Change Your Image
g_ryder
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
After the "second coming" they will no longer even suspect that they are "replicants", since they have become PSDO's (Psychically Defunct Organisms)
The first Bladerunner slowly but surely became recognized as a masterpiece in motion picture art, not merely because of the excellent visual art and music that created a unique kind of mood in the audience that built itself over time, but more so because of the deeply thought provoking story on which it was based: Philip K Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?". The screenplay or the script and dialogues developed by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples builds on that to become the fulcrum and central art of story telling around which the other arts are supportive but peripheral. Sadly, most fans of the movie merely go wow on the peripherals like acting, visuals and the action scenes. Ironically, one of the pointers in the story is about the degeneracy in humanity as a result of the "Celebrity Culture" of postmodern societies that completely miss the "Real" stuff that makes us human and go only for the "Hyper-Real" or the superficial to hang on to in silent despair which is not even acknowledged as despair, since the mass of humans are too dazzled by technology and the imagery, the entertainment and the sensations generated by it. What remains as a result is a strange nostalgia for a "real life" or deeper human emotions like love that become increasingly rare and elusive.
This sequel, after a very long gap, has been clearly made for the fans and by a fan, and not for the connoisseur of intellectual art or that artist/intellectual who is acutely conscious of the tension between "nature" and technology, and specifically between the "natural organism" versus the genetically modified organisms (GMO), called "replicants" in these movies that are looked down upon by "humans" in the movies. Unlike in the movies in "real life" the GMO is much sought after by the Scientistic community for its "potential yields" and particularly for the corporate scientist who eyes the likely profits from these GMO's, and the rest of the masses keenly wait for the technology of "designer babies" and super-intelligent off springs that will colonize the universe. The "natural" has become almost completely subservient to the technological - the prime symptom of the Postmodern culture in which Scientism is the ultimate religion.
The horrors unleashed by these technologies, particularly the devastating effect on the human psyche, is felt by very few in this globalized culture, mainly the artist-writer who agonizes over how to pour it into a powerful story. This "ecstasy of communication" was reflected in the story by Philip K Dick, and wonderfully articulated in the first movie. The essence (or "soul") of the story started falling apart a few years later when Ridley Scott decided that Deckard was a replicant. All the fans took that as a gospel truth, and therefore I am beginning to suspect that Scott himself is a replicant! Such are the times. The only thing I can say with certainty is that Philip was definitely not a replicant!
I join those critics that say that the "second coming" is all style and no substance. All the money has been blown up in visuals, no money and energy seems to have been spent on the story. The script and dialogues are nothing compared to the first, and a pathetic attempt to dabble in metaphysics by casually throwing in the word "soul", also falls flat. Ford looks totally burned out, and has been thrown in just for the fans, in the hope that such cosmetics will improve the profits. ("Show me the money" he says). The other lead actors have done well and do lift up the other-wise dreary story line, to inject some emotional "masala", especially for the fans.
The time and money spent by me in watching this movie is recovered by the provocation it generates to write this review, even if this only highlights what is missing. I won't go as far as to say that this movie is a wasted effort since it was inspired by the brilliance of the first, and even a failed attempt to copy a work of art is a small but significant struggle to remain human in such times when the downwards spiral of humanity is accelerating. As they say "nothing ventured, nothing gained".
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
The circle has taken a full turn - Excellent symbolic art about the final downfall of humanity.
This is my interpretation of the symbolism in the movie and it's related significance to the first movie of 1968:
The first movie brilliantly captures the underlying reality of that time and it's developing consequences and that is: the growing expectations from technology, the coming rise of Evolutionism, the failure of the 60's counterculture leading to the religion of Scientism and it's New Atheist literature, their Pundits projecting themselves as the final and total authority over all and everything, and finally the complete dominance of unchecked, unregulated Capitalism as the only economic model - all these were considered by the people all over the world as the New Gospel of Science that would be the basis for the Conquest of the Universe. So in 1968 this movie didn't make waves, and was mostly looked upon as "cheesy" entertainment, and not as a work of Art, especially the kind of Art that serves as an early warning signal or omen of things to come. But that is exactly what that 1968 movie was: it was symbolically predicting the future.
It was an early warning that the grandiose spaceship being built for the coming Conquest of the Universe is going to come crashing down to Earth. And when it crashes, humans will have reduced themselves into creatures that are incapable of communication, again symbolized by having lost their speech... in the latest movie to make it easier for the scientistic, this happens because of a virus (since they are incapable of understanding the symbolism). Or.. another better possibility in the script could have been a reverse mutation/switching off of the FOXP2 gene because of environmental epigenetic factors ... that would have been an "evolutionary adaptation", no?
