Continuing with the Neutrals:
1. The slight alternate ending. In the book, the state restores Alex to his former self in some sort of reverse-conditioning process. In the movie, nobody tells Alex that they reversed his conditioning. He just wakes up from his suicide jump to find that he is miraculously back to normal. Alex does tell the resident psychologist that he had some dreams about doctors working in his brain, but the nurse quickly dismisses them as unimportant dreams. I like this choice because it gives some kind of eerie quality to Alex’s recovery, as if the state were still controlling him. I don’t like this choice because in the book, Alex’s recovery means that he is a capable of choice again. The movie takes away this existential factor by making it seem like the state is still manipulating Alex long after his recovery.
2. The slight alternate ending, Part II. Alex doesn’t ever “grow up”. Remember how Alex’s taste in music and ambitions in life change after he leaves the hosptital? He makes the free choice to mature and leave the ultraviolence to the new wave of youth. The movie never makes it this far and instead cuts the story as the paparazzi is snapping photos of Alex and his good buddy the Minister. I like this alternate ending because it leaves Alex’s future up to the viewer’s imagination. I don’t like this alternate ending because again, it shirks some of the existential elements of the book. Alex’s growing up is an expression of his free choice to reform himself and is used to contrast the state’s forced attempts of reform. The movie ending implies that the state still reigns over Alex by gently coercing him into a political friendship with the Minister.
3. Actually, thinking about it now, I think these alternate ending points do touch upon some existentialist concepts- mainly that one of intersubjectivity.
Finishing with the Negatives:
1. THERE IS NO MENTION OF “A CLOCKWORK ORANGE” IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE. If you hadn’t read the novel, you would have absolutely NO CLUE why it is actually called A Clockwork Orange. The part where Alex reads a bit of the manuscript on the author’s desk before he rips it up? Gone. The part where Alex screams “Am I just to be a clockwork orange?” to the scientists? Gone as well. These lines were important to include because A) they are the title of the movie and B) becoming “a clockwork orange” shows how Alex is robbed of his free will during his reformation and becomes a mechanistic “good Christian”.
2. Missing out on the inner thoughts. We miss Alex’s take on things when his thoughts can’t be said aloud. For example, we miss Alex’s opinion on what a good government is (one that allows its citizens to choose to act wrongly or rightly). Sometimes Alex’s thoughts are the greatest bits the novel has to offer. The movie does have some voice-over parts for when Alex refers to himself as “your narrator”, so why not include some of his more important thoughts?
3. The great line and motif of the novel “What’s it going to be then, eh?” is only mentioned ONCE in the entire movie. The Chaplain says it at the beginning of one sermon and even in this instance the full implications of the line are not realized. The line is one of the most important existentialist elements of the book because it indicates choice. In the book, different characters pose the question to Alex and in each instance, Alex’s capability to answer changes.
4. When Alex attacks the cat lady, he isn’t distracted by the bust of Beethoven and he doesn’t slip on the milk saucer. He actually just goes nuts and impales the poor lady with a sculpture of a giant penis. While it is a highly entertaining and surprisingly artistic scene, it glosses over two of the most important subtle details of the book. The bust of Beethoven fits in with the theme of Alex’s love for music and his fall on the milk saucer is an homage to the drugged milk drinks Alex enjoys. See the clip (you know you HAVE to see the sculpture now) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M74lTNyHb8f
5. The great scene where the Chaplain tries to absolve himself of moral responsibility for Alex’s treatment is cut. His monologue was so great in the book because it had such a clear link to existentialist philosophy. Pretty much, the Chaplain allows Alex to be “rehabilitated” out of fear of losing his job. He avoids taking responsibility for this action by making it seem like he had no choice, when in fact, he knows he did. Existentialism holds every man responsible for his own actions and allows us to judge someone based on their actions.
6. The missing parallels between Alex and Jesus Christ. In the movie, Alex compares himself to Christ’s torturer as he carries the cross on his back, but he never compares himself to Christ. In the book, Alex directly compares himself to Christ when he is betrayed by his droogs and in front of his mother. Although I personally disagree with the Alex/Christ parallel (mainly because Alex is not a willing sacrifice), I thought the parallel did add another layer to the story.
7. Alex just screams when he jumps out of the window. In the novel version, Alex screams as he is jumping, “Goodbye, goodbye, may Bog forgive you for a ruined life” (pg 188). I thought this line was particularly powerful because it places the burden of Alex’s suicide upon the society that forced its conception of a “good citizen” on Alex, in effect changing his very identity. The line raises an important existentialist question: is Alex correct in placing blame? On the one hand, it is true that the state stripped away Alex’s identity and replaced it, but on the other hand, it is ultimately Alex that decides to take his own life (unsuccessfully). I believe the existentialist would offer the following answer: it is not worth living without the ability to choose. Alex’s autonomy was robbed and to the existentialist, this means his humanity was robbed as well. By skipping out on this line, the movie again sacrifices some existentialism.
Whew! Now, I realize this was quite a long entry, but you have to admit it is very interesting to compare the visual/auditory and literary tellings of A Clockwork Orange. You might ask, if I have so many negative points, why do I still give the movie a positive rating? Well, I think my negative points were extremely nitpicky and specific compared to the positives. Also, the movie has to appeal to more than the avid reader or existentialist (I think we can admit we are far and few between these days). The movie did have to skimp out on some philosophical analysis in favor of action and good storytelling, but it didn’t compromise too much.
So overall, the movie is a fantastic interpretation of the existentialist novel. I highly recommend it.
The End!!
As faithful an existentialist as ever,
~Alexa Semonche~
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
A Clockwork Orange (The movie) (Part II)
Since the philosophy fanatic in me enjoyed the book so much, I decided to check out the movie version. Usually, I’m very apprehensive about the Hollywood version of books (as demonstrated by the recent and rather brutal slaughter of Nicholas Spark’s The Last Song), but in this case, the prominence of classical music and the importance of visual violence in the book lead me to believe that seeing it would give me some deeper insight into Alex’s world.
It was actually quite stunning, o my brothers. I don’t think I so much as blinked during the 133 minutes that film ran. If you don’t trust me (and why should you? Make your own judgments!), just look at RottenTomatoes.com, one of the most reliable movie-rating websites on the internet. It gave Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange a 90% positive rating, a rating that is very rarely give to films (for comparison, The Last Song received a 17% positive rating) . Overall, I have to agree with the 90% positive rating. To make my own review of A Clockwork Orange as organized as possible, I’ve divided my critique into lists of Positive, Neutral, and Negative comments (because as we all know by now, my mind has the tendency to jump in 20 different directions at once and it loves to duke it out with my type A personality).
Starting with the Positives (and they say existentialists are pessimists!):
1. The movie was UNBELIEVABLY faithful to the book (compared to most movies based off of books- I’ll reserve talk about the exceptions for the negative comments section). There were at least fifteen different points at which I could open the novel version and match the movie script word for word. Obviously then, the movie is also very consistent in terms of plot. The movie’s loyalty to the book made it amazing since it translated, rather than reformed, the book into its visual and auditory media format.
2. The soundtrack to the movie makes the dialogue of the movie far superior to its literary equivalent (at least when the words are consistent). The movie uses a combination of classical music and perverted classical music (i.e. what Beethoven’s 9th Symphony would sound like at a cheap carnival) to give greater significance to what is actually going on. There was one scene in particular that I felt just couldn’t be beat by its counterpart in the book. It was in the beginning, when Alex and his droogs are beating up Billyboy and his droogs. The opening blows are accompanied by some childish, perverted take on a great classical work, but as the injuries become more severe, the music becomes frantic, serious, and even chilling. It gives some gravity to Alex’s crimes, especially when Alex needs to stop his droogs from going too far. Music is just as much of a focal point of the movie as it is in the book. I feel that in the movie, though, hearing the music impacts our emotions much more than reading about the music does. (Listen to how music enhances the fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zRtT5jPLA)
3. The NADSAT learning curve is accelerated by a factor of about 100. Hearing NADSAT rather than reading it makes it easier to adjust to because you can hear that all the subtleties in Alex’s speech (tone, inflection, attitude) are the same as they would be in plain old dignified English.
4. The movie’s attention to detail. Stanley Kubrick (the director) is an absolute perfectionist when it comes to creating Alex’s world and I love it. From the clothes to the buildings to the graffiti on murals, the details make Alex’s world much more believable.
5. The mixing of art, violence, and sexual pleasure in that one scene where Alex climaxes at the climax of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. In the book, Alex (ahem) pleasures himself to fantasies of ultraviolence and music. In the movie, the camera flashes between Alex, clips of violence, and interestingly enough, figurines of Christ with blood drawn on Him. All of this combined with the climactic soundtrack of Beethoven’s 9th makes the scene much more powerful, and we can understand for a moment why Alex can equate the aesthetic pleasures of art and violence.
6. Alex’s pet snake. It is awesome. I can’t figure out why exactly the movie staff decided to give Alex a pet snake, but I couldn’t agree more with the choice. When Alex returns home from prison and his parents tell him that A) they can’t house him anymore and B) our slithery friend Basil had an “unfortunate accident” and now lives in that great forest in the sky. My heart broke a little bit at the latter revelation. (Note: Later, I did a quick Google search and discovered that the reason why the movie gives Alex a pet snake is because the actor who plays Alex, Malcolm McDowell, is afraid of reptiles.)
To be continued...
Your faithful existentialist,
~Alexa Semonche~
It was actually quite stunning, o my brothers. I don’t think I so much as blinked during the 133 minutes that film ran. If you don’t trust me (and why should you? Make your own judgments!), just look at RottenTomatoes.com, one of the most reliable movie-rating websites on the internet. It gave Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange a 90% positive rating, a rating that is very rarely give to films (for comparison, The Last Song received a 17% positive rating) . Overall, I have to agree with the 90% positive rating. To make my own review of A Clockwork Orange as organized as possible, I’ve divided my critique into lists of Positive, Neutral, and Negative comments (because as we all know by now, my mind has the tendency to jump in 20 different directions at once and it loves to duke it out with my type A personality).
Starting with the Positives (and they say existentialists are pessimists!):
1. The movie was UNBELIEVABLY faithful to the book (compared to most movies based off of books- I’ll reserve talk about the exceptions for the negative comments section). There were at least fifteen different points at which I could open the novel version and match the movie script word for word. Obviously then, the movie is also very consistent in terms of plot. The movie’s loyalty to the book made it amazing since it translated, rather than reformed, the book into its visual and auditory media format.
2. The soundtrack to the movie makes the dialogue of the movie far superior to its literary equivalent (at least when the words are consistent). The movie uses a combination of classical music and perverted classical music (i.e. what Beethoven’s 9th Symphony would sound like at a cheap carnival) to give greater significance to what is actually going on. There was one scene in particular that I felt just couldn’t be beat by its counterpart in the book. It was in the beginning, when Alex and his droogs are beating up Billyboy and his droogs. The opening blows are accompanied by some childish, perverted take on a great classical work, but as the injuries become more severe, the music becomes frantic, serious, and even chilling. It gives some gravity to Alex’s crimes, especially when Alex needs to stop his droogs from going too far. Music is just as much of a focal point of the movie as it is in the book. I feel that in the movie, though, hearing the music impacts our emotions much more than reading about the music does. (Listen to how music enhances the fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zRtT5jPLA)
3. The NADSAT learning curve is accelerated by a factor of about 100. Hearing NADSAT rather than reading it makes it easier to adjust to because you can hear that all the subtleties in Alex’s speech (tone, inflection, attitude) are the same as they would be in plain old dignified English.
4. The movie’s attention to detail. Stanley Kubrick (the director) is an absolute perfectionist when it comes to creating Alex’s world and I love it. From the clothes to the buildings to the graffiti on murals, the details make Alex’s world much more believable.
5. The mixing of art, violence, and sexual pleasure in that one scene where Alex climaxes at the climax of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. In the book, Alex (ahem) pleasures himself to fantasies of ultraviolence and music. In the movie, the camera flashes between Alex, clips of violence, and interestingly enough, figurines of Christ with blood drawn on Him. All of this combined with the climactic soundtrack of Beethoven’s 9th makes the scene much more powerful, and we can understand for a moment why Alex can equate the aesthetic pleasures of art and violence.
6. Alex’s pet snake. It is awesome. I can’t figure out why exactly the movie staff decided to give Alex a pet snake, but I couldn’t agree more with the choice. When Alex returns home from prison and his parents tell him that A) they can’t house him anymore and B) our slithery friend Basil had an “unfortunate accident” and now lives in that great forest in the sky. My heart broke a little bit at the latter revelation. (Note: Later, I did a quick Google search and discovered that the reason why the movie gives Alex a pet snake is because the actor who plays Alex, Malcolm McDowell, is afraid of reptiles.)
To be continued...
Your faithful existentialist,
~Alexa Semonche~
Reviewing A Clockwork Orange (the Movie) (Part I)
In this uber-long blog entry, I’ll be discussing A Clockwork Orange- the movie. The book came first, though, so I’ll start there. I’m sure most of us have read the book by now, but I’ll go over the story anyway. A Clockwork Orange tells the story of Alex, an unrepentant criminal teen that is subjected to an experimental rehabilitation program designed to “cure” his criminal tendencies. Already we can see that we have a lot of existentialist concepts to discuss.
First, we have the concept of identity. As Sartre puts it, “the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders” (Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism). In other words, man is responsible for shaping his own identity through his own actions. This concept is very important because existentialists consider it to be THE defining attribute of humanity. Alex is clearly an expert in this from the very start. His acts of ultraviolence against the innocent shape him as a criminal. Alex is very satisfied with this identity. When the state arrests Alex and attempts to “reform” him, they start making Alex’s life choices for him. They replace his name with a number and condition his body to reject violence (with classical music becoming a casualty). As the Chaplain explains, when Alex’s choices are no longer his own, he “ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice” (pg 141). If Alex cannot choose to be good freely, then the state has indeed robbed him of what makes him human. This reasoning also shows why the state’s conditioning has to fail. The state hasn’t “reformed” Alex; it has just reduced Alex to something inhuman, something that cannot be considered “good” or “bad” because it cannot choose between the two.
The state isn’t the only agent that wants to manipulate Alex. Once Alex is released from prison, he is unable to defend himself against the violence he once loved. He drags himself to the doorstep of a political activist, the writer whose wife he murdered years ago. The political activist/writer at first seems to want to help Alex, but when Alex’s grudge against the state isn’t as strong as he would like it to be, he provokes Alex until he attempts suicide. After that, the state again tries to manipulate Alex into granting forgiveness, which Alex does. Therefore, nobody actually wants to help Alex, they just want to manipulate him. We can think of this manipulation as an imposition of one person’s free will upon another’s. Consulting our good friend Sartre again, we know that the imposition of wills upon other wills means that “the intimate discovery of myself is at the same time the revelation of the other as a freedom which confronts mine, and which cannot think or will without doing so either for or against me. Thus, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let us say, that of “inter-subjectivity” (Sartre).
The book ends with Alex a free agent again as the state de-“reforms” him. Alex actually makes the free choice to mature, become an adult, and perhaps raise a family. Once again, existentialism tells us that this time, Alex is exercising his human right to exercise free will.
To be continued....
