umbrella stand? His bash — a San Simeon reverie as it might have been juiced up by Siegfried and Roy — did exactly that.

Americans’ conflicted attitude about money runs deep. **There is nothing more American than piling up wealth, and yet nothing more un-American than showing it off**. ‘‘When you got it, flaunt it!’’ roars Max Bialystock in ‘‘The Producers.’’ But when you advertise your riches in America, you are setting yourself up as a clown.

MTV’s new reality show ‘‘Rich Girls’’ and Fox’s coming Paris Hilton series, ‘‘The Simple Life,’’ both bank on the premise that there’s a large audience that wants a bigger helping of what Kozlowski and Hilton have teased us with: **the unexpurgated spectacle of the filthy rich behaving like pigs**.

In keeping with the **general hypocrisy about the upper class**, these shows have already whipped up some moral outrage. In ‘‘Rich Girls,’’ Ally Hilfiger, daughter of Tommy, and a less attractive sidekick are shown doing ‘‘damage’’ in Prada and expressing their patronizing concern for plebeian New Yorkers, notably Prada salespeople and ‘‘garbage men.’’

In ‘‘The Simple Life,’’ which has its premiere on Dec. 2, Hilton and her own less attractive sidekick are airlifted from Beverly Hills to the Ozarks for a monthlong live-in with a farm family. The gags fly when they pluck chickens, drive a pick-up and tease locals who don’t know the term ‘‘threeway.’’

Coarse? Usually. Silly? Always. But the zeal with which all four rich girls throw themselves into their shows may be some kind of breakthrough — a step toward candor in America’s national nonconversation about wealth. They are not pretending to be what they’re not. They’ve got it, God knows, and no one’s going to stop them from flaunting it.

This guilt-free hedonism is a refreshing break from the norm in America’s post-bubble culture, where faux populism has become de rigueur among the wealthy in the public eye. **America is awash in ambitious rich people, from the political arena on down, who play up their humble roots and down-home habits, however few or fictional in reality, to sell products or themselves**.

This phenomenon was typified by Martha Stewart as she tried to salvage her image and business in an interview with Barbara Walters two weeks ago. The doyenne of East Hampton and, until last year, the New York Stock Exchange is now repositioning herself as a direct descendant of Ma Kettle, if not Ma Joad.

We were reminded that her maiden name is Polish and that she grew up without ‘‘a silver spoon in her mouth’’ in a ‘‘working-class town’’ (Nutley, New Jersey) where her household had six kids and one bathroom.

Soon came the tender tableau of the present-day Stewart rising at dawn to feed her chickens. Stewart seemed unaware that she was coming off as Marie Antoinette — a humorless contrast to Hilton, who on ‘‘The Simple Life’’ treats her similar encounters with livestock as a joke and knows that she’s the punch line.

When this kind of posturing comes from politicians vying for votes in an election year, it’s harder to laugh. The reigning bogus good ole boy in public life remains **the blue-blood president, an heir to large and aristocratic fortunes on both the Bush and Walker sides of his family**. Unlike his father, he is not about to be caught asking for ‘‘a splash more coffee.’’

On the eve of his visit to London this week, he hit a characteristically phony note when he told an interviewer, ‘‘I never dreamt when I was living in Midland, Texas, that I would be staying in Buckingham Palace.’’ George Bush, who was born in New Haven, Connecticut, lived in Midland until only the age of 15 before moving on to such hick venues as Andover, Yale and Harvard, when not vacationing in family compounds.

Rich Democrats vying to replace him are merely less effective purveyors of the same aw-shucks nonsense. John Kerry is a Boston Brahmin (mother was a Forbes) and a multi-millionaire in his own right before marrying a half-a-billionaire. Like the president, he’s a Yalie. But in his desperation to save a campaign whose poll numbers are floundering he has taken to shooting game and playing hockey with firemen in Iowa.