Just in case you are wondering what the hell I am talking about: its an example of the kind of scientistic jargon that results from the loss of ability to communicate.!
In any case, the point of the symbolism is that humans, because of their actions, will lose their ability to communicate and sink into a state where even apes appear to be more morally conscious than humans. Pity that the irony of this symbolism will not strike the scientistic, as they have totally lost the ability to communicate with "humanity", and cannot comprehend anything not congruous with their doctrine of Evolutionism. Therefore this movie too will be disappointing for the evolutionists who will denounce it as "cheesy nonsense" that might even corrupt the minds of their kids studying evolution in school.
Koyaanisqatsi (1982)
Mesmerizing synchronicity of music and visuals on Time and thereby it's counterpart: Eternity.
Pleasant and haunting at the same time, the powerful combination of music synchronized with visuals and the chant at the beginning makes the film an experience that could well induce a trance in sensitive, intuitive people that can lead to a realization that Time is not linear in an absolute sense, and that the 'experience' of Time is multi dimensional – even leading to an experience of timelessness or Eternity.
The film has universal symbolism about the contrast between raw, primordial nature that symbolizes the beginning of time for all practical purposes (creation), and technology –that seemingly speeds up time as it approaches the end point of all technology – which is destruction. I am surprised that no one mentions that it symbolizes Time Fractals (concept developed by Terence Kenna- the process of the ever increasing rate of change of events in temporal reality culminating in the Eschaton ) and thereby gives us an inkling of the counter-concept of Time/Temporal Reality - and that is: Eternity ( in which both the concepts of change and static fail to apply).
Incidentally, Mckenna developed the Time Fractals concept and the theory from the study of 'I Ching', but also co-related it with the Native American/ Meso-American concept of Circular Time in the process of the cycles of Creation-Destruction.
Eternity is not an infinitely long period of linear time, and therefore eternity cannot be conceived by reason, only fleetingly felt or glimpsed in intuitive, synthesis experience. Linear time is conceived by rational thought working on memory, that then extrapolates its generalizations to extend this conceived linearity which is appropriately limited only to one's lifetime and therefore it is a misconception to generalize it beyond the memory, beyond the personal experiences and the History of mankind.
This does not mean that linear time is a total misconception. It is only in linear time (can also be called objective time) that the synchronization of all the living, sentient beings of a world and (by extension) of the universe can possibly take place. The point here is that to make a 'leap of logic' to extend the validity of linear time indefinitely to the past and the future is fallacious and misleading. Even logically it is inconceivable that time extends infinitely backwards into the past – it brings up absurdities and paradoxes that cannot be cannot be resolved if we stick to a fixed conception of linear time that can be extended indefinitely into the past or future.
One way of resolving this absurdity and paradox is to conceive of time as the rate of change of events taking place in the physical world, rather than stubbornly stick only to the notion of 'objective time as recorded by a clock' (a notion that has been 'hard programmed' into us by the standard science based educational system). Secondly, when we are in a synthesis, intuitive or imaginative mode of experience, these fixed notions of linear time are necessarily suspended for this mode of experience to be of any significance.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Individual moral conscience is above all 'codes' and norms, even supposedly those of unit, God or country.
Which is the highest authority that decides what is good and what is the right thing to do? Is there a code – a formula that can determine what the right choice will be in any given circumstance? Throughout History very few men have grappled with the most important issue of being human – that of moral choice. Most people simply follow the 'code' determined by social, cultural or institutional norms, and even when that 'code' is in trouble, they try to take the path of least resistance and least risk, even if it means 'cutting a deal with the devil' or in other words, making a compromise with what is actually or out-rightly wrong.
Most of such situations arise when institutions become the hotspots of fanaticism perpetuated by authoritarian figures and some individual or few individuals gets caught in a conflict in this fanatical code. They then have to make a choice whether to go with the flow and take the easy way out by becoming part of it or to fight it to keep their moral integrity but sacrifice their security and comfort in this battle – and this moral conflict happens over and over again for it has to do with the very purpose of our being human – to know right from wrong and to act upon it even when the consequences are detrimental to our own security – financial, physical or social.
