Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk3jiCyjL6Q
Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, is a prime example of an existentialist film dealing with the idea that man alone is responsible for his destiny. The film stresses the importance of both human freedom and individuality. Gattaca is set in a “not-too-distant-future society where children are essentially designed through genetic diagnosis to make sure they inherit the best qualities of their parents. “Valids” are the humans that were genetically designed while “in-valids” were the humans that were born naturally. The different types of births form 2 distinct social classes. Valids are smarter, healthier, more physically fit and much more respected in society. In-valids on the other hand are the opposite and live to an average age of 32 while valids can live to their 100’s and beyond. These invalids have high risks of genetic diseases where as their compliments do not. The society has laws against genetic discrimination but valids tend to make up the upper class and have the best jobs while in-valids represent the lower class and hold menial jobs.
The main character is an in-valid named Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke). Vincent has very high chance of developing mental disorders, a heart defect, poor eyesight and is projected to live only 30.2 years. His parents realized the error in choosing the natural birth so on their next try they went the more genetic and safer route with their son Anton Freeman. Vincent’s brother Anton, being a valid, is everything Vincent is not. Anton is far more physically fit and healthier although the two brothers are pretty much equals with intellect. The two play a game of chicken throughout their youth where they swim out into the ocean and whoever turns back first loses. Anton wins every time until they are young adults, right before Vincent leaves home. They both swim out farther and farther but Anton begins to drown and Vincent, who wins, ends up saving his “superior” sibling. Vincent’s goal is to work for the space agency Gattaca and eventually fly into space but his genetic inferiority reminds him again and again that his dream is pretty much impossible. Why let an in-valid into space when you can use a much more superior valid?
****WARNING SPOILERS BEGIN BELOW****
The only way for Vincent to achieve his dream is to become a “borrowed ladder”. A borrowed ladder is someone who impersonates a valid with a superb genetic background. Vincent finds the valid Jerome Eugene Morrow (Jude Law), a valid with a genetic profile that is incomparable. Jerome was a swimming star injured in a car accident and paralyzed from the waste down. He is confined to his wheel chair for the centuries he has yet to live. Vincent moves in and purchases Jerome’s identity, using his valid DNA in blood, hair, urine and tissue samples to pass the mandatory screenings of everyday life. In their society, all it takes is a tiny prick of blood to determine if someone is an in-valid or valid so without this borrowed ladder, Vincent would have no shot of successfully achieving his dream. Everyday Vincent must scrub away as much dead skin, loose hair, etc. as he can and rub on some of Jerome’s genetic material to protect his identity.
After being accepted into Gattaca’s Space Program, Vincent (who is now technically Jerome) becomes the top space navigator and is assigned to the space mission to Saturn’s moon Titan. Just about a week before the scheduled year long mission, one of the administrators is found murdered in his office and an eyelash of Vincent (the real Vincent) is found on the scene, making him a prime suspect. While doing his best to avoid being discovered, Vincent becomes close to his coworker valid Irene (Uma Thurman) who can never enter space because of her slight heart defect. Vincent also learns that Eugene (what the real Jerome Morrow is called by) was not in a car accident but rather tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of one. After winning his silver medal in swimming, Eugene could simply not live with his genetic perfection.
Vincent eventually reveals his identity to Irene who accepts him for who he is. After many more close calls with the detectives, led by a mysterious chief detective, the investigation comes to a close after it is discovered the Mission Director murdered the administrator to stop the space mission to Titan. Vincent now feels free and in the clear until he discovers the chief detective that was pursuing him all along was actually his brother Anton. Anton is not happy with Vincent and accuses him of fraud and says Vincent will never belong in Gattaca. Vincent replies that he has done this all on his own and the two challenge each other to one last game of chicken. The two begin the game and history repeats itself, Anton begins to drown, Vincent saves him and is crowned the winner. Anton asks Vincent how he did and Vincent replies, “I never saved anything for the swim back” which reveals his motto, only strive to go forward towards your goals and hold nothing back.
On the day of the launch Vincent says goodbye to Jerome and Jerome says he has left Vincent enough genetic material to last 2 lifetimes as a borrowed ladder. Vincent thanks Jerome but Jerome wishes to thank Vincent for lending him his dreams and gives Vincent a letter but says not to open it until he’s in space. Back at the space center, Vincent is stopped for one last urinary test by Dr. Lamar (who has tested him for years) but Vincent does not have Jerome’s urine samples with him. Vincent’s identity is revealed on the machine but Dr. Lamar does not care and tells Vincent the story of his son who admires Vincent and dreams to be an astronaut but has a genetic defect. The doctor then removes the tests results and tells Vincent he better not miss his flight.
Back at home, Jerome takes his medal and enters his house’s incinerator and turns it on. Up in space, Vincent opens the letter and sees a clump of Jerome Morrow’s hair. Staring into space and a bit sad, Vincent leaves the audience with his final thoughts, “They say that every atom in our bodies was once part of a star. Maybe I’m not leaving; maybe I’m coming home.”
***SPOILERS END***
The existential ideas of the importance of human individuality and freedom among its characters can be seen easily. This society has lost its identity. The technology (mainly reproductive technology) has created a great loss in individual identity and a sense of authenticity. People’s futures are determined from the start limiting their decisions, dreams and desires.
Vincent, and all the other invalids are destined for a life of struggle and sadness from conception. Their genetic differences prevent them from doing what they want to do. At least that is how it appears to be. Vincent takes matters into his own hands and goes against the odds. He begins to form his own destiny, not the one predetermined to him before his birth. Vincent does whatever it takes to achieve his goal of becoming an astronaut. He becomes a silent spokesperson for existential ideology. The in-valid shapes his own destiny, even if it means uses someone else’s identity to achieve it. Vincent’s whole life demonstrates the idea that he left nothing for the “swim” back. All of his decisions were made in a forward direction. He did not plan or worry about a backup goal. His goal was to become an astronaut and that was that. Vincent took freedom and placed it under his control, defying his society. He cleverly fooled his world and revealed his passionate desire to do what he WANTS to do not what he was predestined to do.