Existentialism rocks,
~Alexa Semonche~
First, we have the concept of identity. As Sartre puts it, “the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders” (Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism). In other words, man is responsible for shaping his own identity through his own actions. This concept is very important because existentialists consider it to be THE defining attribute of humanity. Alex is clearly an expert in this from the very start. His acts of ultraviolence against the innocent shape him as a criminal. Alex is very satisfied with this identity. When the state arrests Alex and attempts to “reform” him, they start making Alex’s life choices for him. They replace his name with a number and condition his body to reject violence (with classical music becoming a casualty). As the Chaplain explains, when Alex’s choices are no longer his own, he “ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice” (pg 141). If Alex cannot choose to be good freely, then the state has indeed robbed him of what makes him human. This reasoning also shows why the state’s conditioning has to fail. The state hasn’t “reformed” Alex; it has just reduced Alex to something inhuman, something that cannot be considered “good” or “bad” because it cannot choose between the two.
The state isn’t the only agent that wants to manipulate Alex. Once Alex is released from prison, he is unable to defend himself against the violence he once loved. He drags himself to the doorstep of a political activist, the writer whose wife he murdered years ago. The political activist/writer at first seems to want to help Alex, but when Alex’s grudge against the state isn’t as strong as he would like it to be, he provokes Alex until he attempts suicide. After that, the state again tries to manipulate Alex into granting forgiveness, which Alex does. Therefore, nobody actually wants to help Alex, they just want to manipulate him. We can think of this manipulation as an imposition of one person’s free will upon another’s. Consulting our good friend Sartre again, we know that the imposition of wills upon other wills means that “the intimate discovery of myself is at the same time the revelation of the other as a freedom which confronts mine, and which cannot think or will without doing so either for or against me. Thus, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let us say, that of “inter-subjectivity” (Sartre).
The book ends with Alex a free agent again as the state de-“reforms” him. Alex actually makes the free choice to mature, become an adult, and perhaps raise a family. Once again, existentialism tells us that this time, Alex is exercising his human right to exercise free will.
To be continued....
Existentialism rocks,
~Alexa Semonche~
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
What is it that made this movie a hit? Why is it in the top 10 existentialist movie count down on Sentient Developments? It could be the book, which inspired the movie in the beginning or it could be the overwhelming issue of choice. This issue of choice is so overwhelming in the movie that it essentially defines the lives of those in the film. But aside from choice, the character’s development as people creates an atmosphere for the film as well.
I will start by delving into the character’s personalities and their development as people in the movie. First, we have Billy Bibbit, a shy stuttering young man, who remains there by choice. At the end of the movie, Nurse Ratched catches him in a small room alone and naked with a woman, Candy, after seeing the entire hospital destroyed by ruthless partying. Nurse Ratched, fully aware of Billy’s unconfident nature, ridicules and embarrasses him in front of all of the other patients. After discussing how his mom will feel when she finds out about what has occurred and convincing him that it was his decision to go into that room with her, Billy Bibbit makes a decision; he commits suicide. By letting the Nurse’s remarks get to him, Billy allows Nurse Ratched to shape who he is as a person. Unlike all of the other patients, who by this point have gained some confidence, Billy falls into Nurse Ratched’s trap and allows her to manipulate him into thinking he has done something wrong. This scene not only shows the character of Billy but also of Nurse Ratched. She speaks to Billy in a demeaning manner, knowing that he will not take it well at all. Nurse Ratched continuously manipulates the patients throughout the film. Making it seem as though they have no choice at all, when in reality she doesn’t really control them. Also, R.P. McMurphy’s presence in the hospital helps to develop many of the character’s personalities. After he tries to lift the sink and fails, he says, “But I tried, didn’t I? God dam nit, at least I did that”. By showing the men that the least the can do is try, he changes the atmosphere in the hospital. That line allows the men to think about what they have done in the hospital compared to what McMurphy has done. They decide to become more confident and try, just as he asked them to do. As they being to do this, they realize that they can accomplish so much more with a little bit of effort. This is where the real change begins in the hospital.
The second and probably most prominent issue in this film is choice. We see the characters make choices over and over again throughout the movie. The simplest choice made is to remain in the hospital. We learn during a therapy session that almost all of the patients are voluntary. Despite the way for which they are cared, they decide to remain in the hospital, allowing themselves to be pushed around and mistreated daily. Chief Bromden is faced with many choices during the film. First, he makes the conscious decision not to speak in the hospital. This is a choice that defines who he is as a character. Later on, Chief decides to kill McMurphy. He realizes that McMurphy will now live a miserable life in a vegetative state and feels as though he is doing McMurphy a favor by ending his life. This choice definitely shows a side of Chief that we do not often see. He appears confident in his decision, believing that he has done the right thing for McMurphy. Lastly, his decision to escape the hospital demonstrates how his character has developed as well as a logical choice he has made. This action once again shows how he has become confident and not allowed Nurse Ratched or any of the supervisors to scare him into being one type of person. He can act as an individual and make his own choices. He shows that he is able to do this a lot at the end of the book. Next, R.P. McMurphy is forced to make many choices throughout the film. He seems to be faced with more choice than any other character, although he probably brings it upon himself. The choices he makes may seem simple at first, such as his choice to not take the medicine, or his choice to be there in the first place. But, if we consider all of his choices a little more, how could they be easy choices? Since he is there at all, he can and should clearly go along with the rest of the patients and obey the order by taking his medicine and not causing any ruckus. But, instead he rebels from the nurse’s orders and acts however he wants to act. He then decides to take all of the men fishing for the day, and invite Candy and Sandy to the hospital for the night. These decisions clearly go against hospital rules, but McMurphy follows through with his plan anyway. He makes a clear and conscious choice to create these events, understand the positives but also knowing the consequences should he be caught. These actions shape not only who he is as a person but also how the rest of the patients behave under his lead. At the end of the film, McMurphy is presented with the perfect opportunity to escape the hospital, but after realizing that somebody is hurt, he forgoes the chance to escape and hang out with the two prostitutes in order to make sure everything is all right. This moment really shows his true character. While he loves the party life and women, he truly is a good, kind-hearted person and has grown to really love these men in the hospital. Therefore, he wants to stay and make sure that everything is okay there. Unfortunately, they find Billy Bibbit dead after having committed suicide, an extremely hapless choice of his.
The myriad of choices with which the characters were faced, brought flavor to the film and kept the audience interested throughout. Also, following the characters through their development allowed us to better understand some of the choices of the characters and see how they changed throughout the film.
I will start by delving into the character’s personalities and their development as people in the movie. First, we have Billy Bibbit, a shy stuttering young man, who remains there by choice. At the end of the movie, Nurse Ratched catches him in a small room alone and naked with a woman, Candy, after seeing the entire hospital destroyed by ruthless partying. Nurse Ratched, fully aware of Billy’s unconfident nature, ridicules and embarrasses him in front of all of the other patients. After discussing how his mom will feel when she finds out about what has occurred and convincing him that it was his decision to go into that room with her, Billy Bibbit makes a decision; he commits suicide. By letting the Nurse’s remarks get to him, Billy allows Nurse Ratched to shape who he is as a person. Unlike all of the other patients, who by this point have gained some confidence, Billy falls into Nurse Ratched’s trap and allows her to manipulate him into thinking he has done something wrong. This scene not only shows the character of Billy but also of Nurse Ratched. She speaks to Billy in a demeaning manner, knowing that he will not take it well at all. Nurse Ratched continuously manipulates the patients throughout the film. Making it seem as though they have no choice at all, when in reality she doesn’t really control them. Also, R.P. McMurphy’s presence in the hospital helps to develop many of the character’s personalities. After he tries to lift the sink and fails, he says, “But I tried, didn’t I? God dam nit, at least I did that”. By showing the men that the least the can do is try, he changes the atmosphere in the hospital. That line allows the men to think about what they have done in the hospital compared to what McMurphy has done. They decide to become more confident and try, just as he asked them to do. As they being to do this, they realize that they can accomplish so much more with a little bit of effort. This is where the real change begins in the hospital.
The second and probably most prominent issue in this film is choice. We see the characters make choices over and over again throughout the movie. The simplest choice made is to remain in the hospital. We learn during a therapy session that almost all of the patients are voluntary. Despite the way for which they are cared, they decide to remain in the hospital, allowing themselves to be pushed around and mistreated daily. Chief Bromden is faced with many choices during the film. First, he makes the conscious decision not to speak in the hospital. This is a choice that defines who he is as a character. Later on, Chief decides to kill McMurphy. He realizes that McMurphy will now live a miserable life in a vegetative state and feels as though he is doing McMurphy a favor by ending his life. This choice definitely shows a side of Chief that we do not often see. He appears confident in his decision, believing that he has done the right thing for McMurphy. Lastly, his decision to escape the hospital demonstrates how his character has developed as well as a logical choice he has made. This action once again shows how he has become confident and not allowed Nurse Ratched or any of the supervisors to scare him into being one type of person. He can act as an individual and make his own choices. He shows that he is able to do this a lot at the end of the book. Next, R.P. McMurphy is forced to make many choices throughout the film. He seems to be faced with more choice than any other character, although he probably brings it upon himself. The choices he makes may seem simple at first, such as his choice to not take the medicine, or his choice to be there in the first place. But, if we consider all of his choices a little more, how could they be easy choices? Since he is there at all, he can and should clearly go along with the rest of the patients and obey the order by taking his medicine and not causing any ruckus. But, instead he rebels from the nurse’s orders and acts however he wants to act. He then decides to take all of the men fishing for the day, and invite Candy and Sandy to the hospital for the night. These decisions clearly go against hospital rules, but McMurphy follows through with his plan anyway. He makes a clear and conscious choice to create these events, understand the positives but also knowing the consequences should he be caught. These actions shape not only who he is as a person but also how the rest of the patients behave under his lead. At the end of the film, McMurphy is presented with the perfect opportunity to escape the hospital, but after realizing that somebody is hurt, he forgoes the chance to escape and hang out with the two prostitutes in order to make sure everything is all right. This moment really shows his true character. While he loves the party life and women, he truly is a good, kind-hearted person and has grown to really love these men in the hospital. Therefore, he wants to stay and make sure that everything is okay there. Unfortunately, they find Billy Bibbit dead after having committed suicide, an extremely hapless choice of his.
The myriad of choices with which the characters were faced, brought flavor to the film and kept the audience interested throughout. Also, following the characters through their development allowed us to better understand some of the choices of the characters and see how they changed throughout the film.
" I'm going to give you the choice I never had"
Existentialism in Interview with a Vampire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGkBMe3j-Sk
The film adaptation of Anne Rice’s novel Interview with a Vampire highlights an awareness of a existential nature. Director and co-writer of the 1994 horror fiction film, Neil Jordan, was able to visually display the existentialist values in the movie. While finally fitting the characters with the actors, Neil Jordan brilliantly casted his 1994 release with Tom Cruise as Lestat, Brad Pitt as Louis, Antonio Banderas as Armand, Christian Slater as the interviewer, and a young Kirsten Dunst as the child vampire, Claudia. Throughout this movie, there are five existentialist elements that float about the scenes that are very common among many existentialist thinkers. These elements are the real bullet points in order to truly identify whether a film encompasses existential values or not. The first on the list of criterion of an existentialist film is if the film focuses on Sartre supreme belief that “existence takes precedence over essence”, meaning that existence equals emerging or becoming and essence refers to something that is fixed and can’t be change. The second is that “existentialism opposes the split between subject and object”, meaning that people are mostly subjective and objective and can’t be completely sure about the veracity of their lives unless they actually live an active and genuine existence. The third is to ask what the meaning of life is by asking the important questions. The fourth is that all existentialist hold themselves accountable for how they live their respective lives and who they become because of it. Lastly, existentialist are anti-hypothetical. These components are what make or break a true existentialist movie and Interview with a Vampire expresses each point fully.
Before getting into the several displays of the existentialism in Interview with a Vampire, I believe a brief yet in depth synopsis is needed. Interview with a Vampire starts with an interviewer who is trying to get an exclusive with a modern day vampire named Louis. Louis starts all the way back in 1797, when he was a young indigo plantation owner living south of New Orleans, Louisiana. At that time of his life, he was stressed with the pains that life had given him and wanted to commit suicide. It is not until his suicide attempt fails when he is approached by a vampire named Lestat, who wishes to have a companion. Although Louis continued to plead for death, he secretly wanted the exciting proposition of the new way of life Lestat explained. Thus Lestat turned him into a vampire, a process in which you “die” first, and then regain a new life that includes powers and restrictions. After he was turned, Lestat fed off of local slaves on the plantation, while Louis choses to feed off of animal blood. Louis could not continue his “vegetarian” diet so he chose to submit to Lestat and starts to feed on humans. At this time, Louis started to understand his vampirism but was repulsed by Lestat’s lack of empathy and sympathy towards the humans he feds on. Lestat and Louis left New Orleans, swearing not to prey on the slaves in the plantation in exchange for them keeping their secret. Because of Louis’ disgust of Lestat’s thirst, he contemplated leaving Lestat. With this knowledge, Lestat turned a young girl who he named Claudia and made her their vampire “daughter”, so that Louis would be forced to stay. He is outraged that Lestat turned such a young girl but loved her as if she was his own daughter. Claudia had no problem with taking a life like Lestat, but grew to loath him because she learned that she could not grow and mature. This meant that although she gained intelligence and had a mind of a grown woman, she was trapped in a six year old girl’s body. As punishment of living for 60 years in her body, Claudia poisoned and slit the throat of Lestat, dumping his body in a swamp. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80q7aQqNZzQ) They fled to Europe and finally found vampires of their kind in Paris, especially a 400 year old vampire named Armand. He suspected that they killed their maker but never discussed it with them. A principal rule between vampires was that death would come to those who kill their makers. One night, Claudia, Louis, and Madeleine, the newest vampire turned by Louis (serve as a mother to Claudia, wife to Louis, and replacement of Lestat) were abducted because the truth had come out. Claudia and Madeleine were killed by the rising sun. Louis was pained by their deaths so he burned the Theatre, where all the vampires resided and left with Armand for Europe. When he became tired of the “Old World” he returned to the 20th century America, fed on anyone he saw, hid in the shadows, and never made another companion for himself due to the fact they he never got over Claudia’s death. Louis ended his story saying that he ran into Lestat in New Orleans but does not go any farther. After 200 years, Louis dwelled on how horrible it is to be a vampire. Sadly, the interviewer only saw the power and the “hype” of being one and begged to be turned into one. Louis became frustrated that his interviewer learned nothing, declines, and attacks him, leaving in the shadows. On his drive home, as the interviewer listened to the Louis story on his tape recorder, Lestat came back and made him his new companion.
So what is existential about this movie? Plenty. In the Sixth Edition of the textbook, Theories of Personality, it outlines five basic benchmarks of being a true existentialist. The first was made famous by one of the fathers of existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre. His theory was that existence takes precedence over essence, “existence suggest process; essence refers to a product. Existence is associated with growth and change; essence signifies stagnation and finality” (344). Going back to the movie, there was a time that Louis did exist, but his existence was as a human. His actuality rests solely in the normal situations that a person goes through, which were defined by his need to work, having a wife and a family to love and support, and making money to support himself and others who were a part of it. As a human, with this sense of existence, his essence was not out of the ordinary. Louis’ essence was earning for his family and essentially living to die, a fact that all human beings share. But his existence and essence drastically change when he made the decision to cross over and become a vampire. As a vampire, his existence changed and instead of a staying human, he became the undead. Louis’ existence was only during the night and his powers delineated him. As for his essence, it made a turn for the worse. Instead of living for himself and waiting for his death like normal humans do, Louis made the choice that his essence is to take life, thirst for blood, and live forever. The rudimentary purpose of seeing my example of existence precedes essence is that Louis existed but when he became a vampire, he started a different kind of essence, the essence of eternal living.