Howard Dean is more forthright about his Yale and Park Avenue pedigree — up to a point. On his Web site, his privileged upbringing goes unmentioned, and in the recent ‘‘Rock the Vote’’ debate on CNN he said he had gone to ‘‘a college in New Haven, Connecticut.’’ But in his own campaign manifesto, ‘‘Winning Back America,’’ he does own up to privilege before moving on to describe his youthful playground of East Hampton, Long Island, as a veritable Levittown with ‘‘people of every background living there throughout the year.’’

**The sheer dishonesty of these wealthy politicians** only increases my admiration for Jamie Johnson, the 24-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune whose justly praised documentary ‘‘Born Rich’’ has its final HBO showing Sunday night. Johnson did something no one had done before: He got his rich contemporaries, from families with names like Trump, Newhouse, Bloomberg, Vanderbilt and Whitney, **to let a camera into their closed world**, embarrassing excesses and all.

There has never been an inside look at the wealthy quite like it on screen. What drove him to do it? ‘‘Being afraid to talk about money in a wealth-driven society is a strange paradox,’’ Johnson said in an interview. ‘‘Why not face the realities of your culture honestly and fairly?’’

His movie casts America’s disingenuousness about wealth in a new light, but then again, so do Hilton’s misadventures in the Ozarks. **Are her exhibitionist efforts any less ridiculous than those of rich men purporting to be hayseeds while campaigning for president among the livestock in Iowa?** **At least Hilton doesn’t want to run the country — not yet, anyway**".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Saludos cordiales.
:)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-12-02 23:01:14 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Gracias a tí, Carme.
Ha merecido la pena leer el artículo y \"rodarlo\" con los demás compañeros.
:))
Selected response from:

xxxdawn39
Grading comment
Dawn, finalmente me quedo con tu propuesta, aunque es la misma que la de Cristina, pero creo que debo mi elección a tus generosas explicaciones. Gracias a ti y a todos/as.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer

Advertisement


Summary of answers provided
4 +3¡A rodar!
Maria Franco
3 +3¡y acción! o ¡acción!xxxjomasaov
5 +1¡que rulen!
Maria Belarra
5 +1hagamolos rodarJuan R. Migoya
4 +1¡Que los empapelen! / ¡Que los desplumen!xxxdawn39
3 +2vamos, y que empieza la fiesta !
Thierry LOTTE
4"Riqueza, hipocresía y videos. ¡A rodar!"xxxdawn39
2 +1A la palestra / lialos / la verdadxavi65


Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


9 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5 peer agreement (net): +1
A la palestra / lialos / la verdad


Explanation:
Creo que se trata de una expresion, como vamos a mostrar lo que hay en comun entre estos tres temas, o igual ''la pura verdad'', ''al estrado'', ''a juicio''
es lo que se me ocurre

xavi65
Spain
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 25

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  xxxdawn39: buena opción, sí: "a desenmascararlos". Buen día, Javi :)
3 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

10 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +1
roll \'em
hagamolos rodar


Explanation:
o "echémoslos abajo"

El libro de Fritz Leiber "Gonna Roll Them Bones" (1968) se tradujo como " "Hagamos Rodar los Huesos" .

Un saludo.

Juan R. Migoya
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Spanish
PRO pts in pair: 3757

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  xxxdawn39: "hagámoslos rodar":es una de las posibilidades que he visto, Juan, pero dudo si es en el sentido que tú le has dado de "echémoslos abajo" o "que se pongan ante la cámara". Buen día :)
3 hrs
  -> Si, yo también tengo dudas. Gracias!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

21 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +3
¡A rodar!


Explanation:
Creo que se refiere más al término usado en el medio de la cinematografía.

Maria Franco
Germany
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 68

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  agtranslat: y al dinero. See: http://www.elyrics4u.com/a/and_the_money_kept_rolling_in_and...
1 hr

agree  xxxdawn39: verás que mi traducción es la misma, pero puede tomarse en su doble sentido de "rodar una película" o "a rodar...por los suelos", es decir a acabar con ellos. Es donde dudo...Y también lo que apunta "agtranslat": el dinero. Buen día, Cristina :)
3 hrs
  -> También tengo la duda, buen día también!!

agree  Refugio: Roll the dice, roll the roles, roll the cameras.
7 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

22 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +2
roll \'em
vamos, y que empieza la fiesta !