Irene, unlike Vincent, was a genuine valid. She too dreamed of becoming an astronaut but she had the unfortunate luck of having a slight risk of heart failure. Because of that slight risk, she could not fulfill her dreams. Vincent essentially grabbed the bull by the horns but Irene did not have the strength to. Perhaps it was because she was already told by her authorities that she could never go to space but regardless, her society has shaped what she can and cannot do, robbing her of individuality and freedom. Just like Dr. Lamar’s son, I believe Irene also gains hope from Vincent’s actions and immeasurable desire to succeed.
Jerome Morrow is a unique individual. The man who connects Vincent with Jerome says that this guy (Jerome) could live to be 1000. Jerome’s genetics were the best, simply put. He was the ideal perfect human being. With perfection comes responsibility however. After dominating the swim scene, Jerome realized he found no joy in being perfect, in being the best. His perfection tortured him. Just like all those celebrities and people who have everything yet spiral into trouble, addiction and sadness, the perfection proved to be just to much more Jerome. By ending his life Jerome would be free of this burden, this birthright to domination. Evidently it was not Jerome’s time to go and his decision to commit suicide leaves him only paralyzed. In a way his choice allows him to become the borrowed ladder for Vincent, showing the existential idea that one mans decisions affect everyone. Since conception Jerome was destined for personal suffering. His birth would bring about a horrible burden that would eventually bring him much depression and anxiety. His parents and society designed him to be that which he did not want to be. His individuality was robbed from the start, for a grand portion of his life. He was not authentic, he was the perfect human, the ideal life form but not to himself. In a way, the wheel chair was the best thing that happened to him. Even though he may have wished again and again to be able to walk and swim, it allowed him to meet Vincent and successfully remove his own personal burden. His suicide at the end shows that he did not ask to be perfect, it was not what he wanted, he wanted to be free and be himself. Jerome epitomizes how perfection does not guarantee happiness, but rather indifference towards the world and its ways.
Vincent and Jerome work in tandem. They learn so much from one another and essentially live through one another. They exemplify the strong need for individuality and freedom. While one may have lived and one may have died, in the end I think its safe to say they were truly happy for once.
Now if we look at Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, I think a comparison can definitely be made between Vincent Freeman and Bernard Marx. Bernard was at the top of his society’s cast in name but not exactly in appearance. Marx had the physical appearance of a lowly Gamma, widely believed to be because of an accident when he was being bottled (genetically engineered). Bernard has trouble asserting authority over the lower castes, since he appears so similar to one. He is a part of a lot of gossip among the upper caste regarding his “creation”. He also does not harbor many of the same feelings his “brothers” do. Bernard does not look at women as simply objects of sex, does not enjoy taking the relaxing drug Soma, and enjoys peace and tranquility to community activities among other things. Like Vincent, Bernard is at a loss because of physical and genetic traits. While Vincent was predestined for menial labor, Bernard would be predestined for embarrassment and low self esteem due to his differences (despite being an Alpha Plus). Vincent takes matters into his own hands and does his best to achieve his goals. Bernard seems to just accept his life, until stumbling upon the savage John. The savage completely turns Bernard’s world and self esteem upside down. He becomes an instant celebrity and begins to partake in all the things he detested before. Bernard’s fame inflates and escalates him to new heights, but is that what Bernard stood for all along? Here is where the two differ. Vincent strove to achieve a genuine dream, a genuine future that was denied to him. Bernard all of a sudden becomes a completely different person. That which he hated before, he began to love. Vincent stays true to himself and leaves nothing for the swim back but Bernard seems to do the opposite. After Bernard basically tries to turn John into his VIP pass, denying him of his individuality, John obviously rebels. This causes Bernard’s balloon to pop, sending him spiraling back to where he started. Vincent carefully traced his steps while Bernard did not. Mr. Marx was so caught up in his newfound respect and power but it proved to be only fleeting. Had Marx respected John (his own borrowed ladder in a way) I think things would have definitely been different. While the two men seem to be similar, I think their differences definitely outnumber the similarities. Both had their differences that held them back but Vincent was more pure, more authentic then Bernard. Vincent proved to show compassion while Bernard showed hypocrisy. Vincent shows success while Bernard shows failure. Vincent carefully created his own future despite the odds while Bernard got too caught up in the excitement and doomed himself for failure.
Overall Gattaca was a superb film with a great cast and this course allowed me to easily see the existentialist ideas present in the film. I recommend you all watch it because it really is a great film. As Sartre believed, man must make his own destiny; I believe Vincent Freemon did just that and more.
- Nick Lordi
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Monday, April 25, 2011
Existentialism: In the Mind's of Actors and on the Dark Side of the Moon
Existentialism is an incredibly broad topic, encompassing numerous philosophic ideas and the ramifications associated with those aforementioned notions. The negative here is that the actual definition of what existentialism is often gets muddled up in the process. This latter reality results in claims of existentialism in books, plays and films when, in reality, existentialism is not really the key code of ideas at work. . But on the other hand, this is a great boon to the philosophy. Existentialism as an umbrella term can then be better used to describe the effects and consequences to existential ideas that make up so much of what the philosophy is really about. Two prime examples are Duncan Jone’s (Director) spaceman thriller Moon and Charlie Kaufman’s (Writer) black comedy Being John Malkovich. These two films focus on the two entirely opposite ends of existentialism – personal identity and intersubjectivity – while being bonded together by the one most significant tenet of the philosophy: we are what we do.
SPOILER ALERT
Ironically however, the movies do not focus on the ends of the spectrum a viewer might think they would. Where John Malkovich is a film with a full cast and numerous personal relationships, this movie is centered around the existentialism as it relates to the self. Moon, which is practically a one man show performed brilliantly by Sam Rockwell (with the occasional hand from Kevin Spacey voiced robot Gerty) is about the interaction we have with others defining our lives, even if the other people are just clones of yourself.