The second condition of being an existentialist is “existentialism opposes the split between subject and objects… people are both subjective and objective and must search for truth by living active and authentic lives” (344). This is where the other main character, the vampire, Lestat, comes in. In the beginning, Lestat is painted as the utterly seductive vampire whose main concern was to feast on human blood and lead a wonderful life although, in all actuality, vampires are considered condemned souls. He chose, willingly might I add, to live this lifestyle but along the way, after years of living alone, he yearned for a “partner in crime”, male or female was not disclosed. Lestat wanted a companion and so he became subjective and objective when he chose to save Louis’ life. Lestat’s character supported the claim of being subjective because his choice of turning Louis was based partly on emotion. Louis was unhappy in his life and felt alone, a feeling that Lestat, himself, felt in recent year. In order to fulfill his want of having a companion, Lestat persuaded Louis to become a vampire by glamorizing the powers he has. Similarly, Lestat displays an objective and strategic point of view because of gender. Louis is a handsome, male suitor who would make an excellent hunter. In Lestat’s eyes, there would absolutely be no problem preying on his favorite kind of victims, woman, with a man like Louis by his side. So collectively, Louis suits Lestat by giving him a companion and increasing the attraction of their prey.
The third principle of an existentialist is that “people search for some meaning to their lives. They ask the important questions concerning their beings; Who am I? Is life worth living? Does it have a meaning?” (344). All of these questions were answered through interpretation in the movie. Louis answered “Who am I?” throughout the movie. The answer; Louis was a depressed plantation owner who forgot what life really meant, considering the viewer learns that his wife died and his brother committed suicide, leaving him with nothing. And so, he took the opportunity of a lifetime and after he was turned, he learned what regret and despair really feel like. As for Lestat, he is quiet content with the fact that he is a born killer and that his soul will always be condemned. For the question “Is life worth living”, the answer; once upon a time, Louis thought life was worth living, but when he was the only living person left in his family, his opinion changed. Now, although he has everlasting life, he finds no worth at all in living as a vampire. Contrary to this belief, Lestat believes that instead of unending life being a curse, he has settled with the thought of it as a gift and takes advantage of what he has. Lastly, “Does it have meaning?” I don’t think Louis understood at first what the meaning of life was, but now that he has had plenty of time to mull it over, he wishes for a quiet and peaceful death.
The fourth criterion of being existentialist is “existentialists hold that ultimately each of us is responsible for who we are and what we become” (344). In this movie, everyone had a choice that lead to the rest of their life. Firstly, Louis made the choice to become a vampire, against his better judgment. He knew that a vampire has a denounced soul yet he still took the bait and made the choice to choose. In class, we said that a person asked for advice from a person they know will side with them. Louis gave into a vampire, an enticing vampire at that. He knew that if he asked Lestat to describe life and what he should do, Lestat’s reply would be pro-vampirism. This choice led to his regret and bitterness of his choice. Secondly, Claudia, the young vampire daughter of Lestat and Louis, chose to kill her maker. She knew that it was against vampire law to do so yet she allowed her anger to get the best of her. Her murder of Lestat resulted in her death by the rising Sun. Similarly, against popular belief, Lestat turned a very young girl into a vampire, bearing in mind that she would never physically grow but mentally blossom. His choice to do so led to his murder by his darling daughter.
Lastly, the fifth idea of being existentialist is that “existentialists are basically ant theoretical” (344). In Louis quest to find himself, he finds one of the strongest elements of existentialism, which is that “authentic experience takes precedence over artificial explanation” (344). In other words, you have to experience things for yourself instead of taking someone else’s word for it. Sadly, Louis had to learn this lesson the hard way. Instead of thinking for himself, Louis chose to listen to the man who had a hand in the torment he endured in his life. Because of his irrational decision, he had to continue his life in regret, sorrow, and darkness.
It was quite an experience to watch Interview with a Vampire, and connect the existentialist values that were presented in it. In the movie, Louis was conflicted because he wanted to die but gave into Lestat’s temptation of being a vampire, in which he did die but ended up living forever. Existentialism affirms that your essence is the power to redefine yourself through the choices you make and Louis regrets his choice. People search for some meaning in their lives and Louis ended up searching for his meaning for becoming a vampire. In the end, he did not come to a conclusion but he is quite certain of what has happened to make his life so unsatisfying. At the end of the movie, the interviewer was so keen on the idea of being a vampire that he completely ignored the tale that was told. He had the audacity to ask to be changed, again, another display of irrational thinking. When attacked by Lestat in the car, the interviewer was lured with the same remark that he said to Louis in the beginning of the movie, “I’m going to give you the choice I never had”. Yet again, Lestat longed for a another companion and thus the cycle began again.
Work Cite
May, Rollo. “May: Existential Psychology.” Theories of Personality. By Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist. 6th ed. New York, New York: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc, 2006. 343-44. Print.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGkBMe3j-Sk
The film adaptation of Anne Rice’s novel Interview with a Vampire highlights an awareness of a existential nature. Director and co-writer of the 1994 horror fiction film, Neil Jordan, was able to visually display the existentialist values in the movie. While finally fitting the characters with the actors, Neil Jordan brilliantly casted his 1994 release with Tom Cruise as Lestat, Brad Pitt as Louis, Antonio Banderas as Armand, Christian Slater as the interviewer, and a young Kirsten Dunst as the child vampire, Claudia. Throughout this movie, there are five existentialist elements that float about the scenes that are very common among many existentialist thinkers. These elements are the real bullet points in order to truly identify whether a film encompasses existential values or not. The first on the list of criterion of an existentialist film is if the film focuses on Sartre supreme belief that “existence takes precedence over essence”, meaning that existence equals emerging or becoming and essence refers to something that is fixed and can’t be change. The second is that “existentialism opposes the split between subject and object”, meaning that people are mostly subjective and objective and can’t be completely sure about the veracity of their lives unless they actually live an active and genuine existence. The third is to ask what the meaning of life is by asking the important questions. The fourth is that all existentialist hold themselves accountable for how they live their respective lives and who they become because of it. Lastly, existentialist are anti-hypothetical. These components are what make or break a true existentialist movie and Interview with a Vampire expresses each point fully.
Before getting into the several displays of the existentialism in Interview with a Vampire, I believe a brief yet in depth synopsis is needed. Interview with a Vampire starts with an interviewer who is trying to get an exclusive with a modern day vampire named Louis. Louis starts all the way back in 1797, when he was a young indigo plantation owner living south of New Orleans, Louisiana. At that time of his life, he was stressed with the pains that life had given him and wanted to commit suicide. It is not until his suicide attempt fails when he is approached by a vampire named Lestat, who wishes to have a companion. Although Louis continued to plead for death, he secretly wanted the exciting proposition of the new way of life Lestat explained. Thus Lestat turned him into a vampire, a process in which you “die” first, and then regain a new life that includes powers and restrictions. After he was turned, Lestat fed off of local slaves on the plantation, while Louis choses to feed off of animal blood. Louis could not continue his “vegetarian” diet so he chose to submit to Lestat and starts to feed on humans. At this time, Louis started to understand his vampirism but was repulsed by Lestat’s lack of empathy and sympathy towards the humans he feds on. Lestat and Louis left New Orleans, swearing not to prey on the slaves in the plantation in exchange for them keeping their secret. Because of Louis’ disgust of Lestat’s thirst, he contemplated leaving Lestat. With this knowledge, Lestat turned a young girl who he named Claudia and made her their vampire “daughter”, so that Louis would be forced to stay. He is outraged that Lestat turned such a young girl but loved her as if she was his own daughter. Claudia had no problem with taking a life like Lestat, but grew to loath him because she learned that she could not grow and mature. This meant that although she gained intelligence and had a mind of a grown woman, she was trapped in a six year old girl’s body. As punishment of living for 60 years in her body, Claudia poisoned and slit the throat of Lestat, dumping his body in a swamp. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80q7aQqNZzQ) They fled to Europe and finally found vampires of their kind in Paris, especially a 400 year old vampire named Armand. He suspected that they killed their maker but never discussed it with them. A principal rule between vampires was that death would come to those who kill their makers. One night, Claudia, Louis, and Madeleine, the newest vampire turned by Louis (serve as a mother to Claudia, wife to Louis, and replacement of Lestat) were abducted because the truth had come out. Claudia and Madeleine were killed by the rising sun. Louis was pained by their deaths so he burned the Theatre, where all the vampires resided and left with Armand for Europe. When he became tired of the “Old World” he returned to the 20th century America, fed on anyone he saw, hid in the shadows, and never made another companion for himself due to the fact they he never got over Claudia’s death. Louis ended his story saying that he ran into Lestat in New Orleans but does not go any farther. After 200 years, Louis dwelled on how horrible it is to be a vampire. Sadly, the interviewer only saw the power and the “hype” of being one and begged to be turned into one. Louis became frustrated that his interviewer learned nothing, declines, and attacks him, leaving in the shadows. On his drive home, as the interviewer listened to the Louis story on his tape recorder, Lestat came back and made him his new companion.
So what is existential about this movie? Plenty. In the Sixth Edition of the textbook, Theories of Personality, it outlines five basic benchmarks of being a true existentialist. The first was made famous by one of the fathers of existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre. His theory was that existence takes precedence over essence, “existence suggest process; essence refers to a product. Existence is associated with growth and change; essence signifies stagnation and finality” (344). Going back to the movie, there was a time that Louis did exist, but his existence was as a human. His actuality rests solely in the normal situations that a person goes through, which were defined by his need to work, having a wife and a family to love and support, and making money to support himself and others who were a part of it. As a human, with this sense of existence, his essence was not out of the ordinary. Louis’ essence was earning for his family and essentially living to die, a fact that all human beings share. But his existence and essence drastically change when he made the decision to cross over and become a vampire. As a vampire, his existence changed and instead of a staying human, he became the undead. Louis’ existence was only during the night and his powers delineated him. As for his essence, it made a turn for the worse. Instead of living for himself and waiting for his death like normal humans do, Louis made the choice that his essence is to take life, thirst for blood, and live forever. The rudimentary purpose of seeing my example of existence precedes essence is that Louis existed but when he became a vampire, he started a different kind of essence, the essence of eternal living.
The second condition of being an existentialist is “existentialism opposes the split between subject and objects… people are both subjective and objective and must search for truth by living active and authentic lives” (344). This is where the other main character, the vampire, Lestat, comes in. In the beginning, Lestat is painted as the utterly seductive vampire whose main concern was to feast on human blood and lead a wonderful life although, in all actuality, vampires are considered condemned souls. He chose, willingly might I add, to live this lifestyle but along the way, after years of living alone, he yearned for a “partner in crime”, male or female was not disclosed. Lestat wanted a companion and so he became subjective and objective when he chose to save Louis’ life. Lestat’s character supported the claim of being subjective because his choice of turning Louis was based partly on emotion. Louis was unhappy in his life and felt alone, a feeling that Lestat, himself, felt in recent year. In order to fulfill his want of having a companion, Lestat persuaded Louis to become a vampire by glamorizing the powers he has. Similarly, Lestat displays an objective and strategic point of view because of gender. Louis is a handsome, male suitor who would make an excellent hunter. In Lestat’s eyes, there would absolutely be no problem preying on his favorite kind of victims, woman, with a man like Louis by his side. So collectively, Louis suits Lestat by giving him a companion and increasing the attraction of their prey.
The third principle of an existentialist is that “people search for some meaning to their lives. They ask the important questions concerning their beings; Who am I? Is life worth living? Does it have a meaning?” (344). All of these questions were answered through interpretation in the movie. Louis answered “Who am I?” throughout the movie. The answer; Louis was a depressed plantation owner who forgot what life really meant, considering the viewer learns that his wife died and his brother committed suicide, leaving him with nothing. And so, he took the opportunity of a lifetime and after he was turned, he learned what regret and despair really feel like. As for Lestat, he is quiet content with the fact that he is a born killer and that his soul will always be condemned. For the question “Is life worth living”, the answer; once upon a time, Louis thought life was worth living, but when he was the only living person left in his family, his opinion changed. Now, although he has everlasting life, he finds no worth at all in living as a vampire. Contrary to this belief, Lestat believes that instead of unending life being a curse, he has settled with the thought of it as a gift and takes advantage of what he has. Lastly, “Does it have meaning?” I don’t think Louis understood at first what the meaning of life was, but now that he has had plenty of time to mull it over, he wishes for a quiet and peaceful death.
The fourth criterion of being existentialist is “existentialists hold that ultimately each of us is responsible for who we are and what we become” (344). In this movie, everyone had a choice that lead to the rest of their life. Firstly, Louis made the choice to become a vampire, against his better judgment. He knew that a vampire has a denounced soul yet he still took the bait and made the choice to choose. In class, we said that a person asked for advice from a person they know will side with them. Louis gave into a vampire, an enticing vampire at that. He knew that if he asked Lestat to describe life and what he should do, Lestat’s reply would be pro-vampirism. This choice led to his regret and bitterness of his choice. Secondly, Claudia, the young vampire daughter of Lestat and Louis, chose to kill her maker. She knew that it was against vampire law to do so yet she allowed her anger to get the best of her. Her murder of Lestat resulted in her death by the rising Sun. Similarly, against popular belief, Lestat turned a very young girl into a vampire, bearing in mind that she would never physically grow but mentally blossom. His choice to do so led to his murder by his darling daughter.
Lastly, the fifth idea of being existentialist is that “existentialists are basically ant theoretical” (344). In Louis quest to find himself, he finds one of the strongest elements of existentialism, which is that “authentic experience takes precedence over artificial explanation” (344). In other words, you have to experience things for yourself instead of taking someone else’s word for it. Sadly, Louis had to learn this lesson the hard way. Instead of thinking for himself, Louis chose to listen to the man who had a hand in the torment he endured in his life. Because of his irrational decision, he had to continue his life in regret, sorrow, and darkness.
It was quite an experience to watch Interview with a Vampire, and connect the existentialist values that were presented in it. In the movie, Louis was conflicted because he wanted to die but gave into Lestat’s temptation of being a vampire, in which he did die but ended up living forever. Existentialism affirms that your essence is the power to redefine yourself through the choices you make and Louis regrets his choice. People search for some meaning in their lives and Louis ended up searching for his meaning for becoming a vampire. In the end, he did not come to a conclusion but he is quite certain of what has happened to make his life so unsatisfying. At the end of the movie, the interviewer was so keen on the idea of being a vampire that he completely ignored the tale that was told. He had the audacity to ask to be changed, again, another display of irrational thinking. When attacked by Lestat in the car, the interviewer was lured with the same remark that he said to Louis in the beginning of the movie, “I’m going to give you the choice I never had”. Yet again, Lestat longed for a another companion and thus the cycle began again.
