What happens when you meet a civilization that’s literally beyond your comprehension? The dumb-ass Contact answer to that is to have the alien look like your Dad. The much, much better Kubrick answer to that is to try to get the audience to feel how David Bowman must feel when he goes through the stargate.
madkevin I think you meant this.
The girl in Picnic at Hanging Rock “crawled into another dimension”, there was a sequel to the book that ruined/explained it.
Oh, that’s right - I remember hearing about that sequel in the thread we had about the movie. I’m going to pretend that sequel never happened, so my question still stands.
Also: No, really. Was that actually Eraserhead’s baby? He thinks it is, but he’s also sure he’s never had sex with his girlfriend.
I’m pretty sure that’s what I just said.
That is one excellent choice.
I don’t think anyone disputes that the modern day timeline is the kernel reality. But how the others fit isn’t answered. Oh, sure, Rachel Weisz writes a conquistador book, but are we seeing her concept of it, or Tommy’s, or something else? Because there are a lot of similarities and shared themes with the other two timelines that can’t be answered if we’re just seeing a story written longhand by a woman dying of cancer. What parts did Tommy add/redact? Is it entirely his conception of her story? I think so, but not because the movie tell me as much.
And who’s to say that Tommy doesn’t defeat death and launch himself towards a distant nebula? Is this what he wants to do? Is this something he moves beyond? Is it an evolving fantasy he has in real time along with the events of the movie? And if so, how does it relate to the story of the conquistador?
I have my own answers to these questions, but the point is that The Fountain poses these questions and doesn’t answer them. You get to do that. It’s not at all like the situation at the end of, say, Pan’s Labyrinth where we can clearly see what Guillermo del Toro is presenting. The relationship among the timelines in The Fountain is a fundamental part of the movie that the movie doesn’t resolve for you. That’s your job to handle as you see fit.
Then why all the misdirection? My recollection of Zodiac is that while it might have an opinion – also like the Paradise Lost documentaries – you don’t get a clear answer. But I’ll have to see it again. I just remember being profoundly frustrated in a mostly good way.
-Tom
Excellent!
But c’mon, nitpicking Gremlin rules? Dude. I’m never entrusting you with a gremlin, tribble, critter, or leprechaun.
-Tom
I hate that people still think this. The movie as shot makes it clear that Deckard is a replicant. It isn’t even a question! It’s a stated fact! Urk. Gah. Blurgle. Stupid Harrison Ford. Ugh.
-Tom
I really like Contact the novel, though I’m not a fan of the film. At any rate, the “aliens-assuming-familiar-and-safe-forms” bit works well in the book, since their goal is meaningful communication. It’s actually rather Christian: they descend to our level by embodying as humans and they do it for our benefit. Sagan’s book most reminds me of early Clarke or Asimov. It’s science-based, there’s very little action, and dialogue as opposed to visuals tells most of the story. However, you can’t have dialgoue with “a civilization that’s literally beyond your comprehension” unless said civilization makes the effort to meet you on your own level.
That’s the problem with film, I guess. What’s beyond comprehension never turns out looking quite right.
No, what you said was a question. Was Johnny G actually the guy? Once, yeah. Who was he? No idea.
It would be more clear if Gaff had said “By the way Deckard, you’re a replicant.” That Ridley decided not to club the audience over the head with it is why I chose it. I’m well aware of all the hints in the film that point to him being a replicant.
Which version “as shot”? Original theatrical? Non-director’s director’s cut? Director’s cut not-titled-as-director’s cut but “final cut”?
Proper Dickian paranoia is that the apparent answer should shift depending on the cut. There is no other answer.
Hints? They’re hints in the same way that the butler doing it at the end of a murder mystery is a hint! This isn’t an assumption or a hint or an unanswered question. Being subtle isn’t the same as being ambiguous and it certainly isn’t the same as being an unanswered question.
Anyway, I don’t mean to pick on you, but I consider this one of my “Han shot first” issues. :) It sounds like we agree, but you don’t share my righteous indignation over people who have watched Blade Runner the wrong way because of the stupid theatrical release. Not to mention Harrison Ford being all stoned out of his gourd and missing the point and having no compunction about mentioning this in interviews. Stupid actors.
-Tom
I hate to get all semantic on you, but all versions of Blade Runner were shot the same way. :)
The movie Ridley Scott shot has no ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant. The theatrical release muted the point so that it’s arguably an unanswered question. But Ridley Scott’s intended cut, and the one eventually released as a director’s cut, clearly answered the question.
-Tom
That may have been the way you were referring to it, but I put “as shot” in quotes to make it clear I was referring to the more broadly applicable “as presented” (cut). So, your semantics go down in flames!
:-)
The movie Ridley Scott shot has no ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant. The theatrical release muted the point so that it’s arguably an unanswered question. But Ridley Scott’s intended cut, and the one eventually released as a director’s cut, clearly answered the question.
-Tom
I agree - but at the same time, I also agree with Ford on the original theatrical version. But then again, I only recommend one version of the movie as the definitive and proper version, and that’s the Final Cut.
Still, I think Dick would be happier if the answer was left as ambiguous.
Wait a minute, you trumped my point by changing the meaning of the word “shot”? That’s some pretty impressive rhetoric, sir!
But, yeah, it’s a bit unfair for me to whinge about Blade Runner given that no one has officially abolished the theatrical release yet. I’ve been furiously writing letters to Diane Feinstein to get her to sponsor a bill to that effect. So far, she hasn’t gotten back to me.
-Tom
This is a silly thread, but:
What was in the box in Pulp Fiction?
I thought it was a light bulb.
I didn’t change to word so much as broadened the discussion to bring greater clarity. Since you didn’t specify which cut you were referring to, “as shot” was meaningless. Which is why I keep placing the phrase in quotes.
But yeah, impressive rhetoric indeed. ;-)
But, yeah, it’s a bit unfair for me to whinge about Blade Runner given that no one has officially abolished the theatrical release yet. I’ve been furiously writing letters to Diane Feinstein to get her to sponsor a bill to that effect. So far, she hasn’t gotten back to me.
-Tom
Try Barbara Boxer. She sometimes actually reads her email (and responds!).
A yellow light bulb.
Though I suppose you meant in that in a less literal fashion…
It’s not at all meaningless. My point is that the creative intent of Blade Runner when it went into and through production was that Deckard was a replicant. That’s how the movie was shot. Hence my statement.
“Shooting” is a very specific part of the creative process of making a movie. “Editing” is another very specific part. I’ll give you three guesses where the ambiguity was introduced.
-Tom