Let’s begin with Being John Malkovich. Between the two films this one far outdoes the other in terms of using the medium of film to its advantage. If the devil’s in the details, then Kaufman has clearly sold his soul; the film is littered with motif dialogue and word play that highlight existential themes – Maxine, the master of manipulation, often refers to Craig and others as “doll face” and aside from being hysterical, Dr. Lester’s hearing impeded secretary makes a great statement on perspective being everything. Off putting lighting, camera work and set design set an idiosyncratic tone; the film is in an almost perpetual state of dim lighting with disorienting camera angles accentuating the overwhelmingly pathetic homes and work spaces of the main characters. And Charlie Kaufman’s meta screen plays always seem to wring the best performances from his actors (not a problem here with the great John Malkovich but I never knew Nick Cage had Adaption in him). All these traits add a feel of philosophic introspection and encourage the audience to take an active role in deciphering the action on screen. And in fact, John Malkovich’s performance acts as a perfect jumping off point for audiences and critics to analyze the movie’s existential roots. Ultimately, Being John Malkovich is a movie about being someone else in a world where the characters are comically dismal and pathetic people, yet a great irony of the film can be found in Malkovich’s performance. When he isn’t being possessed by sex crazed women or an unstable puppeteer, Malkovich is portrayed as being a mind numbingly dull person. He’s happily stuck in his routine and passionately apathetic. The only thing he has that others don’t is a finite grasp on his own identity, though he’s not particularly quick to defend it (his reaction, or lack thereof, to a cabbie insisting he played a role he did not is priceless). The further irony, that the only man who knows who he is in the film is an actor, only compounds the movie’s humour. But, as Craig’s wife Lotte says after her first Malkovich experience, “Being inside did something to me. All of a sudden everything made sense. I knew who I was.” And with Craig’s response – “You weren’t you. You were John Malkovich” – lies the main theme of the movie, who am I?
Being John Malkovich is one big existentential mid life crisis, in which everyone doesn’t know who they are and in turn, are unhappy with their lives. All these characters try to escape their responsibilities and the lives they have built for themselves with the actions they have committed by entering the mind of the ultimate existential escapee, a bland, personality-less actor. Who could be more of a blank slate than that? But the trouble arises when escaping from reailty (existential cowards that they are) becomes controlling reality. Criag, puppeteer that he is, evolves from an existential coward into existential scum when tries to control Malkovich’s life. But as the movie concludes with Craig trapped forever in Maxine and Lotte’s daughter’s body, it proves that even the actions you do in another person’s body still effect your own life.
If John Malkovich asks “Who am I”, then Moon wonders, “Where am I?” This question is the first one asked by every incarnation of Sam Bell, the film’s energy harvesting protagonist. Taking place in the near future, Sam works for Lunar Industries overseeing the automated harvesters, which provide Earth’s, clean burning Helium 3 energy, harvested on the dark side of the moon. All alone up in his base on the Moon, save for his robot assistant Gertie, Sam monitors, repairs and harvests the energy that is gleaned from the 10 or so He3 harvester tanks that roam the moon’s surface. He appears to be an amiable hard working, relaxed individual who is starting to go a little stir crazy toward the last two weeks of his three-year contract. Hobbies include talking to his plants, ping-pong, running on the treadmill and carving an extensive wooden model of his hometown. Yet, this movie, in which Sam Rockwell occupies a solid 98% of the screentime, this movie is really all about intersubjectivity, proving time and time again that the only thing that allows us to be anything more than ourselves, is to interact with something more than ourselves. Well, sort of.
Duncan Jones, David Bowie’s son who made his directorial debut with this film, has a very particular style of thriller, one which is repeated in his new film Source Code (currently in theaters, I highly recommended it). In both of his movies, Jones reveals the film’s twist toward the beginning or middle of the story, allowing the rest of the film to play out with the audience possessing knowledge that most thriller directors would try to hold on to until the last 20 minutes. This creates a movie watching experience that almost feels like seeing two separate films, one before and after the twist. And while I admit that this style is slightly anti-climactic (much more so in Moon than in Source Code), it allows and forces the audience to cope with the consequences of the twist’s truth, a style that frankly, is existential in its own right. This movie’s unexpected development is that the Sam we confront at the movie’s start is the fourth clone of the original Sam Bell, who, through the film’s development, accidentally results in the awakening of the fifth Sam clone. This shatters the typical cycle of three year contract in which a clone works for three years, is euthanized (we assume) in the so called cryogenic chamber where he is supposed to prepare for his return journey, and a new clone is woken up. However, here is the existential kicker, each clone is awoken with the same memory set of the original Sam Bell upon his landing on the moon; he is married to his wife Tess who is pregnant with their daughter Eve, beginning his three year contract on the moon. Couple this with a broken live communications satellite (its really being jammed by Lunar Industries) that is replaced by the recorded video messages Tess sent the original Sam during his original tenure in space and suddenly, every Sam clone has the exact same experience as the one before him. This results in an endless cycle of repeated actions. At one point Gerty, who is not at all the malevolent HAL robot you make him out to be, awaits Sam’s departure so that he can awake the next Sam clone. “The new Sam and I will be back to our programming as soon as I have finished rebooting.” Of course, Sam’s perfectly existential response is, “Gerty, we're not programmed. We're people. Understand?” but the message is made clear; without any variables in environment and no one to interact with, any one person will repeat their actions over and over again, be they good or bad.
One particularly interesting theme that is made very clear in the film is that Sam has clearly grown as a person during his time in space. As I said before, all these clones begin with the memories the original Sam had upon arrival. They are fully grown adults but only as fully-grown as the original Sam was upon his moon landing. The older Sam has mellowed and become almost Zen like during his solitude (as all the Sam’s before him had become) but the newly awakened Sam clone has a temper, going so far as to get in a fistfight with his pacifistic future self. Smaller details also elegantly reinforce this point. Both Sam’s exercise every day but where the older Sam just runs on his treadmill until he collapses, younger Sam jumps rope and aggressively beats a hanging punching bag. In one scene, the younger Sam who has yet to devote the “938 hours” that his prior self has put into the intricate wooden model of his hometown, flips it over in a fit of rage. This action portrays the most vital existential point in the film; this younger Sam is not the same individual as the older Sam. He is not yet that future version of himself because he has not done the actions that turned him into the man he is to become. Because young Sam has not put in the time and effort that every Sam Bell prior to him has put into that model, he feels no attachment to it. Yet we know that, were he left to his own devices, this young Sam would become that man that he encounters. It is only through intersubjectivity and interacting with another person that his actions have any real meaning in defining who he is, otherwise Sam is just as robotic as Gerty.
While I love the fact that existentialism is broad enough that these two movies can dive deep into its philosophical issues without overlapping one another, both movies do preach the one core value of existentialism: you are what you do. Both Sam and Craig want to give themselves a new chance to define who they are. Old Sam sacrifices his chance to go back to Earth so that young Sam can live his life freely.
Young Sam(YS) : Are you sure about this?
Old Sam(OS) : Yeah. You should—You should travel, you know?