Lt. Kaffee is a lawyer in the navy who has become a specialist in cutting deals, arranging plea bargains so that all sides do not have to go through the process of 'justice'. The general technique is to put undue pressure on the accused to admit a plea of guilty, even though they may be innocent, and in turn they receive a much lighter sentence than what they would get if they contest and are convicted. Notice that in either case of the accused being guilty or innocent in a plea bargain, the outcome is basically unjust – the principle of justice has been compromised for the sake of convenience of the lawyers, judges and jury. In such a system of expediency, no one cares for the truth or justice – it is thus a state of a collapse of moral.
Dawson – the murder accused however does not want any kind of plea bargain and insists that he and his co-marine were merely following orders to give the victim Santiago a 'code red' which is an illegitimate call for roughing up or beating up errant marines. Santiago dies in this roughing up because he has a heart condition which has not been diagnosed. The accused are trapped because their superior officers denied they ever gave any orders for a 'code red'. So that the muck does not hit the fan, the expedient course is for the defendants to go for a plea bargain, and Kaffee assigned as defense lawyer also wants it that way since he has been so successful at arranging plea bargains that he has never seen the inside of a courtroom. But his superior officer Joanna is passionate about a proper defense as also the accused, who think that they have done nothing wrong.
Kaffee who vehemently resists initially slowly gives in to the relentless passion of Joanna and the trial takes place with many twists and turns. The case which is hopeless is to begin with, becomes almost completely hopeless after one of the accused is found to be lying about the precise facts, and success finally hinges upon Kaffee's latent talent to virtually force the Col. Jessup to admit to giving the orders for 'code red'.
The intense courtroom drama, the brilliant dialogs and acting, the plot, the vital theme, the direction and perfect cast makes it an unforgettable masterpiece for anyone interested in justice, law, psychology and morals – provoking the viewer to think deeply about these vital issues of ultimate human concerns.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
"The significance and appreciation of every poet and artist is in his relation to the dead poets and artists". Eliot
The arts and the sciences are so alienated and estranged from each other in their basic views towards life itself that William Blake remarked "Art is the tree of life and science is the tree of death" – a statement that was not only prophetic but also so radical and shocking that hardly anyone considered it worth mentioning because science was beginning to take charge of all knowledge that was 'irrefutable' and 'proven'. Art was slowly and surely being relegated to the 'entertainment', or at best 'leisure' category – something to amuse ourselves with, when we were through working hard everyday in unlocking the 'mysteries of the universe' revealed by science. The authority that science enjoys is so high today, that before it, art is made to look almost like an illegitimate activity when it is not confined to entertainment alone. This process continues till this day, and in schools, colleges and universities all over the world the entire emphasis has been placed upon science, technology and commerce. Arts like poetry are as good as dead.
In this movie, all the students in the expensive college have been sent by their parents so as to prepare them for a lucrative career for themselves as scientists, engineers, doctors or lawyers. There is thus the intense social pressure on them to do well in their science courses, and to ignore or minimize any time spent or activities related to art or humanities. When Keating is appointed as the new poetry teacher, he finds that he has to use every bit of his talent to generate a genuine interest in his pupils for poetry – which is in his eyes the ultimate human passion and for which life is really worth living.
Using unorthodox techniques and settings, Keating manages to generate a spark of passion for poetry in some of his students, who upon being provided the cue by Keating, form a secret Dead Poets Society to pursue their new found interest. Since the very nature of genuine art and poetry is to challenge orthodoxy and conformity, the new found enthusiasm by the students, not tempered with maturity, leads to childish pranks that will lead to trouble with the authorities. The real tragedy occurs when one of the brightest students discovers that his interest and passion lies in the arts – in drama and acting and wants to pursue it, but finds total resistance from his father who wants him to become a doctor, and will not tolerate any disobedience from his son. This is a kind of tragedy that occurs on a colossal scale all over the world everyday when parents force their children to study those areas for which they clearly have no interest and talent. Just the blind rat-race to make lucrative careers for their children, the parents will impose their will even if it ruins the life of the child.
The sad but powerful message that is conveyed by the film is that the commerce based system of education throughout the world has killed 'humanity' in its blind pursuit of 'science' and thereby made the 'dead poet' Blake's prophecy come true. The full force of this truth is yet to be witnessed by 'humans', although the scientifically learned will deny this truth even at the moment of death and destruction.
The Last of His Tribe (1992)
Anthropology is a personal involvement, with passion, in learning from different cultures and people.