Work Cite
May, Rollo. “May: Existential Psychology.” Theories of Personality. By Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist. 6th ed. New York, New York: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc, 2006. 343-44. Print.
Existentialism Overlooked in 25th Hour
The 2002 film "25th Hour" by Spike Lee developed from the novel "The 25th Hour" by David Benioff takes a modern spin on the age old question; what would you do if today was your last day? The protagonist of the film is Monty Brogan (Norton) once a hotshot 20 something year old heroin dealer who was convicted of possession with intent to sell and due to the Rockefeller drug laws is going to Otisville Penitentiary for seven years tomorrow. Monty has to settle several loose ends before he leaves in the morning, attempting to find out who sold him out to the DEA, spending time with his girlfriend Naturelle Riviera (Rosario Dawson) who may have sold him out, have one last meal at his father's (Brian Cox) Staten Island bar, and hang out with his two boyhood friends Frank Slaughtery (Barry Pepper) a renegade bond trader and Jacob Elinsky (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) a high school English teacher at the private school they all attended.
This film is not widely recognized as an existentialist film amongst the film community as observed in the reviews. This film is recognized as either a crime drama or a drama and is most well known for being the first film set in New York after 9/11 and due to that New York becomes a character in the film. I feel that this film can be viewed as an existentialist film because it is about the consequences of choices that we make, our responsibilities as friends, and how the choices of one day can shape the rest of ones life.
Existentialism flows through this film from beginning to the (perceived) end and with all the characters. Through the major scenes to quirky flashbacks about how comfortable Monty's life was. Monty was a hotshot heroin dealer working for the Russian mob, he lived in a swanky New York City apartment with his girlfriend Naturelle and his dog Doyle, had a bodyguard Kostya (played by NFL Great Tony Siragusa) and drove an American muscle car. Monty became accustomed to the lifestyle and didn't think about his choices, it wasn't even about money to Monty it was about "sway". "Sway" and money are related but not the same, "sway" to Monty essentially was having a key to the city without any key at all, he had friends all over people feared and respected him. He could get anything he wanted. That wasn't to bad for a skinny Irish kid from Brooklyn with a dead mom and a retired firefighter for a dad.
Monty has a flashback about when he was caught by the DEA at his apartment. The flashback begins with Monty and Naturelle in the bathtub discussing children and their future. Monty notices Naturelle has a Puerto Rican flag tattooed on her lower leg and asks her why she did it. He tells her that she was born in New York and has only been to Puerto Rico twice on vacation and that she's not Puerto Rican just because her parents are from there. That is a very Satrian concept as seen in "No Exit" about classifying yourself as something in which you've never done and grouping yourself with others.
Monty has to settle old scores before he goes off to prison, one of the most important is when Monty goes back to his father's Staten Island bar for his last father and son meal. His father takes the time to apologize to Monty for not being a good enough father and telling Monty of all the choices Monty had and what he could have done instead, doctor or a lawyer. Monty responds to his father in a manner similar to the relationship of Alex and his parents in " A Clockwork Orange". Monty tells his dad that when "Sal" (a bookie) was putting pressure on his his dad for unsettled gambling debts his dad didn't complain about Monty providing him the money and didn't ask where it came from. Monty points out that if he was in medical or law school he couldn't have helped his dad like he did which allowed his dad to keep his bar. Monty's dad blames himself for being a drunk and a gambler during Monty's childhood. Monty's dad sees his choices as the choices that put Monty into this situation. Monty excuses himself from the table and goes into the bathroom and sees the words "F**K You" scribbled onto the mirror and Monty goes off onto a rant about every race, culture, religion, person, family, friends etc. in New York (in a scene similar to the racial rant scene in "Do the Right Thing") . At the end of the rant Monty gives a big "F you" to himself, saying he had it all and he threw it all away, which is the true root of his anger and frustration. Monty realizes he had it all everything about New York he had, and now he is cast out so he tells all of New York to go "F themselves".
It isn't just Monty who displays existentialist qualities his two best friends Jake and Frank also, with Frank being the existentialist who exposes the fictitious lifestyles they've been living. Jake meets Frank at Franks high rise apartment before the night out at the club for Monty's going away party. Frank and Jake sit on a windowsill that overlooks Ground Zero, Frank says that he's not gonna move even if Osama Bin Laden drops a bomb next door. Frank has a Wall Street arrogance to him as seen here: . Frank and Jake discuss Monty's future, Jake is an idealist while Frank is a realist. Frank speaks of Monty's three options: Monty runs and they never see him again, Monty "catches the bullet train and the casket is closed", and lastly Monty goes to Prison and they will never see him again. Jake says that Monty will go to prison and they will see him again in seven years. Frank tells him that Monty will never be the same due to the realities of prison and they will never see Monty again. Frank and Jake then go to dinner at a Chinese restaurant where Frank tells Jake about his theory. Frank has a theory about the bachelors in New York and tells Jake he is in the 62nd percentile while Frank the inventor of the rating is in the 99th. Frank says it is because of money and insults Jake. Jake gets annoyed and tells Frank about reality, Frank acts like a child he eats fried rice with his hands, Jake tells him that once Frank leaves his office where he is a maverick but is successful he doesn't know how to behave in the real world. Frank replies by exposing Jake, Jake is a wealthy Jewish kid from the Upper East Side who became a high school teacher because he is ashamed of being a trust fund kid and tells him that it is knee jerk liberalism. Jake never choose to be a trust fund baby so therefore he isn't, he choose to be a struggling English teacher. Jake is struggling not only financially but mentally. Jake is about to do the taboo for teachers. He has feelings for a student Mary (Anna Paquin) who is seen in the beginning and she meets them at the club and Monty is able to sneak her into the backdoor. There is an awkward feeling the whole night between Jake and Mary, Mary is drunk and on ecstasy and she flirts with Jake attempting to have him bump up a grade. Jake knows that his feelings are wrong and he asked Frank about it previously and Frank told him it was wrong. Jake succumbs to his feelings and makes a choice to go to the bathroom with Mary where he kisses her only to realize that she didn't have the same feelings Mary stands in the bathroom stunned and Jake exits embarrassed. Similar to the relationship of "No Exit" Jake wanted to have Mary make him feel like a man which didn't happen and only left him embarrassed.
Frank and Naturelle have a heated conversation at the club's bar about responsibilities as friends. Frank tells Naturelle that they are all responsible for Monty's demise by not telling him to get out or saying what he was doing was wrong. He accuses Naturelle of using Monty just for his money which came through the misery of other people.
An interesting scene in the film is when we find out who sold Monty out to the DEA. Throughout the movie the main suspect was Naturelle but we see in a private room in the club basement the Russian mobsters reveal to Monty that it was Monty's bodyguard Kostya who sold him out. Kostya was a two strike offender and sold Monty out for freedom. The Russian mobsters have a moral code and have existentialist like qualities. The Russians attack Kostya and are about to kill him they say that Kostya didn't act like a man but rather squealed. He didn't take responsibility for his actions.
In the most climatic scene Monty, Frank, and Jake exit the club and it is early morning and they leave the club and they are in a park. Monty asks Frank a huge favor. "Make me Ugly". Monty needs Frank to beat him up so badly he will look deformed because he knows pretty boys like himself cannot survive in prison and will most likely be raped in prison. Frank resists at first but Monty pushes Frank into doing it, challenging Frank and his manhood and their friendship accusing Frank of crossing the line sexually with Naturelle. Frank makes the difficult choice but as a friend he didn't what Monty needed him to do.
The final scene of the film is Monty's father driving Monty to Otisville. Monty's father says: "give me the word and I'll make a left and go west". This proposition is very existentialist, it is about making the choice to create a new life. Monty's father tells Monty what to do and to leave New York and his friends and family behind: . It's hard to tell which choice Monty makes in the final scene but if you pay close attention to the signs and the location of the GW bridge the choice is revealed. No matter the decision Monty will be no more.
This film is not widely recognized as an existentialist film amongst the film community as observed in the reviews. This film is recognized as either a crime drama or a drama and is most well known for being the first film set in New York after 9/11 and due to that New York becomes a character in the film. I feel that this film can be viewed as an existentialist film because it is about the consequences of choices that we make, our responsibilities as friends, and how the choices of one day can shape the rest of ones life.
Existentialism flows through this film from beginning to the (perceived) end and with all the characters. Through the major scenes to quirky flashbacks about how comfortable Monty's life was. Monty was a hotshot heroin dealer working for the Russian mob, he lived in a swanky New York City apartment with his girlfriend Naturelle and his dog Doyle, had a bodyguard Kostya (played by NFL Great Tony Siragusa) and drove an American muscle car. Monty became accustomed to the lifestyle and didn't think about his choices, it wasn't even about money to Monty it was about "sway". "Sway" and money are related but not the same, "sway" to Monty essentially was having a key to the city without any key at all, he had friends all over people feared and respected him. He could get anything he wanted. That wasn't to bad for a skinny Irish kid from Brooklyn with a dead mom and a retired firefighter for a dad.
Monty has a flashback about when he was caught by the DEA at his apartment. The flashback begins with Monty and Naturelle in the bathtub discussing children and their future. Monty notices Naturelle has a Puerto Rican flag tattooed on her lower leg and asks her why she did it. He tells her that she was born in New York and has only been to Puerto Rico twice on vacation and that she's not Puerto Rican just because her parents are from there. That is a very Satrian concept as seen in "No Exit" about classifying yourself as something in which you've never done and grouping yourself with others.
Monty has to settle old scores before he goes off to prison, one of the most important is when Monty goes back to his father's Staten Island bar for his last father and son meal. His father takes the time to apologize to Monty for not being a good enough father and telling Monty of all the choices Monty had and what he could have done instead, doctor or a lawyer. Monty responds to his father in a manner similar to the relationship of Alex and his parents in " A Clockwork Orange". Monty tells his dad that when "Sal" (a bookie) was putting pressure on his his dad for unsettled gambling debts his dad didn't complain about Monty providing him the money and didn't ask where it came from. Monty points out that if he was in medical or law school he couldn't have helped his dad like he did which allowed his dad to keep his bar. Monty's dad blames himself for being a drunk and a gambler during Monty's childhood. Monty's dad sees his choices as the choices that put Monty into this situation. Monty excuses himself from the table and goes into the bathroom and sees the words "F**K You" scribbled onto the mirror and Monty goes off onto a rant about every race, culture, religion, person, family, friends etc. in New York (in a scene similar to the racial rant scene in "Do the Right Thing") . At the end of the rant Monty gives a big "F you" to himself, saying he had it all and he threw it all away, which is the true root of his anger and frustration. Monty realizes he had it all everything about New York he had, and now he is cast out so he tells all of New York to go "F themselves".
It isn't just Monty who displays existentialist qualities his two best friends Jake and Frank also, with Frank being the existentialist who exposes the fictitious lifestyles they've been living. Jake meets Frank at Franks high rise apartment before the night out at the club for Monty's going away party. Frank and Jake sit on a windowsill that overlooks Ground Zero, Frank says that he's not gonna move even if Osama Bin Laden drops a bomb next door. Frank has a Wall Street arrogance to him as seen here: . Frank and Jake discuss Monty's future, Jake is an idealist while Frank is a realist. Frank speaks of Monty's three options: Monty runs and they never see him again, Monty "catches the bullet train and the casket is closed", and lastly Monty goes to Prison and they will never see him again. Jake says that Monty will go to prison and they will see him again in seven years. Frank tells him that Monty will never be the same due to the realities of prison and they will never see Monty again. Frank and Jake then go to dinner at a Chinese restaurant where Frank tells Jake about his theory. Frank has a theory about the bachelors in New York and tells Jake he is in the 62nd percentile while Frank the inventor of the rating is in the 99th. Frank says it is because of money and insults Jake. Jake gets annoyed and tells Frank about reality, Frank acts like a child he eats fried rice with his hands, Jake tells him that once Frank leaves his office where he is a maverick but is successful he doesn't know how to behave in the real world. Frank replies by exposing Jake, Jake is a wealthy Jewish kid from the Upper East Side who became a high school teacher because he is ashamed of being a trust fund kid and tells him that it is knee jerk liberalism. Jake never choose to be a trust fund baby so therefore he isn't, he choose to be a struggling English teacher. Jake is struggling not only financially but mentally. Jake is about to do the taboo for teachers. He has feelings for a student Mary (Anna Paquin) who is seen in the beginning and she meets them at the club and Monty is able to sneak her into the backdoor. There is an awkward feeling the whole night between Jake and Mary, Mary is drunk and on ecstasy and she flirts with Jake attempting to have him bump up a grade. Jake knows that his feelings are wrong and he asked Frank about it previously and Frank told him it was wrong. Jake succumbs to his feelings and makes a choice to go to the bathroom with Mary where he kisses her only to realize that she didn't have the same feelings Mary stands in the bathroom stunned and Jake exits embarrassed. Similar to the relationship of "No Exit" Jake wanted to have Mary make him feel like a man which didn't happen and only left him embarrassed.
Frank and Naturelle have a heated conversation at the club's bar about responsibilities as friends. Frank tells Naturelle that they are all responsible for Monty's demise by not telling him to get out or saying what he was doing was wrong. He accuses Naturelle of using Monty just for his money which came through the misery of other people.
An interesting scene in the film is when we find out who sold Monty out to the DEA. Throughout the movie the main suspect was Naturelle but we see in a private room in the club basement the Russian mobsters reveal to Monty that it was Monty's bodyguard Kostya who sold him out. Kostya was a two strike offender and sold Monty out for freedom. The Russian mobsters have a moral code and have existentialist like qualities. The Russians attack Kostya and are about to kill him they say that Kostya didn't act like a man but rather squealed. He didn't take responsibility for his actions.
In the most climatic scene Monty, Frank, and Jake exit the club and it is early morning and they leave the club and they are in a park. Monty asks Frank a huge favor. "Make me Ugly". Monty needs Frank to beat him up so badly he will look deformed because he knows pretty boys like himself cannot survive in prison and will most likely be raped in prison. Frank resists at first but Monty pushes Frank into doing it, challenging Frank and his manhood and their friendship accusing Frank of crossing the line sexually with Naturelle. Frank makes the difficult choice but as a friend he didn't what Monty needed him to do.
The final scene of the film is Monty's father driving Monty to Otisville. Monty's father says: "give me the word and I'll make a left and go west". This proposition is very existentialist, it is about making the choice to create a new life. Monty's father tells Monty what to do and to leave New York and his friends and family behind: . It's hard to tell which choice Monty makes in the final scene but if you pay close attention to the signs and the location of the GW bridge the choice is revealed. No matter the decision Monty will be no more.
Monday, April 26, 2010
From Work to Survival: Cast Away
Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is a work-o-holic manager for fed ex. He spends his career traveling the globe preaching to fed-ex employees the importance of time and diligence. Chuck’s home life revolves around his girlfriend Kelly (Helen Hunt), who he is madly in love with. Chuck receives word he must leave his home in Memphis for a business trip during the winter holidays. While traveling, chuck and the crew undergo a horrible crash. Chuck is the only one to survive. For four years, Chuck endures time on an island with no contact to the world. Finally, his attempt to make it home prevails. He returns to find out that his beloved Kelly is married with children.