YS: I always wanted to do that.
OS: Amsterdam or...
YS: Yeah, I was thinking about Hawaii or maybe...Mexico.
OS: Aloha! Bring me back a piña colada. All right, pal?
Furthermore, young Sam ends the film by destroying the live communications jammer placed by Lunar Industries, forever changing the static environment that locked in Sam’s “programming”. Sam’s actions give all subsequent Sam’s a chance to live life with different actions and different outcomes. When Craig inhabits Malkovich’s body, instead of trying to live a new life with his clean slate, he only succeeds in living out his same old dreams of being a puppeteer by using John Malkovich’s resources. But even as John Malkovich, Craig is the same pathetic loser as before because he changes Molkovich’s life and actions, to Craig’s life and actions. This dooms him to his eternal prison inside Emily’s mind, Maxine and Lotte’s daughter, where he has to watch helplessly as her life, his new life, unfolds before him. This sentence, to truly have no control over your actions is the ultimate existential punishment.
SPOILER ALERT
Ironically however, the movies do not focus on the ends of the spectrum a viewer might think they would. Where John Malkovich is a film with a full cast and numerous personal relationships, this movie is centered around the existentialism as it relates to the self. Moon, which is practically a one man show performed brilliantly by Sam Rockwell (with the occasional hand from Kevin Spacey voiced robot Gerty) is about the interaction we have with others defining our lives, even if the other people are just clones of yourself.
Let’s begin with Being John Malkovich. Between the two films this one far outdoes the other in terms of using the medium of film to its advantage. If the devil’s in the details, then Kaufman has clearly sold his soul; the film is littered with motif dialogue and word play that highlight existential themes – Maxine, the master of manipulation, often refers to Craig and others as “doll face” and aside from being hysterical, Dr. Lester’s hearing impeded secretary makes a great statement on perspective being everything. Off putting lighting, camera work and set design set an idiosyncratic tone; the film is in an almost perpetual state of dim lighting with disorienting camera angles accentuating the overwhelmingly pathetic homes and work spaces of the main characters. And Charlie Kaufman’s meta screen plays always seem to wring the best performances from his actors (not a problem here with the great John Malkovich but I never knew Nick Cage had Adaption in him). All these traits add a feel of philosophic introspection and encourage the audience to take an active role in deciphering the action on screen. And in fact, John Malkovich’s performance acts as a perfect jumping off point for audiences and critics to analyze the movie’s existential roots. Ultimately, Being John Malkovich is a movie about being someone else in a world where the characters are comically dismal and pathetic people, yet a great irony of the film can be found in Malkovich’s performance. When he isn’t being possessed by sex crazed women or an unstable puppeteer, Malkovich is portrayed as being a mind numbingly dull person. He’s happily stuck in his routine and passionately apathetic. The only thing he has that others don’t is a finite grasp on his own identity, though he’s not particularly quick to defend it (his reaction, or lack thereof, to a cabbie insisting he played a role he did not is priceless). The further irony, that the only man who knows who he is in the film is an actor, only compounds the movie’s humour. But, as Craig’s wife Lotte says after her first Malkovich experience, “Being inside did something to me. All of a sudden everything made sense. I knew who I was.” And with Craig’s response – “You weren’t you. You were John Malkovich” – lies the main theme of the movie, who am I?
Being John Malkovich is one big existentential mid life crisis, in which everyone doesn’t know who they are and in turn, are unhappy with their lives. All these characters try to escape their responsibilities and the lives they have built for themselves with the actions they have committed by entering the mind of the ultimate existential escapee, a bland, personality-less actor. Who could be more of a blank slate than that? But the trouble arises when escaping from reailty (existential cowards that they are) becomes controlling reality. Criag, puppeteer that he is, evolves from an existential coward into existential scum when tries to control Malkovich’s life. But as the movie concludes with Craig trapped forever in Maxine and Lotte’s daughter’s body, it proves that even the actions you do in another person’s body still effect your own life.
If John Malkovich asks “Who am I”, then Moon wonders, “Where am I?” This question is the first one asked by every incarnation of Sam Bell, the film’s energy harvesting protagonist. Taking place in the near future, Sam works for Lunar Industries overseeing the automated harvesters, which provide Earth’s, clean burning Helium 3 energy, harvested on the dark side of the moon. All alone up in his base on the Moon, save for his robot assistant Gertie, Sam monitors, repairs and harvests the energy that is gleaned from the 10 or so He3 harvester tanks that roam the moon’s surface. He appears to be an amiable hard working, relaxed individual who is starting to go a little stir crazy toward the last two weeks of his three-year contract. Hobbies include talking to his plants, ping-pong, running on the treadmill and carving an extensive wooden model of his hometown. Yet, this movie, in which Sam Rockwell occupies a solid 98% of the screentime, this movie is really all about intersubjectivity, proving time and time again that the only thing that allows us to be anything more than ourselves, is to interact with something more than ourselves. Well, sort of.
Duncan Jones, David Bowie’s son who made his directorial debut with this film, has a very particular style of thriller, one which is repeated in his new film Source Code (currently in theaters, I highly recommended it). In both of his movies, Jones reveals the film’s twist toward the beginning or middle of the story, allowing the rest of the film to play out with the audience possessing knowledge that most thriller directors would try to hold on to until the last 20 minutes. This creates a movie watching experience that almost feels like seeing two separate films, one before and after the twist. And while I admit that this style is slightly anti-climactic (much more so in Moon than in Source Code), it allows and forces the audience to cope with the consequences of the twist’s truth, a style that frankly, is existential in its own right. This movie’s unexpected development is that the Sam we confront at the movie’s start is the fourth clone of the original Sam Bell, who, through the film’s development, accidentally results in the awakening of the fifth Sam clone. This shatters the typical cycle of three year contract in which a clone works for three years, is euthanized (we assume) in the so called cryogenic chamber where he is supposed to prepare for his return journey, and a new clone is woken up. However, here is the existential kicker, each clone is awoken with the same memory set of the original Sam Bell upon his landing on the moon; he is married to his wife Tess who is pregnant with their daughter Eve, beginning his three year contract on the moon. Couple this with a broken live communications satellite (its really being jammed by Lunar Industries) that is replaced by the recorded video messages Tess sent the original Sam during his original tenure in space and suddenly, every Sam clone has the exact same experience as the one before him. This results in an endless cycle of repeated actions. At one point Gerty, who is not at all the malevolent HAL robot you make him out to be, awaits Sam’s departure so that he can awake the next Sam clone. “The new Sam and I will be back to our programming as soon as I have finished rebooting.” Of course, Sam’s perfectly existential response is, “Gerty, we're not programmed. We're people. Understand?” but the message is made clear; without any variables in environment and no one to interact with, any one person will repeat their actions over and over again, be they good or bad.