Explanation:
"Roll'em ":

Roll them Pete ! :

haz rolar los dados (de juego):

en sentido figurado (coloquial) : Start do do it ! or "let us go..."

Thierry LOTTE
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in pair: 172

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Pilar T. Bayle: muy buena, Thierry
1 hr
  -> Gracias Pilar

agree  xxxdawn39: otra buena idea. La verdad que Carme no se puede quejar. Buen día :)
3 hrs
  -> Gracias dawn
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +3
roll \'em
¡y acción! o ¡acción!


Explanation:
Creo que se podría traducir simplemente por ¡acción! o ¡y acción!, remedando la orden del director de una película.

xxxjomasaov
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 1370

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  johnclaude
12 mins

agree  Pilar T. Bayle
38 mins

agree  xxxdawn39: buena opción si se refiere a rodar una peli. Buen día :)
2 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +1
¡que rulen!


Explanation:
Supongo que conocerás la expresión.. Nace del mundo de la droga (es la forma en la que alguien pide que le pasen un porro compartido) pero se ha generalizado en el lenguaje muy coloquial (como roll'em) para expresar que el deseo de algo bueno llegue a todos. Como "¡que haya para todos!". Creo que es lo más apropiado.

Suerte!

Maria Belarra
Spain
Local time: 11:53
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 209

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  xxxdawn39: pues otra buena opción ¡Buen día, María! :)
1 hr
  -> gracias! buen dia a ti también!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
"Riqueza, hipocresía y videos. ¡A rodar!"


Explanation:
Hola, Carme.

Un título más "directo" sería:

"Ricos, hipócritas y videos.¡A rodar!"
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
"Rodar" se puede tomar en su doble sentido:
1)¡A escena!(=¡filmadlos!/¡que salga todo a la luz!):
"...TO LET A CAMERA INTO THEIR CLOSED WORLD".

2)¡Por los suelos!(= ¡empujadlos!/
¡pasadlos por el rodillo!)
:(

Esa es mi duda, Carme, y por eso he dejado "rodar" para que cada uno le dé el sentido que quiera.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Encontré el artículo que "pego" aquí para justificar mi traducción y para que pueda ayudar a dar otras versiones a los compañeros, que han expresado su deseo de saber de qué va.

Así puede ver Valentín el enfoque que se le da a la riqueza:¡buena pregunta la suya! La respuesta está clara tras leerlo...

El resumen sería :
"BASURA EN VIDEOS Y EN LA POLÍTICA NORTEAMERICANA: TODO VALE SI DA DINERO. TODO VALE SI SON LOS RICOS LOS QUE LO HACEN".

Al menos esta es mi impresión tras leer el artículo, con cuyo contenido no me manifiesto ni a favor ni en contra.

Como la "tele-basura", vaya, el "morbo"
y todos esos temas tan "culturales" que tanto atraen a las masas y que dan tanto dinero a los aprovechados y caraduras de turno.
El articulista arremete contra la hipocresía de la clase alta norteamericana.
La conclusión del artículo, claramente en contra de la política de Bush:

"Are her exhibitionist efforts any less ridiculous than those of rich men purporting to be hayseeds while campaigning for president among the livestock in Iowa? At least Hilton doesn’t want to run the country — not yet, anyway".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Los puntos principales del artículo:

- DINERO:
"Their real pull has to do with capital, not carnality".
"Money remains the last guilty pleasure in America".
- HIPOCRESÍA:
"the general hypocrisy about the upper class".
- VIDEOS: Pornografía
"If it’s sex you’re looking for, America’s two most widely viewed porn videos of the year, starring Paris Hilton and L. Dennis Kozlowski, are nothing if not limp".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Pongo entre asteriscos los puntos que me parecen más importantes.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
"Frank Rich: Wealth, hypocrisy and videos! Roll ’em!
Frank Rich NYT

NEW YORK.
If it’s sex you’re looking for, America’s two most widely viewed porn videos of the year, starring Paris Hilton and L. Dennis Kozlowski, are nothing if not limp. Hilton’s unimaginative exhibition, still playing on an Internet site near you, is as darkly lighted as a faded stag reel from the silent era.