Anthropology – translates into 'study of man', but has increasingly become 'science of man', just as biology has become 'science of life' rather than 'study of life'. By now every field has been invaded by science, and any proposition, in any field, is considered valid only if it can be proved by the scientific method of testing on the basis of clear and indisputable evidence (even what constitutes evidence is up for grabs – and the final arbitrator is a consensus or majority amongst the scientific community). Opinions are laughed at and logical or even knockdown arguments count for nothing. Consequently, fields like anthropology have become graveyards of meaningless collections of data about various kinds of people. Art has therefore become the last and ultimate form of expression for exploration into fields like anthropology, philosophy and history, and without art, all these fields of human endeavor are effectively dead.
In a movie like this, as in any art form, the focus should not be on 'factual details' (facts by themselves do not convey ideas) but how well the characters and ideas have been presented or articulated in order for us to learn or gain insight into human nature in general and into specific persons in particular. Ishi has been represented very well by Graham Green, a very talented actor. Ishi comes through as a shy, reserved, quiet and dignified man who has somehow survived as the last of his tribe, and running out of food, wanders into a farm but is captured. Kroeber, who is an anthropologist is excited by having found a 'subject' whose tribal language he knows, and takes charge of Ishi by providing him a job at the museum. There is abundant curiosity on both sides, and prompted by his wife, Kroeber develops a more passionate relationship with Ishi, and this relationship is the crux of the movie – that idea that anthropology is more about how different kinds of people relate with and learn from each other rather than study the other from a vantage point.
The high points of the movie are 1) some of the townspeople come to the rail station to see off Ishi and in a touching gesture present him a basket of fruit 2) the conversation between Kroeber and his wife about Ishi and the tribe's myth of the afterlife. "There is one thing about facing death – I'm not afraid to let anything into my heart anymore."3) the outdoor shots when Ishi is taken to his home lands which are still un-spoilt and beautiful 4) the beautiful musical score at the beginning and end.
The choice that Ishi makes of not going to a reservation gives me a sneaky feeling that Ishi was the real anthropologist who learned the most from his interaction with a different culture, and this learning would go with him on his journey beyond – "I feel strong. I could travel forever." Wonderful ending.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Excellent satire on psychiatry – a 'goddamned marvel of modern science'.
The theme of this movie is centered on the question of what is insanity, and how people identified as insane should be treated. In all societies, an individual deviating beyond a certain point from the norms of that society is considered insane, but even that raises the question as to who in society decides this. In the post-modern world, this power is held by the psychiatrists who 'secularly' and 'scientifically' decide whether a person is sane or not. The sophisticated phrase 'behavior disorder' is used, instead of 'insanity' – and the treatment is very simple – control of behavior by 'commitment to institution' and forcible administration of tranquilizers. More often than not, the end result is opposite; instead of being cured, the patients become worse and at best kept 'stable' on drugs. The basic plot of the movie revolves around this and the blurring lines between sanity and insanity."In-sanity is better than out-sanity".(John C. Lilly)
McMurphy fakes insanity so that he can avoid the work at the regular prison and take it easy at the institution where he is going to be evaluated, but given his nature - being too cockeyed and overconfident, doesn't know he is landing himself into a trap. Here he meets all kinds of colorful characters – both as fellow inmates as well as the ward nurse who is the most remarkable character because she is so centered on the 'normal' that she is hardly human – more like a cold, ruthless machine, and yet outwardly cordial, a model of 'out-sanity'. It is her cold smile and outwardly pleasant, but relentless by-the-book behavior that provokes McMurphy. This is what sets him on a collision course with nurse Ratched (sounds more like 'wretched') and which will also lead sadly to his own demise.
The other main character is Chief Bromden who is noticeable by his size only and hardly seems to be present because he says nothing and does nothing. It seems as if he is an invisible observer. McMurphy is intrigued by him and tries to draw him out, finally he succeeds and finds that Bromden can hear and talk as well, but has been faking it all along. They become friends because both of them realize they are of one kind – those who want to live as they like and who are basically misfits in civilized culture in which there are in-numerable constraints to behavior. When prompted by McMurphy to escape with him, Bromden doesn't want to because he fears he will be 'consumed' by the outside world like his father. "He did as he pleased. That's why everybody worked on him. I'm not saying they killed him, they just worked on him. The way they are working on you."
When the final confrontation takes place and McMurphy has been turned into a zombie by the authorities because of his violent attack on Ratched; that is when Bromden flips. He finds that the only friend he ever had is 'gone' and that now even the outside world looks like a better proposition than the ward - he finds it better to put McMurphy out of a vegetative and meaningless life and he himself takes flight
.. "In a world where many people have learned to accept a kind of Grey nothingness, to strike an unreal series of poses in order to be considered normal...it's difficult to say who is engaged in the greater conspiracy--the criminal, the soldier(warrior), or us." (Stanley Kubrik)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Look for the signs, the miracles in your life, never dismiss anything as a freak coincidence.