One particularly interesting theme that is made very clear in the film is that Sam has clearly grown as a person during his time in space. As I said before, all these clones begin with the memories the original Sam had upon arrival. They are fully grown adults but only as fully-grown as the original Sam was upon his moon landing. The older Sam has mellowed and become almost Zen like during his solitude (as all the Sam’s before him had become) but the newly awakened Sam clone has a temper, going so far as to get in a fistfight with his pacifistic future self. Smaller details also elegantly reinforce this point. Both Sam’s exercise every day but where the older Sam just runs on his treadmill until he collapses, younger Sam jumps rope and aggressively beats a hanging punching bag. In one scene, the younger Sam who has yet to devote the “938 hours” that his prior self has put into the intricate wooden model of his hometown, flips it over in a fit of rage. This action portrays the most vital existential point in the film; this younger Sam is not the same individual as the older Sam. He is not yet that future version of himself because he has not done the actions that turned him into the man he is to become. Because young Sam has not put in the time and effort that every Sam Bell prior to him has put into that model, he feels no attachment to it. Yet we know that, were he left to his own devices, this young Sam would become that man that he encounters. It is only through intersubjectivity and interacting with another person that his actions have any real meaning in defining who he is, otherwise Sam is just as robotic as Gerty.
While I love the fact that existentialism is broad enough that these two movies can dive deep into its philosophical issues without overlapping one another, both movies do preach the one core value of existentialism: you are what you do. Both Sam and Craig want to give themselves a new chance to define who they are. Old Sam sacrifices his chance to go back to Earth so that young Sam can live his life freely.
Young Sam(YS) : Are you sure about this?
Old Sam(OS) : Yeah. You should—You should travel, you know?
YS: I always wanted to do that.
OS: Amsterdam or...
YS: Yeah, I was thinking about Hawaii or maybe...Mexico.
OS: Aloha! Bring me back a piña colada. All right, pal?
Furthermore, young Sam ends the film by destroying the live communications jammer placed by Lunar Industries, forever changing the static environment that locked in Sam’s “programming”. Sam’s actions give all subsequent Sam’s a chance to live life with different actions and different outcomes. When Craig inhabits Malkovich’s body, instead of trying to live a new life with his clean slate, he only succeeds in living out his same old dreams of being a puppeteer by using John Malkovich’s resources. But even as John Malkovich, Craig is the same pathetic loser as before because he changes Molkovich’s life and actions, to Craig’s life and actions. This dooms him to his eternal prison inside Emily’s mind, Maxine and Lotte’s daughter, where he has to watch helplessly as her life, his new life, unfolds before him. This sentence, to truly have no control over your actions is the ultimate existential punishment.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Realizing the Freedom of Existential Choice, and Leaving Home to Exercise It ~ by Lauren Morisseau
What can a genius Bostonian rogue and a sweet clueless man living in a bubble have in common existentially? As it turns out, a surprising amount. In Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting and Peter Weir’s The Truman Show, Truman and Will must wrestle with realities constructed by others in order to find their true and natural path in life. Will’s flawed reality is emotional, while Truman’s is broader and more literal, for he lives in a constructed world, but both men must battle through these constraints of existence to find their freedom.
In the opening scenes of Good Will Hunting, the viewer is introduced to a young man pulled in two distinctly different directions by his instinct. Existentially speaking, Will Hunting is far from a coward, because all of his behaviors are strictly natural ones. He is concerned very little with what other people think, so if he wants to jump out of a car to beat up a grade school enemy, he does it. If he wants to anonymously solve a complicated theorem on a chalkboard in the hallway that he sweeps, he does it. Though Will's life seems to have established a pattern that accommodates for his varied interests (here, "varied interests" mainly include drinking, fighting, and library books), the setting and certain filming techniques serve to reveal that he is disenchanted with his life. The lighting is warm throughout much of the movie, especially in emotionally charged moments, as if to allude to the emotions boiling under Will’s cool exterior. The setting of Good Will Hunting is south side Boston, so it is filmed in decidedly depressed areas that suggest a sort of transience and disenchantment. Occasionally throughout the film, in between scenes, there will be a brief shot of Will sitting in a train or subway car, staring off into space, watching the world outside blur as it goes by. Though he has never left Boston, and claims not to want to, one cannot help but wonder if his aimless railcar riding is due to his desire to escape part of his life, or maybe his past. This suggestion plays into the existential principle of anguish, because Will is clearly experiencing the angst of a directionless youth, and the anxiety connected with the absurdity of the human condition.
When Professor Lambeau, an award-winning professor at MIT, discovers Will’s genius, he takes him under his wing to help him avoid jail time. The judges only condition is that Will see a therapist, and ultimately Will is introduced to Sean Maguire, a no-nonsense psychologist, also from South Side Boston, who is struggling after the death of his wife. As the film progresses, Will opens up to Sean as he is confronted with Lambeau’s expectations, job interviews, and a complicated romance with a girl named Skylar, whom he truly loves. Sean sees that Will is struggling to handle his new responsibility, and urges Lambeau to ease up on him, because he feels Will is reaching a breakthrough. Will ultimately breaks up with Skylar, pushing her away when she asks him to move to Stanford with her. He does this because he is afraid of what will happen if he falls further in love with her, only to be disappointed. Sean, who has access to Will’s past through his case file, understands that his issues within relationships likely come from abuse he suffered as a child, and seeks to help Will understand this.