In exploring Cast Away’s existentialist qualities, I look chiefly at Chuck Noland. Early in the movie, Chuck is depicted as a work first and family second type of man. He devotes the majority of his time and energy to his work. Chuck’s job might not be something he necessarily has love for, but he makes it the driving force behind his decisions. This leaves us with Chuck’s first life altering decision. He chooses to leave Kelly and their time over the Christmas Holiday so he can make an extra over-seas work trip. Chuck thinks he establishes a sense of individuality at the time and makes the choice that HE thinks is right. Given his priorities, his actions define him and correlate to the passion he has for his job.
Chuck Noland makes another life defining choice after his time in seclusion from the real world. Before Chuck experiences the crash, he lets his job make the choices for him. He lives life objectively and agrees to whatever his job asks of him. After the plane crash, every single day becomes a blessing to Chuck and his choices become more important to him. He realizes that if he wants to live a fulfilling life, he will have to make choices for himself and for his love, rather than for his company or other people in his life. Near the end of the movie, Chuck decides to visit Kelly. As he is about to leave, Kelly comes running from the house and they both confess their love for one another. Chuck wants nothing more than to be with Kelly for the rest of his life, but he chooses to let her go. Although he loves her dearly, his life has much changed since four years ago. He has a new plan for himself now, and as much as Kelly was a part of his old life, Chuck must leave his past behind so he can start a new life. When Chuck returns the locket to Kelly, it symbolizes their parting and Chuck’s moving on. Ultimately, Chuck realizes he must create his own path by finding a sense of individuality through the things he loves.
Watch from 2:04:00 to 2:09:00
http://www.watch-movies.net.in/play_new.php?si=571141&s=1&tra_st=0&u=aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dy5tZWdhdmlkZW8uY29tJTJGdiUyRlVENVFVSU1PNzVjMTI0MDMxMzJkNDRjYzY4ODE3ZGM0M2UxNDliNTA=&host=megavideo&mi=Cast-Away-2000&n=Q2FzdCBBd2F5ICgyMDAwKQ==
-Matthew Dumoff
In exploring Cast Away’s existentialist qualities, I look chiefly at Chuck Noland. Early in the movie, Chuck is depicted as a work first and family second type of man. He devotes the majority of his time and energy to his work. Chuck’s job might not be something he necessarily has love for, but he makes it the driving force behind his decisions. This leaves us with Chuck’s first life altering decision. He chooses to leave Kelly and their time over the Christmas Holiday so he can make an extra over-seas work trip. Chuck thinks he establishes a sense of individuality at the time and makes the choice that HE thinks is right. Given his priorities, his actions define him and correlate to the passion he has for his job.
Chuck Noland makes another life defining choice after his time in seclusion from the real world. Before Chuck experiences the crash, he lets his job make the choices for him. He lives life objectively and agrees to whatever his job asks of him. After the plane crash, every single day becomes a blessing to Chuck and his choices become more important to him. He realizes that if he wants to live a fulfilling life, he will have to make choices for himself and for his love, rather than for his company or other people in his life. Near the end of the movie, Chuck decides to visit Kelly. As he is about to leave, Kelly comes running from the house and they both confess their love for one another. Chuck wants nothing more than to be with Kelly for the rest of his life, but he chooses to let her go. Although he loves her dearly, his life has much changed since four years ago. He has a new plan for himself now, and as much as Kelly was a part of his old life, Chuck must leave his past behind so he can start a new life. When Chuck returns the locket to Kelly, it symbolizes their parting and Chuck’s moving on. Ultimately, Chuck realizes he must create his own path by finding a sense of individuality through the things he loves.
Watch from 2:04:00 to 2:09:00
http://www.watch-movies.net.in/play_new.php?si=571141&s=1&tra_st=0&u=aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dy5tZWdhdmlkZW8uY29tJTJGdiUyRlVENVFVSU1PNzVjMTI0MDMxMzJkNDRjYzY4ODE3ZGM0M2UxNDliNTA=&host=megavideo&mi=Cast-Away-2000&n=Q2FzdCBBd2F5ICgyMDAwKQ==
-Matthew Dumoff
Andrew Largeman in the Garden 'of Eden' State
The choice to pursue life, rather than letting it slip away, while you sit back, watching the marvels of existence take their course, is the choice of a true existentialist.
Andrew Largeman(Zach Braff), makes this choice in the movie Garden State, when he decides to leave his life in L.A. behind, and pursue the love of his life. Largeman is a confused, depressed, and apathetic actor in L.A. He lives in a drab apartment, and ever since he can remember has been on heavy doses of anxiety medication, prescribed by his psychiatrist, who conveniently happens to be his own father. Largeman is afraid of life, and afraid of what might happen if he didn’t have the drugs to blind his emotions.
In laymen terms, Largeman is extremely screwed up. He returns to his hometown upon hearing of his mother’s death, yet he lacks the ability to even shed a single tear at the funeral. There, he reunites with his old high school buddies who promise to show him a good time while he’s home. Soon after the funeral, his friend Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) brings him to a party flooded with young teenage girls and sketchy guys from Andrew’s high school class. The guests experiment with various drugs, which Largeman willfully partakes in. It is during this moment that we see what it is exactly that separates Largemen characteristically, from the rest of his peers. While the rests of the guests engage in erotic behavior and outright belligerence, Largeman sits back on the sofa, apathetic and emotionless, as the hours of the night race past him at hyper speed. Thus far in his life, Andrew has chosen to live life without any true feelings, or purpose for that matter. He never lets any one person get too close to ensure he won’t have to deal with the emotional burdens of a relationship. But Andrew’s outlook on life changes suddenly, when he meets a flaky, pathological lying, yet sweet girl in the waiting room of a doctor’s office. Sam(Natalie Portman), is everything that Andrew needs in his life right now: crazy. Sam lives a hectic life, yet she finds the time to rejoice, and grieve in life’s joys and tragedies, something that up until now Largeman has been very unfamiliar with.
Largeman makes his epic existential statement in the final scene of the movie. Andrew and Sam sit adjacent to each other on the steps of the airport terminal, awaiting Largeman’s flight back to L.A. where he will have the time to “figure things out,” without Samantha. But before his flight takes off, he realizes that what he uttered to Samantha only a few moments ago, “You changed my life, and I’ve only known you four days,” is the answer to his entire existence. Largeman has met the love of his life. He has found purpose in a daft world and he is not about to let that go. Largeman has “transcended nihilism” to the point where he is making choices for the betterment of his own existence. He has decided to take control of his own life, boldly and subjectively, the Sartrian Way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTnzPuFPxPw
--Remy Kartzman
Andrew Largeman(Zach Braff), makes this choice in the movie Garden State, when he decides to leave his life in L.A. behind, and pursue the love of his life. Largeman is a confused, depressed, and apathetic actor in L.A. He lives in a drab apartment, and ever since he can remember has been on heavy doses of anxiety medication, prescribed by his psychiatrist, who conveniently happens to be his own father. Largeman is afraid of life, and afraid of what might happen if he didn’t have the drugs to blind his emotions.
In laymen terms, Largeman is extremely screwed up. He returns to his hometown upon hearing of his mother’s death, yet he lacks the ability to even shed a single tear at the funeral. There, he reunites with his old high school buddies who promise to show him a good time while he’s home. Soon after the funeral, his friend Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) brings him to a party flooded with young teenage girls and sketchy guys from Andrew’s high school class. The guests experiment with various drugs, which Largeman willfully partakes in. It is during this moment that we see what it is exactly that separates Largemen characteristically, from the rest of his peers. While the rests of the guests engage in erotic behavior and outright belligerence, Largeman sits back on the sofa, apathetic and emotionless, as the hours of the night race past him at hyper speed. Thus far in his life, Andrew has chosen to live life without any true feelings, or purpose for that matter. He never lets any one person get too close to ensure he won’t have to deal with the emotional burdens of a relationship. But Andrew’s outlook on life changes suddenly, when he meets a flaky, pathological lying, yet sweet girl in the waiting room of a doctor’s office. Sam(Natalie Portman), is everything that Andrew needs in his life right now: crazy. Sam lives a hectic life, yet she finds the time to rejoice, and grieve in life’s joys and tragedies, something that up until now Largeman has been very unfamiliar with.
Largeman makes his epic existential statement in the final scene of the movie. Andrew and Sam sit adjacent to each other on the steps of the airport terminal, awaiting Largeman’s flight back to L.A. where he will have the time to “figure things out,” without Samantha. But before his flight takes off, he realizes that what he uttered to Samantha only a few moments ago, “You changed my life, and I’ve only known you four days,” is the answer to his entire existence. Largeman has met the love of his life. He has found purpose in a daft world and he is not about to let that go. Largeman has “transcended nihilism” to the point where he is making choices for the betterment of his own existence. He has decided to take control of his own life, boldly and subjectively, the Sartrian Way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTnzPuFPxPw
--Remy Kartzman
The Choices of a Skinhead: American History X
Eric Cirangle
Character and Choice
Movie Blog
April 25, 2010
American History X is a movie by Tony Kaye depicting the racial struggles of a predominately white community turning black. The setting is Venice Beach, CA. Derek Vinyard has had his firefighter father taken away by a shooting while he was on duty. The shooter was a black male. Derek is an intellectual, focused on school and his future, and once his dad dies he becomes part of the Aryan brotherhood seeking vengeance. His reason is he does not want to feel threatened or subdued in his own community, he wants to give the white kids a chance for freedom once again. As time goes on, Derek becomes an icon to the brotherhood. He and his skinhead friends challenge a team of black kids to a basketball game for court rights. Stereotypically, the blacks would win and accept the challenge with open arms. However, Derek and his friends are great athletes and win the game, earning bragging and court rights. Derek has a younger brother Daniel who is suffering the changes of the community. He has to defend himself against small gangs of black teenagers on a daily basis in school. He is following in his brother’s skinhead footsteps, although his brother does not completely approve of it. The skinhead cult grows larger day-by-day, intercepting kids who are sick of being bullied and threatened by the minorities overtaking the community. The skinheads gather one night in a parking lot and raid a large grocery store with all minority workers. They rape, beat, and embarrass the workers and make it away safely. Nights later a group of black gang members try to break into Derek’s car in his driveway. Daniel sees and rushes to his brother’s room to warn him. Derek grabs his gun and shoots two of the gang members. One immediately dies, while the other is wounded. The wounded man happens to be a rival from the basketball game days before. Derek says “you should have learned your place on the basketball court” and curb stomps his head, killing the black man. The police arrive and arrest Derek. He spends three years in jail for voluntary manslaughter. At the beginning of his sentence, Derek makes many fellow skinhead friends and starts a mini gang for protection in the slammer. As his sentence winds down, he realizes he wants no part in gang life anymore. He starts separating himself from his skinhead friends and dissing them by sitting alone at lunch. The skinhead members rape him in the shower, which makes him never want to witness the atrocities of gang life again. When Derek gets out he realizes his brother is deep into the Aryan brotherhood way of life. Derek beats up the headmaster of the clan, once a former father figure to him, in order to keep him away from his young, impressionable brother. Daniel finally realizes the skinhead way of life is not the path he truly desires, so he changes his ways. However, that day in school a black student he has had several petty confrontations with shoots Daniel while he’s in the bathroom, killing him on the spot.
Existentialism is prevalent throughout the film. The first instance is when Derek’s dad dies and he takes a stance against the growing black influence on his community. He is a pioneer of the Aryan society in his community. He chose to pave the way for an uprising in what he believed in. In turn Daniel latched on to the example his brother set. Daniel became a young rising member of the Aryan society after respecting and looking up to the things his brother did. This is existentialist because Derek blatantly decided the path he wanted to take in feeling as if he had control over his community again.
Another existentialist moment is when the Aryan gang led by Derek wreaks havoc on the grocery store. They did it strictly to send a message to the community. They were not after money; they decided to send a message. Obviously this is an extreme course of action, come about by this groups radical decisions and beliefs. The gruesome things they did to the minorities working there made their motives clear, the public saw exactly what they were after. Their hatred for the minority uprising was clear through their decisions.
Perhaps the most existential of the events is the robbery that takes place in Derek’s driveway. Of course Derek has the right to defend himself and his property while these thugs are trying to steal his belongings. However, after the situation had ceased and the thieves were successfully put out of commission, Derek took it a step further and decided to send a message. By curb stomping the black man, he not only guranteed himself unnecessary jail time, but made it clear to the black and Aryan community what his stance was. He wanted the blacks to get the message that he was serious with his hatred for them, and he wanted the Aryans to recognize his actions and support him wholly for them. With his decisions delivers a cause and effect situation. The blacks resented him and his family for what he had done, but he had secured the protection of the skinheads. His actions were influenced by his personal motives. He felt so strongly about getting his community back from the overwhelming hold of the blacks that he forgot the difference between right and wrong and acted on impulse and desire.
Derek becomes involved with fellow skinheads early in his jail sentence. He does this because he realizes he will need their protection in such a harsh environment. This is an existentialist act because he is associating himself with these ruthless killers whom he doesn’t trust just for their services. Eventually, he starts seeing through their motives and realizes it is no way to live. As his jail sentence winds down, he realizes he does not need them or what they’re good for. He completely disses their system and clan, exiling himself from the jail community. His peers thought he was crazy, but this is a bold existentialist decision because he is simply weighing his values and deciding what is right for him. This in turn leads him to lead his brother away from gang life when he gets out. It is a complete 360-degree revelation of his former beliefs. He makes this bold decision to grant himself access to a more care free and less violent life. Derek’s existentialist values of choosing what is best for him and his future eventually wear off on Daniel. However, the main twist of the movie is that Daniel is already too deep into his affair with hatred for minorities that it still comes back to haunt him. It is not enough time to fix the damage he has done with the other races. The black teenagers still target him and murder him in cold blood.
Character and Choice
Movie Blog
April 25, 2010
American History X is a movie by Tony Kaye depicting the racial struggles of a predominately white community turning black. The setting is Venice Beach, CA. Derek Vinyard has had his firefighter father taken away by a shooting while he was on duty. The shooter was a black male. Derek is an intellectual, focused on school and his future, and once his dad dies he becomes part of the Aryan brotherhood seeking vengeance. His reason is he does not want to feel threatened or subdued in his own community, he wants to give the white kids a chance for freedom once again. As time goes on, Derek becomes an icon to the brotherhood. He and his skinhead friends challenge a team of black kids to a basketball game for court rights. Stereotypically, the blacks would win and accept the challenge with open arms. However, Derek and his friends are great athletes and win the game, earning bragging and court rights. Derek has a younger brother Daniel who is suffering the changes of the community. He has to defend himself against small gangs of black teenagers on a daily basis in school. He is following in his brother’s skinhead footsteps, although his brother does not completely approve of it. The skinhead cult grows larger day-by-day, intercepting kids who are sick of being bullied and threatened by the minorities overtaking the community. The skinheads gather one night in a parking lot and raid a large grocery store with all minority workers. They rape, beat, and embarrass the workers and make it away safely. Nights later a group of black gang members try to break into Derek’s car in his driveway. Daniel sees and rushes to his brother’s room to warn him. Derek grabs his gun and shoots two of the gang members. One immediately dies, while the other is wounded. The wounded man happens to be a rival from the basketball game days before. Derek says “you should have learned your place on the basketball court” and curb stomps his head, killing the black man. The police arrive and arrest Derek. He spends three years in jail for voluntary manslaughter. At the beginning of his sentence, Derek makes many fellow skinhead friends and starts a mini gang for protection in the slammer. As his sentence winds down, he realizes he wants no part in gang life anymore. He starts separating himself from his skinhead friends and dissing them by sitting alone at lunch. The skinhead members rape him in the shower, which makes him never want to witness the atrocities of gang life again. When Derek gets out he realizes his brother is deep into the Aryan brotherhood way of life. Derek beats up the headmaster of the clan, once a former father figure to him, in order to keep him away from his young, impressionable brother. Daniel finally realizes the skinhead way of life is not the path he truly desires, so he changes his ways. However, that day in school a black student he has had several petty confrontations with shoots Daniel while he’s in the bathroom, killing him on the spot.