The hot parts of Kozlowski’s $2 million toga party in Sardinia — so risible they were edited out of the version shown to jurors at his fraud trial — **include a guest ‘‘mooning’’ the camera** and a life-size woman-shaped cake with sparklers protruding from her breasts. Low camp hasn’t had this high a budget since Bob Guccione made his movie of ‘‘Caligula.’’

But of course we want to see these videos anyway. *Their real pull has to do with capital, not carnality*. **Money remains the last guilty pleasure in America**. The obscenely rich engaging in conspicuous consumption or conspicuously idiotic behavior is the only excess that hasn’t lost its power to amuse, titillate and shock.

People watch Paris Hilton make a fool of herself because she’s an heir to the $300 million Hilton hotel fortune, not because her wares top the thousands of competitors in this country’s **overstocked erotic supermarket**. We watch Kozlowski’s bacchanal not because we want to see his parade of go-go boys in Speedos but because he has been charged with helping loot Tyco of more money than the Hiltons may possess.

It’s more fun to watch someone caught in the act of being rich than caught having sex. Could Kozlowski possibly top that $6,000 shower curtain, that $15,000 umbrella stand? His bash — a San Simeon reverie as it might have been juiced up by Siegfried and Roy — did exactly that.

Americans’ conflicted attitude about money runs deep. **There is nothing more American than piling up wealth, and yet nothing more un-American than showing it off**. ‘‘When you got it, flaunt it!’’ roars Max Bialystock in ‘‘The Producers.’’ But when you advertise your riches in America, you are setting yourself up as a clown.

MTV’s new reality show ‘‘Rich Girls’’ and Fox’s coming Paris Hilton series, ‘‘The Simple Life,’’ both bank on the premise that there’s a large audience that wants a bigger helping of what Kozlowski and Hilton have teased us with: **the unexpurgated spectacle of the filthy rich behaving like pigs**.

In keeping with the **general hypocrisy about the upper class**, these shows have already whipped up some moral outrage. In ‘‘Rich Girls,’’ Ally Hilfiger, daughter of Tommy, and a less attractive sidekick are shown doing ‘‘damage’’ in Prada and expressing their patronizing concern for plebeian New Yorkers, notably Prada salespeople and ‘‘garbage men.’’

In ‘‘The Simple Life,’’ which has its premiere on Dec. 2, Hilton and her own less attractive sidekick are airlifted from Beverly Hills to the Ozarks for a monthlong live-in with a farm family. The gags fly when they pluck chickens, drive a pick-up and tease locals who don’t know the term ‘‘threeway.’’

Coarse? Usually. Silly? Always. But the zeal with which all four rich girls throw themselves into their shows may be some kind of breakthrough — a step toward candor in America’s national nonconversation about wealth. They are not pretending to be what they’re not. They’ve got it, God knows, and no one’s going to stop them from flaunting it.

This guilt-free hedonism is a refreshing break from the norm in America’s post-bubble culture, where faux populism has become de rigueur among the wealthy in the public eye. **America is awash in ambitious rich people, from the political arena on down, who play up their humble roots and down-home habits, however few or fictional in reality, to sell products or themselves**.

This phenomenon was typified by Martha Stewart as she tried to salvage her image and business in an interview with Barbara Walters two weeks ago. The doyenne of East Hampton and, until last year, the New York Stock Exchange is now repositioning herself as a direct descendant of Ma Kettle, if not Ma Joad.

We were reminded that her maiden name is Polish and that she grew up without ‘‘a silver spoon in her mouth’’ in a ‘‘working-class town’’ (Nutley, New Jersey) where her household had six kids and one bathroom.