Ultimately, Sean’s insistence that the abuse and the interpersonal issues “are not (Will’s) fault” is interesting, because it contradicts the Sartean principle of complete freedom and complete responsibility, which states that we are entirely responsible for what we become, because we have to freedom to choose. However, Sean seems to feel that Will is not responsible for his emotion limitations, likely due to the scope of the abuse he suffered. One would think that someone as intelligent as Will would be able to understand and control his own tendencies, but because he acts largely on impulse, his natural behavior has been allowed to take over. Because of the abuse he suffered as a child, Will’s natural impulse is a defensive and directionless one that causes him to do emotional harm to himself and the people he loves (namely Skylar). By acting naturally, yet also allowing tendencies from childhood experiences to shape him, Will both fulfills and contradicts two important existential principles. However, with the help of Sean, Will comes to understand the root of his interpersonal issues, and chooses to drive out to the West coast with his new self awareness to see of he can reunite with Skylar. In his final note to Sean regarding his departure, he echoes Sean’s own famous line and simply says to tell Professor Lambeau that “He had to go see about a girl.” Ultimately, in my opinion, Will does take control and responsibility of his own essence and choices, but he needed the help of Sean to understand himself first.
Despite the many obvious differences between the two films, the plot of The Truman Show mirrors that of Good Will Hunting because Truman, like Will, begins to feel disenchanted with the life he is living. Both men have never left the cities that they were born in, but Truman’s life is, unlike Will’s, constructed solely to keep him complacent and present in his manufactured universe. While the director of The Truman Show, known as Christof, states that “Nothing in the Truman show is fake, its all real,” Truman’s friends, wife, and even his parents are hired actors, and he is in truth the adopted son of a Hollywood corporation. The director is mostly referencing Truman’s responses to the events and milestones that are calculated to occur for him in his bubble-life. Though his reactions are real, his life lacks authenticity, and this void is contributed to by several filming techniques. First of all, the town he lives in mirrors a catalogue advertisement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The set and costumes of the actors in the movie are said to be inspired by Norman Rockwell paintings, and while this effect is charming, it feels empty and counterfeit to the viewer. I feel that it is purposely supposed to seem this way, almost to exaggerate to the viewer how manufactured his world is. This feeling of emptiness and falsification grows when Truman becomes rapidly suspicious of the authenticity of his life after a series of brief but significantly disruptive events. First a stage light from the fake sky above falls in front of his house, and then one day on the way to work he accidently taps into a Truman Show coordination broadcast of his own movements. These observations stir a suspicion inside him, and his daily routine begins to unravel, leading his to discover more and more things that seem inauthentic.
Interestingly, Truman has long desired to escape from his small-town life, as evidenced by his obsession with the Fiji Islands. A girl that he loved once, named Sylvia, was said to be moving there before the directors of the show whisked her off of the set when she attempted to blow the show’s cover. When Truman becomes frustrated with his “wife,” Meryl, he attempts to travel to Fiji, but the director of the show manages to orchestrate several mishaps and distractions that prevent him from leaving the town. Christof seems to think that they can derail Truman from his quest to escape by distracting him and adding to his dollhouse of a world, for he insists that “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.” He hopes that Truman will be deterred by the horror of the possibility that his suspicions are true, and will return to his uniform house and his painfully normal and standard routine. However, Truman is only encouraged by the setbacks, and he becomes smarter about how he seeks the truth. Unaware of this progress, Christof states, in a haunting moment later in the movie that “If his was more than just a vague ambition, if he was absolutely determined to discovered the truth, there’s no way we could prevent him.” It appears that Christof agrees with the existential principle of complete freedom, but he doubts that Truman has the strength and ability to overcome the measures he has put in place. The arrogance of this quote is shot down shortly after when the director’s assistants discover that Truman has disappeared from his basement and is on the loose.
Truman’s escape is a joyously existential moment, because it is an example of a time when pure will and determined choice can overcome a life of conditioning. Though Truman has been conditioned to fear water after his own father “drowns in a sailing accident,” he overcomes this manipulation and steals a sailboat. In an effort to protect Truman from the truth and save the show, Christof conjures up a storm to try to make him turn back. Truman refuses and presses on, and Christof cuts off the weather effects to avoid sinking the boat and killing an international hero. The ultimate moment of existential decision arrives when Truman reaches the wall of the gargantuan dome in which he lives and finds his way to a door that leads off of the set. Christof speaks to him, explaining the terms of his life thus far and his personal significance to the world. Truman is unfazed and rides his existential momentum, ultimately stating with slight scorn, “In case I don’t se ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight,” as he walks out the door and off the set.
Perhaps the most striking similarity between these two films is that in the final scenes, each man is taking advantage of his newly realized complete freedom. Both Will and Truman leave behind the only lives and the only cities they have ever know to exercise their personal control over their destinies. Will leaves Boston behind, risking his pride and his heart in an effort to reconnect with Skylar, while Truman steps out of his bubble, risking pain and disappointment of the real world in an effort to define himself, make his own choices, and potentially reunite with Sylvia, his lost love. It is a subtle but striking similarity that both men are ultimately looking for love, which speaks to me, but you will have to ask Jean Paul Sartre (or perhaps our fabulously insightful class) if they have any insights on that one because my fingers are really tired of typing. I have to go see about some sleep, so good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight!
In the opening scenes of Good Will Hunting, the viewer is introduced to a young man pulled in two distinctly different directions by his instinct. Existentially speaking, Will Hunting is far from a coward, because all of his behaviors are strictly natural ones. He is concerned very little with what other people think, so if he wants to jump out of a car to beat up a grade school enemy, he does it. If he wants to anonymously solve a complicated theorem on a chalkboard in the hallway that he sweeps, he does it. Though Will's life seems to have established a pattern that accommodates for his varied interests (here, "varied interests" mainly include drinking, fighting, and library books), the setting and certain filming techniques serve to reveal that he is disenchanted with his life. The lighting is warm throughout much of the movie, especially in emotionally charged moments, as if to allude to the emotions boiling under Will’s cool exterior. The setting of Good Will Hunting is south side Boston, so it is filmed in decidedly depressed areas that suggest a sort of transience and disenchantment. Occasionally throughout the film, in between scenes, there will be a brief shot of Will sitting in a train or subway car, staring off into space, watching the world outside blur as it goes by. Though he has never left Boston, and claims not to want to, one cannot help but wonder if his aimless railcar riding is due to his desire to escape part of his life, or maybe his past. This suggestion plays into the existential principle of anguish, because Will is clearly experiencing the angst of a directionless youth, and the anxiety connected with the absurdity of the human condition.