Existentialism is prevalent throughout the film. The first instance is when Derek’s dad dies and he takes a stance against the growing black influence on his community. He is a pioneer of the Aryan society in his community. He chose to pave the way for an uprising in what he believed in. In turn Daniel latched on to the example his brother set. Daniel became a young rising member of the Aryan society after respecting and looking up to the things his brother did. This is existentialist because Derek blatantly decided the path he wanted to take in feeling as if he had control over his community again.
Another existentialist moment is when the Aryan gang led by Derek wreaks havoc on the grocery store. They did it strictly to send a message to the community. They were not after money; they decided to send a message. Obviously this is an extreme course of action, come about by this groups radical decisions and beliefs. The gruesome things they did to the minorities working there made their motives clear, the public saw exactly what they were after. Their hatred for the minority uprising was clear through their decisions.
Perhaps the most existential of the events is the robbery that takes place in Derek’s driveway. Of course Derek has the right to defend himself and his property while these thugs are trying to steal his belongings. However, after the situation had ceased and the thieves were successfully put out of commission, Derek took it a step further and decided to send a message. By curb stomping the black man, he not only guranteed himself unnecessary jail time, but made it clear to the black and Aryan community what his stance was. He wanted the blacks to get the message that he was serious with his hatred for them, and he wanted the Aryans to recognize his actions and support him wholly for them. With his decisions delivers a cause and effect situation. The blacks resented him and his family for what he had done, but he had secured the protection of the skinheads. His actions were influenced by his personal motives. He felt so strongly about getting his community back from the overwhelming hold of the blacks that he forgot the difference between right and wrong and acted on impulse and desire.
Derek becomes involved with fellow skinheads early in his jail sentence. He does this because he realizes he will need their protection in such a harsh environment. This is an existentialist act because he is associating himself with these ruthless killers whom he doesn’t trust just for their services. Eventually, he starts seeing through their motives and realizes it is no way to live. As his jail sentence winds down, he realizes he does not need them or what they’re good for. He completely disses their system and clan, exiling himself from the jail community. His peers thought he was crazy, but this is a bold existentialist decision because he is simply weighing his values and deciding what is right for him. This in turn leads him to lead his brother away from gang life when he gets out. It is a complete 360-degree revelation of his former beliefs. He makes this bold decision to grant himself access to a more care free and less violent life. Derek’s existentialist values of choosing what is best for him and his future eventually wear off on Daniel. However, the main twist of the movie is that Daniel is already too deep into his affair with hatred for minorities that it still comes back to haunt him. It is not enough time to fix the damage he has done with the other races. The black teenagers still target him and murder him in cold blood.
Fight Club
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR91Rj1ZN1M
Although, Fight Club cannot be completely grasped in only one line, if I had to choose one line to summarize the film, the film’s final line would be my top candidate: “You met me at a very strange time in my life.” Throughout Fight Club, the narrator, played by Edward Norton, struggles with many of the same existential issues that Sartre also grappled with, and it is his journey to define himself that establishes the basis for the entire film.
When we first meet our narrator, who later refers to himself as Jack, he is an automobile recall specialist that suffers from insomnia. Although he is not consciously aware of it, he is the epitome of existence precedes essence. Jack has been following the path that his parents, and more generally, society as a whole, set for him when he is young. He makes few important choices that truly define him, instead he seeks to define himself through the way he decorates his apartment. Jack, like so many others, is so consumed by consumerism, that he has come to define himself by his material possessions and not his character. That all changes, of course, when he meets Tyler.
Tyler, his subconscious alter ego, shows him that he is a mere shell of what he can be.
Fight Club also explores the angst of the human condition. Throughout the film, when the narrator faces a difficult choice he often resorts back to what he has done in the past: nothing. For example, when Marla calls him to tell him that she overdosed on pills, the narrator fails to do anything, and instead, it his alter ego, Tyler, that makes a decision for him. By the end of the film, when Jack realizes Tyler’s entire plan, he knows he must do something. However, he is so torn between the consequences of his decision that he almost resolves to do nothing at all. However, his time with Tyler has taught him that it his responsibility to make choices, and with that he is able to imagine the gun in his hand, not Tyler’s, and he makes the most important decision of the entire film, to shoot himself, and thereby kill Tyler.
Although, Fight Club cannot be completely grasped in only one line, if I had to choose one line to summarize the film, the film’s final line would be my top candidate: “You met me at a very strange time in my life.” Throughout Fight Club, the narrator, played by Edward Norton, struggles with many of the same existential issues that Sartre also grappled with, and it is his journey to define himself that establishes the basis for the entire film.
When we first meet our narrator, who later refers to himself as Jack, he is an automobile recall specialist that suffers from insomnia. Although he is not consciously aware of it, he is the epitome of existence precedes essence. Jack has been following the path that his parents, and more generally, society as a whole, set for him when he is young. He makes few important choices that truly define him, instead he seeks to define himself through the way he decorates his apartment. Jack, like so many others, is so consumed by consumerism, that he has come to define himself by his material possessions and not his character. That all changes, of course, when he meets Tyler.
Tyler, his subconscious alter ego, shows him that he is a mere shell of what he can be.
Fight Club also explores the angst of the human condition. Throughout the film, when the narrator faces a difficult choice he often resorts back to what he has done in the past: nothing. For example, when Marla calls him to tell him that she overdosed on pills, the narrator fails to do anything, and instead, it his alter ego, Tyler, that makes a decision for him. By the end of the film, when Jack realizes Tyler’s entire plan, he knows he must do something. However, he is so torn between the consequences of his decision that he almost resolves to do nothing at all. However, his time with Tyler has taught him that it his responsibility to make choices, and with that he is able to imagine the gun in his hand, not Tyler’s, and he makes the most important decision of the entire film, to shoot himself, and thereby kill Tyler.
PART IV. Oh Donnie, the existentialist! (A general post that tracks his growth)
Donnie is not doomed to a certain fate. Perhaps this should have come first, but time is all jumbled anyways.
Doomed is a word that comes up when the family relocates to a hotel after the jet engine crashes in their home (that is, when Donnie is not there to die.) The father mentions a classmate that had died on his way to prom- everyone said he must have been doomed. Gretchen, Donnie's girlfriend, also seems doomed: her stepfather stabbed her mother in the chest four times. Even though they relocate to Donnie's town, the last we hear is that her mother has disappeared and her home shows signs of a serious struggle. Gretchen cries to Donnie, "I guess some people are just born with tragedy in their blood." An existentialist denies the concept of "doom" - quite simply because we choose our actions that determine our future. There is no specific fate designed or laid out for us.
It may seem so, but Donnie is not doomed. I have said he is our own existentialist Christ, because in the movie he makes the ultimate sacrifice and chooses to save others. It is ultimately his choice to die, and he is fully empowered to make this choice.
However, at the beginning, it is clear that this is not true. Donnie is held under the control of a variety of forces that keep him from realizing the power of choice: from his therapist's giving him anti-psychotic meds to his diagnosis as a paranoid schizophrenic, Donnie is labeled as troubled kid who has been victimized by his society and even his own brain. Similarly, the therapist's hypnosis technique deprives Donnie of his self-consciousness (not meaning insecurity) much like how Frank deprives him of choice through trance/sleepwalking. Thus, when Donnie bursts the water pipe at school and jams an ax into a school statue, his graffiti cry for help "They made me do it" resonates as an anti-existentialist excuse.
There is, however, a turning point in Donnie. While the therapist may impede Donnie on his path to full self-realization (through meds and a diagnosis), she also provides him with key guidance. Donnie speaks of Frank (or God, as the therapist assumes): "I have to obey him or else I'll be all alone. I won't be able to figure it out." This is not true though, which Donnie proves to us. Yes, Frank helps him see into the future and guides him, but Donnie also discovers truth by himself, as he explores these concepts with his therapist, his science and english teachers, and even Roberta Sparrow's book. Donnie continues to discuss what he has discovered, his fear that there is a portal in the sky that will open time up beyond a linear dimension. The therapist replies with a statement that resembles Sartre's prose in Existentialism is Humanism: "If the sky were to open up, there would be no rule, no law. It would only be you and your memories, the choices you've made, and the people you've touched." This is true: an existential world is a lawless one, but not in a negative way. We are left we our choices and our character. We are left by those we touch with our choices and with our character.
So Donnie, by his final choice of death, is under no influence of meds, hypnosis, sleepwalking or even Frank's words. He is alone, responsible, and willful. Words resonate with him, as he examines the recent past's events: the recently deceased Gretchen's words stick with him, "What if you could go back in time and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better." Now Gretchen is of course talking about a product pitch for science class that gives children pleasant visuals as they sleep, but it fits so well with Donnie's final moments. What that "something better" is, he does not know, but he realizes his choice is to try and replace those hours of pain and darkness. He is lucid when he makes this choice, he has not (as is poetic) slept all night. Has not slipped from consciousness. He lies awake in bed, wide awake, in laughter as he awaits his death. Is his laughter a sign of madness? No- it is that laughter that comes over us when everything suddenly makes sense- it is a laughter of relief, of understanding, of acceptance, and maybe, however sad it may seem, of joy.
Rosie
Doomed is a word that comes up when the family relocates to a hotel after the jet engine crashes in their home (that is, when Donnie is not there to die.) The father mentions a classmate that had died on his way to prom- everyone said he must have been doomed. Gretchen, Donnie's girlfriend, also seems doomed: her stepfather stabbed her mother in the chest four times. Even though they relocate to Donnie's town, the last we hear is that her mother has disappeared and her home shows signs of a serious struggle. Gretchen cries to Donnie, "I guess some people are just born with tragedy in their blood." An existentialist denies the concept of "doom" - quite simply because we choose our actions that determine our future. There is no specific fate designed or laid out for us.
It may seem so, but Donnie is not doomed. I have said he is our own existentialist Christ, because in the movie he makes the ultimate sacrifice and chooses to save others. It is ultimately his choice to die, and he is fully empowered to make this choice.
However, at the beginning, it is clear that this is not true. Donnie is held under the control of a variety of forces that keep him from realizing the power of choice: from his therapist's giving him anti-psychotic meds to his diagnosis as a paranoid schizophrenic, Donnie is labeled as troubled kid who has been victimized by his society and even his own brain. Similarly, the therapist's hypnosis technique deprives Donnie of his self-consciousness (not meaning insecurity) much like how Frank deprives him of choice through trance/sleepwalking. Thus, when Donnie bursts the water pipe at school and jams an ax into a school statue, his graffiti cry for help "They made me do it" resonates as an anti-existentialist excuse.
There is, however, a turning point in Donnie. While the therapist may impede Donnie on his path to full self-realization (through meds and a diagnosis), she also provides him with key guidance. Donnie speaks of Frank (or God, as the therapist assumes): "I have to obey him or else I'll be all alone. I won't be able to figure it out." This is not true though, which Donnie proves to us. Yes, Frank helps him see into the future and guides him, but Donnie also discovers truth by himself, as he explores these concepts with his therapist, his science and english teachers, and even Roberta Sparrow's book. Donnie continues to discuss what he has discovered, his fear that there is a portal in the sky that will open time up beyond a linear dimension. The therapist replies with a statement that resembles Sartre's prose in Existentialism is Humanism: "If the sky were to open up, there would be no rule, no law. It would only be you and your memories, the choices you've made, and the people you've touched." This is true: an existential world is a lawless one, but not in a negative way. We are left we our choices and our character. We are left by those we touch with our choices and with our character.
So Donnie, by his final choice of death, is under no influence of meds, hypnosis, sleepwalking or even Frank's words. He is alone, responsible, and willful. Words resonate with him, as he examines the recent past's events: the recently deceased Gretchen's words stick with him, "What if you could go back in time and take all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better." Now Gretchen is of course talking about a product pitch for science class that gives children pleasant visuals as they sleep, but it fits so well with Donnie's final moments. What that "something better" is, he does not know, but he realizes his choice is to try and replace those hours of pain and darkness. He is lucid when he makes this choice, he has not (as is poetic) slept all night. Has not slipped from consciousness. He lies awake in bed, wide awake, in laughter as he awaits his death. Is his laughter a sign of madness? No- it is that laughter that comes over us when everything suddenly makes sense- it is a laughter of relief, of understanding, of acceptance, and maybe, however sad it may seem, of joy.
Rosie
PART III. God, abandonment, and Donnie, the messiah!
Existentialism, as we know, can be atheistic or not. Donnie Darko deals with the question of God directly, in conversations between Donnie, his therapist, and his science teacher, but also allegorically.
In my previous post, I talked about a telling conversation with the Science Teacher who confirms that God's existence doesn't matter- for even if God did exist, we would still have choice. We would still have the choice to betray God's will. This is reflective of Sartre's take: God shouldn't, and doesn't, matter, here on Earth. We decide our life for ourselves.
Speculations like these echo throughout the film- for instance, Roberta Sparrow, the ex-nun who wrote the inspiring Philosophy of Time Travel and is endearingly called Grandma Death by the local teenagers, whispers one inaudible phrase in the movie in Donnie's ear: "Every living creature on earth dies alone." This not only foreshadows Donnie's death, but it also touches on the existentialist consequence of abandonment. Our friend D. Darko discusses abandonment, which merely means the absence of God and the conclusions of this isolation, with the beloved Therapist. "I don't debate it anymore, It's absurd." Donnie announces vaguely. The therapist clarifies, "The search for God is absurd?" Donnie replies, "It is if everyone dies alone."
Interesting- Donnie does address abandonment, but not as an effect of existentialism per se, but rather as the reason for his agnosticism. Why does God matter if we all die alone? Our own abandonment leads us to ambivalence about a higher power. It is notable that Donnie dies alone- alone in more than a physical sense. He is the only one who dies knowing the answer to that impossible question "What if?" He knows what would have happened if he had lived. But Donnie chooses to die- or rather, he chooses to be killed. This action (albeit a passive one, in a literal sense) is Christ-like, for Donnie dies to save mankind, and to save mankind from sin. He directly saves his girlfriend Gretchen, his mother and sister, but also seems to save others in a less obvious sense- he saves Frank from committing vehicular manslaughter as well, not just his girlfriend from being run over. In the final montage, we see Jim Cunningham inexplicably wake up crying- could it be that this previously static character has a moment of sentimental clarity and he sees the wrong in his ways? (According to Burgess, this means Donnie Darko is good literature, so to speak: the characters are allowed to change.) Or as Sartre says "In reality and for the existentialist, there is no love apart from the deeds of love."And Donnie's final act is his act of love, redemption, and selflessness.