Soon came the tender tableau of the present-day Stewart rising at dawn to feed her chickens. Stewart seemed unaware that she was coming off as Marie Antoinette — a humorless contrast to Hilton, who on ‘‘The Simple Life’’ treats her similar encounters with livestock as a joke and knows that she’s the punch line.

When this kind of posturing comes from politicians vying for votes in an election year, it’s harder to laugh. The reigning bogus good ole boy in public life remains **the blue-blood president, an heir to large and aristocratic fortunes on both the Bush and Walker sides of his family**. Unlike his father, he is not about to be caught asking for ‘‘a splash more coffee.’’

On the eve of his visit to London this week, he hit a characteristically phony note when he told an interviewer, ‘‘I never dreamt when I was living in Midland, Texas, that I would be staying in Buckingham Palace.’’ George Bush, who was born in New Haven, Connecticut, lived in Midland until only the age of 15 before moving on to such hick venues as Andover, Yale and Harvard, when not vacationing in family compounds.

Rich Democrats vying to replace him are merely less effective purveyors of the same aw-shucks nonsense. John Kerry is a Boston Brahmin (mother was a Forbes) and a multi-millionaire in his own right before marrying a half-a-billionaire. Like the president, he’s a Yalie. But in his desperation to save a campaign whose poll numbers are floundering he has taken to shooting game and playing hockey with firemen in Iowa.

Howard Dean is more forthright about his Yale and Park Avenue pedigree — up to a point. On his Web site, his privileged upbringing goes unmentioned, and in the recent ‘‘Rock the Vote’’ debate on CNN he said he had gone to ‘‘a college in New Haven, Connecticut.’’ But in his own campaign manifesto, ‘‘Winning Back America,’’ he does own up to privilege before moving on to describe his youthful playground of East Hampton, Long Island, as a veritable Levittown with ‘‘people of every background living there throughout the year.’’

**The sheer dishonesty of these wealthy politicians** only increases my admiration for Jamie Johnson, the 24-year-old heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune whose justly praised documentary ‘‘Born Rich’’ has its final HBO showing Sunday night. Johnson did something no one had done before: He got his rich contemporaries, from families with names like Trump, Newhouse, Bloomberg, Vanderbilt and Whitney, **to let a camera into their closed world**, embarrassing excesses and all.

There has never been an inside look at the wealthy quite like it on screen. What drove him to do it? ‘‘Being afraid to talk about money in a wealth-driven society is a strange paradox,’’ Johnson said in an interview. ‘‘Why not face the realities of your culture honestly and fairly?’’

His movie casts America’s disingenuousness about wealth in a new light, but then again, so do Hilton’s misadventures in the Ozarks. **Are her exhibitionist efforts any less ridiculous than those of rich men purporting to be hayseeds while campaigning for president among the livestock in Iowa?** **At least Hilton doesn’t want to run the country — not yet, anyway**".
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Saludos cordiales.
:)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-12-02 23:01:14 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Gracias a tí, Carme.
Ha merecido la pena leer el artículo y \"rodarlo\" con los demás compañeros.
:))


    Reference: http://www.iht.com/articles/118322.htm
xxxdawn39
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 1846
Grading comment
Dawn, finalmente me quedo con tu propuesta, aunque es la misma que la de Cristina, pero creo que debo mi elección a tus generosas explicaciones. Gracias a ti y a todos/as.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

4 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
¡Que los empapelen! / ¡Que los desplumen!


Explanation:
Otras opciones muy coloquiales.
La primera, cuando ya se está muy harto de algo.

to roll = to envelop
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
La segunda, referente al dinero:

"to roll" en USA es "desplumar" (= to rob someone).


xxxdawn39
Native speaker of: Native in SpanishSpanish
PRO pts in pair: 1846

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Maria Belarra: tambien, "que los emplumen", no con el sentido de desplumar sino con el de empapelar. A los leones!!!
4 hrs
  -> jejeje, gracias, María: la cuestión es acabar con tanta basura. Seguro que a los leones les daba una indigestión o se morían de asco. Buen día :)))
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Return to KudoZ list


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also:



Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search