When Professor Lambeau, an award-winning professor at MIT, discovers Will’s genius, he takes him under his wing to help him avoid jail time. The judges only condition is that Will see a therapist, and ultimately Will is introduced to Sean Maguire, a no-nonsense psychologist, also from South Side Boston, who is struggling after the death of his wife. As the film progresses, Will opens up to Sean as he is confronted with Lambeau’s expectations, job interviews, and a complicated romance with a girl named Skylar, whom he truly loves. Sean sees that Will is struggling to handle his new responsibility, and urges Lambeau to ease up on him, because he feels Will is reaching a breakthrough. Will ultimately breaks up with Skylar, pushing her away when she asks him to move to Stanford with her. He does this because he is afraid of what will happen if he falls further in love with her, only to be disappointed. Sean, who has access to Will’s past through his case file, understands that his issues within relationships likely come from abuse he suffered as a child, and seeks to help Will understand this.
Ultimately, Sean’s insistence that the abuse and the interpersonal issues “are not (Will’s) fault” is interesting, because it contradicts the Sartean principle of complete freedom and complete responsibility, which states that we are entirely responsible for what we become, because we have to freedom to choose. However, Sean seems to feel that Will is not responsible for his emotion limitations, likely due to the scope of the abuse he suffered. One would think that someone as intelligent as Will would be able to understand and control his own tendencies, but because he acts largely on impulse, his natural behavior has been allowed to take over. Because of the abuse he suffered as a child, Will’s natural impulse is a defensive and directionless one that causes him to do emotional harm to himself and the people he loves (namely Skylar). By acting naturally, yet also allowing tendencies from childhood experiences to shape him, Will both fulfills and contradicts two important existential principles. However, with the help of Sean, Will comes to understand the root of his interpersonal issues, and chooses to drive out to the West coast with his new self awareness to see of he can reunite with Skylar. In his final note to Sean regarding his departure, he echoes Sean’s own famous line and simply says to tell Professor Lambeau that “He had to go see about a girl.” Ultimately, in my opinion, Will does take control and responsibility of his own essence and choices, but he needed the help of Sean to understand himself first.
Despite the many obvious differences between the two films, the plot of The Truman Show mirrors that of Good Will Hunting because Truman, like Will, begins to feel disenchanted with the life he is living. Both men have never left the cities that they were born in, but Truman’s life is, unlike Will’s, constructed solely to keep him complacent and present in his manufactured universe. While the director of The Truman Show, known as Christof, states that “Nothing in the Truman show is fake, its all real,” Truman’s friends, wife, and even his parents are hired actors, and he is in truth the adopted son of a Hollywood corporation. The director is mostly referencing Truman’s responses to the events and milestones that are calculated to occur for him in his bubble-life. Though his reactions are real, his life lacks authenticity, and this void is contributed to by several filming techniques. First of all, the town he lives in mirrors a catalogue advertisement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The set and costumes of the actors in the movie are said to be inspired by Norman Rockwell paintings, and while this effect is charming, it feels empty and counterfeit to the viewer. I feel that it is purposely supposed to seem this way, almost to exaggerate to the viewer how manufactured his world is. This feeling of emptiness and falsification grows when Truman becomes rapidly suspicious of the authenticity of his life after a series of brief but significantly disruptive events. First a stage light from the fake sky above falls in front of his house, and then one day on the way to work he accidently taps into a Truman Show coordination broadcast of his own movements. These observations stir a suspicion inside him, and his daily routine begins to unravel, leading his to discover more and more things that seem inauthentic.
Interestingly, Truman has long desired to escape from his small-town life, as evidenced by his obsession with the Fiji Islands. A girl that he loved once, named Sylvia, was said to be moving there before the directors of the show whisked her off of the set when she attempted to blow the show’s cover. When Truman becomes frustrated with his “wife,” Meryl, he attempts to travel to Fiji, but the director of the show manages to orchestrate several mishaps and distractions that prevent him from leaving the town. Christof seems to think that they can derail Truman from his quest to escape by distracting him and adding to his dollhouse of a world, for he insists that “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.” He hopes that Truman will be deterred by the horror of the possibility that his suspicions are true, and will return to his uniform house and his painfully normal and standard routine. However, Truman is only encouraged by the setbacks, and he becomes smarter about how he seeks the truth. Unaware of this progress, Christof states, in a haunting moment later in the movie that “If his was more than just a vague ambition, if he was absolutely determined to discovered the truth, there’s no way we could prevent him.” It appears that Christof agrees with the existential principle of complete freedom, but he doubts that Truman has the strength and ability to overcome the measures he has put in place. The arrogance of this quote is shot down shortly after when the director’s assistants discover that Truman has disappeared from his basement and is on the loose.
Truman’s escape is a joyously existential moment, because it is an example of a time when pure will and determined choice can overcome a life of conditioning. Though Truman has been conditioned to fear water after his own father “drowns in a sailing accident,” he overcomes this manipulation and steals a sailboat. In an effort to protect Truman from the truth and save the show, Christof conjures up a storm to try to make him turn back. Truman refuses and presses on, and Christof cuts off the weather effects to avoid sinking the boat and killing an international hero. The ultimate moment of existential decision arrives when Truman reaches the wall of the gargantuan dome in which he lives and finds his way to a door that leads off of the set. Christof speaks to him, explaining the terms of his life thus far and his personal significance to the world. Truman is unfazed and rides his existential momentum, ultimately stating with slight scorn, “In case I don’t se ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight,” as he walks out the door and off the set.
Perhaps the most striking similarity between these two films is that in the final scenes, each man is taking advantage of his newly realized complete freedom. Both Will and Truman leave behind the only lives and the only cities they have ever know to exercise their personal control over their destinies. Will leaves Boston behind, risking his pride and his heart in an effort to reconnect with Skylar, while Truman steps out of his bubble, risking pain and disappointment of the real world in an effort to define himself, make his own choices, and potentially reunite with Sylvia, his lost love. It is a subtle but striking similarity that both men are ultimately looking for love, which speaks to me, but you will have to ask Jean Paul Sartre (or perhaps our fabulously insightful class) if they have any insights on that one because my fingers are really tired of typing. I have to go see about some sleep, so good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight!
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Box Office Stats and Background information for Good Will Hunting
Written by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and directed by Gus Van Sant, the film is set in South Side Boston. However, is was filmed largely in Toronto and the Greater Boston area. The University of Toronto was used for scenes set at the MIT and Harvard campuses. The setting contributes to the overall vibe of the film, for due to the climates in New England and Toronto, the season is often unclear, which contributes to the transient qualities of Will's life. He is in fact in transition in his life, and the depressed setting aids this idea.