Moving backwards (forwards? nowhere? time gets jumbled.), before Donnie's death, we see hints at this biblical parallel. There is the obvious: the coming of Judgement Day, the apocalypse, Armageddon, or whatever you may call it. Frank informs Donnie about the end of the world, and constantly reminds him when it will end (28 days, 14 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds are his first words in the movie.) So it's hard to deny the godliness of Frank (the freaky bunny!). He is all the godly omnis, as I call them: omnipresent, omniscient, and sometimes even omnipotent. By this, I basically mean, he is everywhere, knows the future, and controls Donnie. For instance, Frank randomly appears in the cinema next to Donnie and a sleeping Gretchen and commands Donnie to burn Jim Cunningham's house to the ground- this seems like one of God's inexplicable commandments, but this action reveals Cunningham as a child pornographer, and he is subsequently brought to justice. This enforces all three omnis of God: he can appear at any place, knows that Cunningham is up to no good and must be exposed, and has the power over Donnie to have him carry out the ugly deed of arson. As Donnie leaves the theatre, I noted a clever throwback to this Christian theme: the theatre is playing "The Last Temptation of Christ." (See this exchange in the theatre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXbBlGBoUms, which begins about one minute into the video.)
In a sense, I believe that this is Donnie's last temptation for it is the last deed he commits under the control of Frank. Afterwards, he realizes that the future is up to him to decide, not up to Frank, and he lets himself be killed for the sake of others. Although this is a passive action (he does not do harm to himself, but waits in his room for the jet engine to crush him), it is deeply rooted in the most powerful and vital choice in the film.
Rosie
In my previous post, I talked about a telling conversation with the Science Teacher who confirms that God's existence doesn't matter- for even if God did exist, we would still have choice. We would still have the choice to betray God's will. This is reflective of Sartre's take: God shouldn't, and doesn't, matter, here on Earth. We decide our life for ourselves.
Speculations like these echo throughout the film- for instance, Roberta Sparrow, the ex-nun who wrote the inspiring Philosophy of Time Travel and is endearingly called Grandma Death by the local teenagers, whispers one inaudible phrase in the movie in Donnie's ear: "Every living creature on earth dies alone." This not only foreshadows Donnie's death, but it also touches on the existentialist consequence of abandonment. Our friend D. Darko discusses abandonment, which merely means the absence of God and the conclusions of this isolation, with the beloved Therapist. "I don't debate it anymore, It's absurd." Donnie announces vaguely. The therapist clarifies, "The search for God is absurd?" Donnie replies, "It is if everyone dies alone."
Interesting- Donnie does address abandonment, but not as an effect of existentialism per se, but rather as the reason for his agnosticism. Why does God matter if we all die alone? Our own abandonment leads us to ambivalence about a higher power. It is notable that Donnie dies alone- alone in more than a physical sense. He is the only one who dies knowing the answer to that impossible question "What if?" He knows what would have happened if he had lived. But Donnie chooses to die- or rather, he chooses to be killed. This action (albeit a passive one, in a literal sense) is Christ-like, for Donnie dies to save mankind, and to save mankind from sin. He directly saves his girlfriend Gretchen, his mother and sister, but also seems to save others in a less obvious sense- he saves Frank from committing vehicular manslaughter as well, not just his girlfriend from being run over. In the final montage, we see Jim Cunningham inexplicably wake up crying- could it be that this previously static character has a moment of sentimental clarity and he sees the wrong in his ways? (According to Burgess, this means Donnie Darko is good literature, so to speak: the characters are allowed to change.) Or as Sartre says "In reality and for the existentialist, there is no love apart from the deeds of love."And Donnie's final act is his act of love, redemption, and selflessness.
Moving backwards (forwards? nowhere? time gets jumbled.), before Donnie's death, we see hints at this biblical parallel. There is the obvious: the coming of Judgement Day, the apocalypse, Armageddon, or whatever you may call it. Frank informs Donnie about the end of the world, and constantly reminds him when it will end (28 days, 14 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds are his first words in the movie.) So it's hard to deny the godliness of Frank (the freaky bunny!). He is all the godly omnis, as I call them: omnipresent, omniscient, and sometimes even omnipotent. By this, I basically mean, he is everywhere, knows the future, and controls Donnie. For instance, Frank randomly appears in the cinema next to Donnie and a sleeping Gretchen and commands Donnie to burn Jim Cunningham's house to the ground- this seems like one of God's inexplicable commandments, but this action reveals Cunningham as a child pornographer, and he is subsequently brought to justice. This enforces all three omnis of God: he can appear at any place, knows that Cunningham is up to no good and must be exposed, and has the power over Donnie to have him carry out the ugly deed of arson. As Donnie leaves the theatre, I noted a clever throwback to this Christian theme: the theatre is playing "The Last Temptation of Christ." (See this exchange in the theatre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXbBlGBoUms, which begins about one minute into the video.)
In a sense, I believe that this is Donnie's last temptation for it is the last deed he commits under the control of Frank. Afterwards, he realizes that the future is up to him to decide, not up to Frank, and he lets himself be killed for the sake of others. Although this is a passive action (he does not do harm to himself, but waits in his room for the jet engine to crush him), it is deeply rooted in the most powerful and vital choice in the film.
Rosie
The Truman Show: Questioning Reality
Adam Zerihoun
What's going on? Is this real? Does my life have any meaning? These questions are all answered in the movie The Truman Show (1998), directed by Peter Weir, a true work of existentialism and the meaning of existence, choice, and life as we know it.T Truman Burbank, the main character, appears to be living a normal life, or so he believes. The truth is that his life is actually a live television show, called "The Truman Show" and every event in his life has been fixed by the creator of the show, Christof, who serves as a godlike figure. This film is filled with instances in which Truman's life shows obvious signs of being tampered with, preventing him from existing on his own and making his own choices. Christof even changes some of Truman's memories to prevent him from questioning his life and existence, all only for a profit. However Christof fails in his "godlike" duties in keeping Truman blissfully unaware of his true purpose in life.
Truman's suspicions are first aroused at the sight of his father. His father, who is really an actor, was presumed to have died when Truman was a child. However, when Truman reunites with his father, dressed as a homeless man, he begins to ask questions concerning his life for the first time. Choices are presented to Truman for the first time in his life and, at first, he is unsure how to process them. Truman has been so used to his life being predetermined, since it has been completely been controlled by his "god" Christof. For nearly 30 years, he has been completely unaware that his supposed family, friends, and wife (all actors in the show) have been lying to him. Truman's suspicions grow even larger as he begins to notice strange behaviors in his loved ones. He is completely unaware, as Christof has planned, that he is being brainwashed from trying to explore and escape his sheltered home of Seahaven. For the 30 years he has lived in his home, Truman has never been truly given any choices in life, as Christof has already predetermined every detail of how Truman's life will turn out. However, Truman's dreams and memories are the only thing that Christof has failed to completely control. While he fails to act on these dreams, Truman still has hopes of a better life which prevent him from being truly happy in this paradise that was built for him. The one memory of his that hints to the truth of his existence is his first meeting with Sylvia (Lauren in the show). Since Christof has determined who Truman's wife will be, he interferes with this meeting and, as a response, Sylvia attempts to reveal the truth to Truman. Because of these events, Truman harbors feelings of confusion and anger throughout his life concerning whether he is truly in control of his destiny.
At one point of the film, Truman eventually becomes convinced that something is wrong with his life. With the reappearance of his father and the lingering memory of the encounter with his first love Sylvia, Truman feels unsure whether he can trust anyone anymore. He begins to act rashly, nearly endangering his and his wife's lives by trying to escape in his car. In this instance, Truman does begin to make choices for himself, but his efforts are all for naught. What is different about these choices is that he is not in his right mind while he makes them. He is irrationally acting out his own frustrations from realizing that his whole world might be turning against him. Truman's decision to finally act on his dreams shows his growth as a character. However, his true growth is shown when he decides to act out his greatest dream, which he has been to escape and explore the rest of the world.
The issue of choice manifests itself to its fullest at the climactic ending of the movie, where Truman finally learns the truth about his life when trying to escape. Truman discovers that his world is completely false and when accepting defeat, he coincidentally finds the exit to this prison he has called home for 30 years. In the clip below, Truman is finally confronted by Christof (who in this clip, almost seems like a God himself) and is presented with the choice to either stay in this life, or go out into the real world. Christof attempts to persuade him to remain in his home, convincing him that he is more secure here than he ever would be out there, even if all that security is a complete lie. What makes this movie a true example of existentialist film is the fact that Truman finally decides for himself right at the end. By deciding to leave, Truman has broken free from the influence of Christof and has finally decided to make his own choices in life. Truman finally becomes the master of his own destiny by saying one simple line: "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night". His choice to finally escape the prison he has called his life is indicative of the evolution of his character. The Truman Show shows how a character can grow and evolve to making choices on his own from a sheltered and controlled life and for Truman Burbank, he is able to finally realize his purpose in life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o5APFI6kH0
What's going on? Is this real? Does my life have any meaning? These questions are all answered in the movie The Truman Show (1998), directed by Peter Weir, a true work of existentialism and the meaning of existence, choice, and life as we know it.T Truman Burbank, the main character, appears to be living a normal life, or so he believes. The truth is that his life is actually a live television show, called "The Truman Show" and every event in his life has been fixed by the creator of the show, Christof, who serves as a godlike figure. This film is filled with instances in which Truman's life shows obvious signs of being tampered with, preventing him from existing on his own and making his own choices. Christof even changes some of Truman's memories to prevent him from questioning his life and existence, all only for a profit. However Christof fails in his "godlike" duties in keeping Truman blissfully unaware of his true purpose in life.
Truman's suspicions are first aroused at the sight of his father. His father, who is really an actor, was presumed to have died when Truman was a child. However, when Truman reunites with his father, dressed as a homeless man, he begins to ask questions concerning his life for the first time. Choices are presented to Truman for the first time in his life and, at first, he is unsure how to process them. Truman has been so used to his life being predetermined, since it has been completely been controlled by his "god" Christof. For nearly 30 years, he has been completely unaware that his supposed family, friends, and wife (all actors in the show) have been lying to him. Truman's suspicions grow even larger as he begins to notice strange behaviors in his loved ones. He is completely unaware, as Christof has planned, that he is being brainwashed from trying to explore and escape his sheltered home of Seahaven. For the 30 years he has lived in his home, Truman has never been truly given any choices in life, as Christof has already predetermined every detail of how Truman's life will turn out. However, Truman's dreams and memories are the only thing that Christof has failed to completely control. While he fails to act on these dreams, Truman still has hopes of a better life which prevent him from being truly happy in this paradise that was built for him. The one memory of his that hints to the truth of his existence is his first meeting with Sylvia (Lauren in the show). Since Christof has determined who Truman's wife will be, he interferes with this meeting and, as a response, Sylvia attempts to reveal the truth to Truman. Because of these events, Truman harbors feelings of confusion and anger throughout his life concerning whether he is truly in control of his destiny.
At one point of the film, Truman eventually becomes convinced that something is wrong with his life. With the reappearance of his father and the lingering memory of the encounter with his first love Sylvia, Truman feels unsure whether he can trust anyone anymore. He begins to act rashly, nearly endangering his and his wife's lives by trying to escape in his car. In this instance, Truman does begin to make choices for himself, but his efforts are all for naught. What is different about these choices is that he is not in his right mind while he makes them. He is irrationally acting out his own frustrations from realizing that his whole world might be turning against him. Truman's decision to finally act on his dreams shows his growth as a character. However, his true growth is shown when he decides to act out his greatest dream, which he has been to escape and explore the rest of the world.
The issue of choice manifests itself to its fullest at the climactic ending of the movie, where Truman finally learns the truth about his life when trying to escape. Truman discovers that his world is completely false and when accepting defeat, he coincidentally finds the exit to this prison he has called home for 30 years. In the clip below, Truman is finally confronted by Christof (who in this clip, almost seems like a God himself) and is presented with the choice to either stay in this life, or go out into the real world. Christof attempts to persuade him to remain in his home, convincing him that he is more secure here than he ever would be out there, even if all that security is a complete lie. What makes this movie a true example of existentialist film is the fact that Truman finally decides for himself right at the end. By deciding to leave, Truman has broken free from the influence of Christof and has finally decided to make his own choices in life. Truman finally becomes the master of his own destiny by saying one simple line: "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night". His choice to finally escape the prison he has called his life is indicative of the evolution of his character. The Truman Show shows how a character can grow and evolve to making choices on his own from a sheltered and controlled life and for Truman Burbank, he is able to finally realize his purpose in life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o5APFI6kH0
PART II. Donnie Darko: Allies and Foes in the Existentialist Quest
Character- character and choice. Donnie Darko presents unbelievable portraits of character- each propelling the present forward until all these forces collide to create tragedy. Tragedy that Donnie chooses to undo through his own suicide (for lack of a better word).
And each one of these characters has a distinct relationship with existentialism that leads to this collision, which I will discuss in this post. I think that each character certainly has their own plight in self-discovery, more so than in the average Hollywood story. We can think of all these paths as all winding up in their own tragedy- which Donnie undoes. He prevents the deaths of four main characters (his mom, sister, Gretchen, and even Frank), but also the firing of the English Teacher, and the arrest of Jim Cunningham. The final video montage of the movie shows each character is given the opportunity to start over, since all of their actions in the film thus-far have been erased by Donnie's suicide, and choose better actions. This is the opportunity of choice to become a new character entirely, a character that Donnie and we as the audience will never come to know. (See this montage after Donnie's suicide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327eOJubvbA)
I must start with Frank- he is the most obvious guide and only interacts with Donnie (until time catches up and he is revealed as an average high school student). However, for the majority of the film, Frank is actually the giant bunny that helps Donnie realize his capability of choice- the choice to change the past (the present? the future? time gets jumbled.) In one scene in his bathroom, Donnie questions why/how Frank is able to travel through time with a bubble around him, free from external danger. "I can do anything I want. So can you," Frank responds. (See this scene! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRhza1gFC4&feature=related). This reveals Frank is not just the freaky rabbit he appears to be, who forces Donnie to commit atrocities. He is there to help Donnie realize it is all up to him and him alone.
Beyond Frank, there are two characters who provide Donnie with existential advice, using time travel as the background for conversation: The Science Teacher and Roberta Sparrow (Grandma Death). They both help Donnie explore the ideas of time travel, for instance through the translucent worm paths that open that come from our chests, showing our next motions. Donnie interprets these as a manifestation of each person's individual Fate, as it reveals our direct futures. The Science Teacher helps Donnie realize that life is not, however, predetermined because Donnie is able to see his path in front of him, so he is also able to choose to follow it. Therefore, by choosing to follow his so-called fate, it is no longer fate. Donnie says dismally, "If God controls time, then everything is predetermined." Science Teacher responds thoughtfully (existentially), "You're contradicting yourself. If we are able to see our destinies manifested visually, we would be given a CHOICE to betrays those destinies." While the audience might be having doubts along with Donnie, the Science Teacher addresses our dilemma and sets the film back on its existentialist track even when Donnie is able to see his future.