Box Office Stats and Background information for The Truman Show
Th Truman Show, written by Andrew Niccol and directed by Peter Weir, was shot in Seaside, Florida and at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. Much of the style of the clothing, vehicles, and homes was inspired by the work of Norman Rockwell, giving it a distinct late 1950s to early 1960s feel.
While the film did not win any awards, it was nominated for recognition at the 71st Academy Awards, the 56th Golden Globe Awards, the 52nd British Academy Film Awards, and The Saturn Awards. The Truman Show has been widely analyzed for themes of Christianity and Existentialism. It has found much relevance in the rise of reality television, making it an important work to explore today.
Critical Scenes In Good Will Hunting and The Truman Show - Lauren Morisseau
Good Will Hunting:
Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02M3NRtkAA
The Bar Scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSTqXme9RCk
Why Shouldn't I work for the NSA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw&feature=related
The Break Up Scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq0apHW6Ezw&feature=related
Its Not Your Fault:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92D15qtI_Gk
The Truman Show:
Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYj2m1yVpGU
Ending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAPe7SYiENk
Monday, May 3, 2010
Natural Existentialism
A riveting true story of perhaps one of the greatest adventures to find one’s iner-self, Into The Wild is a must see for those who have ever felt somewhat different/distant from others, for those who have been confused about their identities or for those who simply like nature and can appreciate good cinematography. Into The Wild is the story of Christopher Mccandless (who later adopted the pseudonym Alexander Supertramp), a young man who graduated from the prestigious southern Emory University only to shortly thereafter embark on a journey through the wilderness. From an existentialist’s viewpoint, this is already becoming an interesting plot. Chris abandons all but what is necessary to live, dissociates himself from his friends, family, colleagues and others who may have influenced him, and begins his struggle to “Kill the false being within”. False in this context is not just referring to the superficial and materialistic aspects, but also the aspects of life that are influenced by others. And so, just a few days after graduating, Chris burns all his identification, donates his college fund to Oxfam and embarks on an adventure to create his own identity.
The first stop on his adventure is with a road tramp hippie couple (his inspiration for the pseudonym), Randy and Jane. They pick up Chris along a road and quickly fall in love with his intelligence, charm, and youthful vitality. One scene again raises the eyebrow of an existentialist where the group is on a private beach, away from society and influence. Chris confronts one of his phobias, water, and goes to see Jane who appears to be troubled. In his confrontation he quotes Primo Levi and says
"...the sea's only gifts are harsh blows and, occasionally, the chance to feel strong. Now, I don't know much about the sea, but I do know that that's the way it is here. And I also know how important it is in life not necessarily to be strong but to feel strong, to measure yourself at least once, to find yourself at least once in the most ancient of human conditions, facing blind, deaf stone alone, with nothing to help you but your own hands and your own head."
Again, this is a very existentialist moment in which he realizes he is responsible for his actions and must confront his problems on his own. The journey continues as Alex paddles down rapids, works at a farm, and travels further north, getting closer to his eventual goal of reaching Alaska. Upon passing a city, he contemplates returning to society briefly, however after he sees an image of what he would probably look like in the future, he vows not to return just quite yet.
Chris looks for salvation from his terrifying city experience by once again joining his hippie friends in a trailer park. Life at the trailer park is simple but those who are there are happy. Chris and a female acquaintance he meets in the trailer park, come across a somewhat dimwitted man. This man says that everything he has done is of his doing and that he is happy. However simple this man is, his existentialist character shines through.
One of Chris’s final preparations for his journey to Alaska comes when he meets Ron Franz (Played very well by Hal Hobrook). Ron is an elderly war veteran who lost his family due to a car crash. Immediately the two begin to get along as Ron is lonely and Chris admires the old man’s young spirit. Ron takes on a fatherly role, questioning Chris’s intent in the interests of his safety and well-being. He asks why Chris is running away. The response is so existentialist and so well acted, that words cannot do it justice (hopefully we’ll get to see this in class). I won’t give away the ending, but I highly recommend this movie and I challenge you to decipher the ending, as I believe each person will take away something different from it. - Lance Barnard
The first stop on his adventure is with a road tramp hippie couple (his inspiration for the pseudonym), Randy and Jane. They pick up Chris along a road and quickly fall in love with his intelligence, charm, and youthful vitality. One scene again raises the eyebrow of an existentialist where the group is on a private beach, away from society and influence. Chris confronts one of his phobias, water, and goes to see Jane who appears to be troubled. In his confrontation he quotes Primo Levi and says
"...the sea's only gifts are harsh blows and, occasionally, the chance to feel strong. Now, I don't know much about the sea, but I do know that that's the way it is here. And I also know how important it is in life not necessarily to be strong but to feel strong, to measure yourself at least once, to find yourself at least once in the most ancient of human conditions, facing blind, deaf stone alone, with nothing to help you but your own hands and your own head."
Again, this is a very existentialist moment in which he realizes he is responsible for his actions and must confront his problems on his own. The journey continues as Alex paddles down rapids, works at a farm, and travels further north, getting closer to his eventual goal of reaching Alaska. Upon passing a city, he contemplates returning to society briefly, however after he sees an image of what he would probably look like in the future, he vows not to return just quite yet.
Chris looks for salvation from his terrifying city experience by once again joining his hippie friends in a trailer park. Life at the trailer park is simple but those who are there are happy. Chris and a female acquaintance he meets in the trailer park, come across a somewhat dimwitted man. This man says that everything he has done is of his doing and that he is happy. However simple this man is, his existentialist character shines through.
One of Chris’s final preparations for his journey to Alaska comes when he meets Ron Franz (Played very well by Hal Hobrook). Ron is an elderly war veteran who lost his family due to a car crash. Immediately the two begin to get along as Ron is lonely and Chris admires the old man’s young spirit. Ron takes on a fatherly role, questioning Chris’s intent in the interests of his safety and well-being. He asks why Chris is running away. The response is so existentialist and so well acted, that words cannot do it justice (hopefully we’ll get to see this in class). I won’t give away the ending, but I highly recommend this movie and I challenge you to decipher the ending, as I believe each person will take away something different from it. - Lance Barnard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