Another mentor in school is actually the Science Teacher's wife: the English Teacher. The English Teacher is somewhat unconventional in her ways, as you can see when she sets up Donnie with his girlfriend. Gretchen is new to town, and new to the English class- the English Teacher asks her to "Sit next to the boy you think is the cutest," which sparks some ruckus, then she says, "Quiet. Let her CHOOSE!" So the English Teacher empowers Gretchen to make a choice- a choice to enter this relationship that becomes of central importance to the coming-of-age aspect of the movie, but also the existentialist question (the two, clearly, are closely related).
This same English Teacher also introduces a short story - The Destructors by Graham Greene- that helps reflect the movie itself. The story depicts the destruction of an old historic mansion at the hands of a young gang of boys, the leader of the pack's "plan had been with him all his life," but it "crystallized with the pain of puberty." Donnie's analysis of the movie, during his comment in class, puts this piece of literature in the context of his Donnie's life (and death): "Destruction is a form of creation... They just wanted to see what happened when they tore the world apart. They wanted to change things." Besides providing Donnie with an apparent inspiration to defile the school (he busts a water pipe like in the story), the short story resonates with Donnie's development throughout the movie. (For more on Graham Greene's short story, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destructors)
Such a controversial short story, however, is banned from school during a PTA meeting, in which the conservative gym teacher Mrs. Farmer launches a diatribe against subversive, violent literature in the curriculum. Mrs. Farmer helps the English Teacher get fired too. The English Teacher's last words at school are, "We are losing them[ [the students] to apathy, to prescribed nonsense." This conflict begins to set the stage for a battle of existentialist and anti-existentialist forces. (This link shows Mrs. Farmer (left) and the English Teacher (right): http://www.newmarketfilms.com/uploads/images/darko_1b.jpg).
Mrs. Farmer becomes a more blatant enemy to existentialism as she preaches the ego-perfection self-help doctrine of local inspirational figure Jim Cunningham. This self-help philosophy claims that all that matters is the motivation behind action- all motivation falls on a spectrum of fear to love. Donnie will have none of this, and gets into some trouble with Mrs. Farmer over it. Mrs. Farmer fittingly warns his parents: "Pray your son doesn't succumb to the path of fear." (Face-off with Mrs. Farmer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFoJ6XNeKOI&feature=related)). Mrs. Farmer may be misguided and ignorant, but Jim Cunningham himself presents the face of evil in Donnie Darko. Donnie, who becomes our go-to existentialist, has his own showdown with Cunningham during his Fear-Love lifeline presentation at school. Donnie walks up to the microphone set up in the audience, as if he is about to ask a question, but instead addresses the other students who have just asked Cunningham for advice. One of the students asked Jim Cunningham how to help her sister lose weight. Donnie steals the stage and defiantly (existentially) responds with: "If your sister wants to lose weight, tell her to get off the couch and stop eating twinkies," he then addresses Cunningham himself, "I think you're the fucking antichrist."
So the film obviously ridicules the concept of self-help doctrines, as Donnie soon reveals Jim Cunningham to be a troubled pervert who runs a child pornography ring out of his home. Thus a man who preaches so much about motivation, fear, and love, has absolutely no moral character himself. He is indeed the antichrist, the existential antichrist. Maybe Donnie is our existentialist Christ. (Great scene! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3hXKdTmRs)
Rosie
And each one of these characters has a distinct relationship with existentialism that leads to this collision, which I will discuss in this post. I think that each character certainly has their own plight in self-discovery, more so than in the average Hollywood story. We can think of all these paths as all winding up in their own tragedy- which Donnie undoes. He prevents the deaths of four main characters (his mom, sister, Gretchen, and even Frank), but also the firing of the English Teacher, and the arrest of Jim Cunningham. The final video montage of the movie shows each character is given the opportunity to start over, since all of their actions in the film thus-far have been erased by Donnie's suicide, and choose better actions. This is the opportunity of choice to become a new character entirely, a character that Donnie and we as the audience will never come to know. (See this montage after Donnie's suicide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327eOJubvbA)
I must start with Frank- he is the most obvious guide and only interacts with Donnie (until time catches up and he is revealed as an average high school student). However, for the majority of the film, Frank is actually the giant bunny that helps Donnie realize his capability of choice- the choice to change the past (the present? the future? time gets jumbled.) In one scene in his bathroom, Donnie questions why/how Frank is able to travel through time with a bubble around him, free from external danger. "I can do anything I want. So can you," Frank responds. (See this scene! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgRhza1gFC4&feature=related). This reveals Frank is not just the freaky rabbit he appears to be, who forces Donnie to commit atrocities. He is there to help Donnie realize it is all up to him and him alone.
Beyond Frank, there are two characters who provide Donnie with existential advice, using time travel as the background for conversation: The Science Teacher and Roberta Sparrow (Grandma Death). They both help Donnie explore the ideas of time travel, for instance through the translucent worm paths that open that come from our chests, showing our next motions. Donnie interprets these as a manifestation of each person's individual Fate, as it reveals our direct futures. The Science Teacher helps Donnie realize that life is not, however, predetermined because Donnie is able to see his path in front of him, so he is also able to choose to follow it. Therefore, by choosing to follow his so-called fate, it is no longer fate. Donnie says dismally, "If God controls time, then everything is predetermined." Science Teacher responds thoughtfully (existentially), "You're contradicting yourself. If we are able to see our destinies manifested visually, we would be given a CHOICE to betrays those destinies." While the audience might be having doubts along with Donnie, the Science Teacher addresses our dilemma and sets the film back on its existentialist track even when Donnie is able to see his future.
Another mentor in school is actually the Science Teacher's wife: the English Teacher. The English Teacher is somewhat unconventional in her ways, as you can see when she sets up Donnie with his girlfriend. Gretchen is new to town, and new to the English class- the English Teacher asks her to "Sit next to the boy you think is the cutest," which sparks some ruckus, then she says, "Quiet. Let her CHOOSE!" So the English Teacher empowers Gretchen to make a choice- a choice to enter this relationship that becomes of central importance to the coming-of-age aspect of the movie, but also the existentialist question (the two, clearly, are closely related).
This same English Teacher also introduces a short story - The Destructors by Graham Greene- that helps reflect the movie itself. The story depicts the destruction of an old historic mansion at the hands of a young gang of boys, the leader of the pack's "plan had been with him all his life," but it "crystallized with the pain of puberty." Donnie's analysis of the movie, during his comment in class, puts this piece of literature in the context of his Donnie's life (and death): "Destruction is a form of creation... They just wanted to see what happened when they tore the world apart. They wanted to change things." Besides providing Donnie with an apparent inspiration to defile the school (he busts a water pipe like in the story), the short story resonates with Donnie's development throughout the movie. (For more on Graham Greene's short story, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destructors)
Such a controversial short story, however, is banned from school during a PTA meeting, in which the conservative gym teacher Mrs. Farmer launches a diatribe against subversive, violent literature in the curriculum. Mrs. Farmer helps the English Teacher get fired too. The English Teacher's last words at school are, "We are losing them[ [the students] to apathy, to prescribed nonsense." This conflict begins to set the stage for a battle of existentialist and anti-existentialist forces. (This link shows Mrs. Farmer (left) and the English Teacher (right): http://www.newmarketfilms.com/uploads/images/darko_1b.jpg).
Mrs. Farmer becomes a more blatant enemy to existentialism as she preaches the ego-perfection self-help doctrine of local inspirational figure Jim Cunningham. This self-help philosophy claims that all that matters is the motivation behind action- all motivation falls on a spectrum of fear to love. Donnie will have none of this, and gets into some trouble with Mrs. Farmer over it. Mrs. Farmer fittingly warns his parents: "Pray your son doesn't succumb to the path of fear." (Face-off with Mrs. Farmer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFoJ6XNeKOI&feature=related)). Mrs. Farmer may be misguided and ignorant, but Jim Cunningham himself presents the face of evil in Donnie Darko. Donnie, who becomes our go-to existentialist, has his own showdown with Cunningham during his Fear-Love lifeline presentation at school. Donnie walks up to the microphone set up in the audience, as if he is about to ask a question, but instead addresses the other students who have just asked Cunningham for advice. One of the students asked Jim Cunningham how to help her sister lose weight. Donnie steals the stage and defiantly (existentially) responds with: "If your sister wants to lose weight, tell her to get off the couch and stop eating twinkies," he then addresses Cunningham himself, "I think you're the fucking antichrist."
So the film obviously ridicules the concept of self-help doctrines, as Donnie soon reveals Jim Cunningham to be a troubled pervert who runs a child pornography ring out of his home. Thus a man who preaches so much about motivation, fear, and love, has absolutely no moral character himself. He is indeed the antichrist, the existential antichrist. Maybe Donnie is our existentialist Christ. (Great scene! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3hXKdTmRs)
Rosie
The Matrix
The matrix trilogy
-Erik Helleren
what makes this post-apocalyptic, action movie a movie about choice? According to the movie itself, the matrix is a complex equation, and equation that dictates every day events; however, the antagonists, the machines, can neither solve for nor compensate for a singular variable: the burden of choice. The creator of the construct itself admits that he has failed to compensate for choice many times before, and, as a result, the Matrix failed a total of 6 times before. It was the simple fact that humanity has the burden of choice that prevented the antagonists from reaching ultimate goal.
Throughout the movie, the characters are presented with choices that effect the ultimate outcome of the movie. The first and arguably the most important choice is Neo's simple choice of wither or not to follow a woman with a white rabbit tattoo. This could be easily conceived as the most important choice that Neo makes in that if he choses to not follow this woman the entirety of the trilogy would not happen; however, due to Neo's desire to quell his curiosity, he choses to follow this woman. This choice, not to spoil the trilogy, leads to his suffering and, ultimately, to his death. Yet, it is not this choice alone that is the source of his suffering, it is but one of the several stepping stones that lead to the ultimate consequence. The next major choice that Neo is confronted with is the most iconic moment in the first movie. Neo is presented two pills, a red pill and a blue pill (video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arcJksDgCOU). He is told that the red pill will allow him to see 'how deep the rabbit whole goes', while, with the blue pill, he will wake up the next day and believe whatever he wants to believe. Here the two choices are quite clear, take the red pill and you will receive knowledge along its consequences, take the blue pill and you get nothing except a good nights sleep. Either way, his choice is final. Neo makes the choice to take the red pill with its consequences. As a result, he is catapulted out of the matrix and into a body of water where deceased people are dumped. He quickly finds himself drowning but is rescued just in time. As a direct result of his choice, he learns the fate of man kind on Earth and exactly what the matrix is: a giant power plant. He finds it difficult to cope with this new knowledge and goes into a fit of rage which quickly subsides.
The Matrix itself is used to showcase choice. This is because everything in the matrix is, to some extend, limited by the preconceived notions of the individual user. This is initially brought up during the initial fight scene between Neo and Morpheus. Morpheus probes Noe after a considerable length of the fight after Neo has yet to hit him. Morpheus questions Neo until he understands that the Matrix is just as limited by the users as the Matrix itself. In essence all Neo must do is chose to believe in his own ability and he will be capable of whatever he wants. This is further exemplified when Neo is instructed to leap across the gap between two buildings. He fails only because he chose to doubt himself. In other words, the impossible is only impossible because one choses to think that it is impossible. Thus the only constraint what you are capable of is your choices, an essential existential ideal.
There is a very difference between classical existentialism and that presented in the Matrix. As far as the facts I can glean from Sartre's essays and play “No Exit,” choice is a spontaneous thing that is a byproduct of sentient beings (if not the deffiniton itself); however, that choice is made in the moment, consciously and actively by the chooser. With that comes the 'burden of choice” which is that your choice to make and that choice effects the entire human condition. The major difference between this and the existential ideas presented in the Matrix is understanding. The Oracle, one of the major philosophical characters in the movie says this to Neo: “You didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it”(Matrix: reloaded). This clearly implies that choice is not instantaneous but rather choices are made up before the 'moment of truth' when we finally understand our choice. This is when we 'finalize' our choice by acting out that choice, yet this finalization is well before we act out our choice, sometimes before we even know we even have a choice to make. The best example is executed during the second movie; however the choice itself was made in the first. Neo and Trinity fall deeply in love and as a result are will to make sacrifices for each other. A choice has been made here: Neo would sacrifice anything to protect Trinity. During the second movie, Neo is 'given' the choice to either serve his purpose, ending his life for the salvation of humanity, or to save Trinity's life. Neo is not given a choice here, he is just given understanding. Yet, even with this fundamental change in the workings of this existentialism, the remainder of the classical ideals remain intact in that the chooser still has a significant burden and he must live, or die, with the consequences. Neo's ultimate choice to truly save humanity from the Matrix and the Machines comes at a very steep price: he losses first his love and then himself. The last movie in the trilogy ends with both Trinity's and Neo's death for the salvation of millions: a sacrifice they both choose to make.
Just looking thought one of the many characters that display choice, we can clearly see that, the Matrix is quite possibly the most existentialistic movie of our time. Yet it does much more than just agree with old ideas, it presents new ones, further critiquing the formula of choice. Yet, at the same time, these movies present the idea that choice cannot be quantified, it can not be accounted for, and, most importantly, it is what separates us from the machines. It is what makes us human, because without choice, what are we?
Part I. Who are you, Donnie Darko? (The Beginning)
I'll begin at the beginning (if I can find one), so you might have some idea what the movie is about.
It is dawn. The adolescent boy wakes up next to his bike on a wet strip of road, and he looks out over the green mountains. He looks confused.. We are too.. Who is this kid and what is he doing here?
As he mounts the bicycle, we begin to realize who he is -- or so we think. He rides into the average suburb we know too well, enters an average house with a normal family- the energetic little sister, intellectual/rebellious big sister, clean-cut dad and protective, worried mother. A magnetic board on the fridge reads, "Where is Donnie?"
"What happened to my son? Where do you go at night?" Mom asks and asks. And just when we begin to get smug (We know! He spent the night on that mountain road!), we are suddenly flooded with more questions-- the mystery ensues as night falls again. The chilling voice awakens Donnie, "28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. That is when the world will end." The voice belongs to a grotesque grey bunny that stands across the street on two legs. We learn the creature's name is Frank. Well, this is creepy.
All seems pretty well, though, when we see that Frank has apparently saved Donnie- saved him from a rogue jet engine that falls into his room and would have crushed him-- that is, if Frank had not woke him and forced him to sleepwalk to a nearby golf course that night.
It seems it's all meant to be: Donnie has been saved, how LUCKY he was not in his bedroom when that plane crashed. Now there is no need for further questioning. Except- where did the jet engine come from?
(SPOILER ALERT): It comes from the future, from a plane carrying his mother and little sister that incidentally enters a time portal. However, Donnie is able to erase a series of horrific events (including the plane crash itself) if he allows the jet engine to crush him when time comes full circle. Which he does.
As this post is mostly an introduction to Donnie Darko, get a feeling for this movie from this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR91Rj1ZN1M
It is the music video of the theme song and includes a video montage of the film. One comment on the video is "It's about learning to accept your fate." I wholeheartedly disagree: this dark thriller is a twisted coming of age story, but also a deeply existentialist film. For the movie traces Donnie's self-discovery up until his final, defining act: his self-sacrifice for his loved ones.
Donnie Darko explores our original question (the most important, existentialist one): Who is Donnie Darko and what will he choose to do?
Rosie
Rosie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