Is there a theme and message in this crime-action-thriller? Yes there is, and not only is it explicit but also has a subliminal, implicit theme. The theme of noticing, recognizing, and interpreting clues, signs, omens, apparent coincidences, and miraculous happenings and their significances in the choices you then make.
There are two distinct, divergent views (and type of persons) on the occurrence of inter-connected events in the world. The first or traditional view is that apart from the mundane, any strange or unusual or inter-connected events are due to super-natural connected causes or divine intervention, and the other is the modern scientific-atheist view that these are merely coincidences, chance, or accidental events and only mistakenly appear to be strangely connected only because they are extremely improbable. According to this latter view, given enough time, even a monkey with a typewriter can eventually produce a Shakespearean tragedy, just as a few basic elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc., given enough time and all the right conditions (near impossibility), will eventually come together to form a highly complex living organism like a bacteria out of sheer chance...by now you get the picture.
In this movie, Jules who is one of the key characters is of the first type, and his partner Vincent is not exactly of the second type but rather the type who doesn't give a damn either way – the kind that never reflects upon any happening. When the 'miracle' happens, Jules immediately recognizes it, whereas Vincent couldn't care less, and so Jules knows that this sign, the omen, the extremely unlikely happening is of direct significance for him and him alone and immediately decides to make a choice – to make a U-turn in his life of crime. That decision empowers him, and when he comes to face another event where he has the choice either to kill or not to kill – he makes the right one.
Jules stands redeemed and empowered, but Vincent has learned nothing and meets his fate as a man would who has lived his life 'unconsciously'. Samuel Jackson as Jules stands out as the most intense actor and delivers his lines as a champion boxer going for the knockout punch. The others are really peripheral characters – the ones who fill in the scene to make it more colorful.
If this movie makes you more conscious of the unusual happenings in your life and then correctly derive their significance effectively for yourself, rather than dismiss the whole 'miracle of life' as mere chance coincidences, you will have got the message of this film, otherwise its good entertainment only.
Tecumseh: The Last Warrior (1995)
Fight them because they are wrong. You will be the greatest Shawnee leader because you will not surrender.
The tone of the movie is set at the very beginning – "Seven times in my life the armies of the long knives have destroyed our homes, burnt our crops and driven us further and further from our homelands...." The focus throughout the movie, as it was in reality, remains on this relentless pressure to succumb to the ever encroaching and advancing American colonists and army, to surrender and live out the rest of your life like a beggar in a reservation that is no better than a prison. Tecumseh knows that even signing a treaty will at best only be a very temporary respite before the inevitable happens. He chooses to fight to the death, and exhorts every other Indian tribe who listens to him to join him in a unified army so that they have a chance to defeat the American army. In spite of being a great orator, he is only partially successful in uniting the Indian tribes, simply because the Indian by nature and instinct was an 'individualist in war as well as religion' (Eastman).
The basic plot of the movie is historical, so the question is: how good is the portrayal of the main character and whether the art gives us insights into Tecumseh's intense personality. For me it definitely does, and Jesse Borrego's expressions and body language reflect the intensity and passion of Tecumseh's character, oratory and actions. Even the supporting actors provide nearly the same intensity – notably Gregory Cruz and Tantoo Cardinal, even David Clennon. The credit also goes to the director for bringing out the best in all the cast.
The other important thing for me in any movie is the script – and that too is as good as it could be – the dialogs (very close to the historical) are also focused and powerful throughout. "Every treaty you have ever made, you promised to be the last, and every time you invaded us again." "When Jesus Christ came upon the earth, you killed him. The son of your own God. And only after he was dead did you worship him, and start killing those who would not. Who could trust the word of such people?""Shall we give up everything, all sacred and dear to us, without a struggle?" Overall this movie is for those seriously interested in culture, psychology, anthropology, history and education and is not for entertainment buffs.
GATTACA (1997)
With the Will even mountains you can move, DNA be damned.
The 'progress' of science has strewn the landscape of this world with silly and dangerous myths about human behavior. These myths are perpetuated with authority by the scientific establishment and in time they have the same stranglehold over society and even global culture as the religious authorities once had through their myths. One such myth has resulted from genetic research: that all human behavior, capabilities, character and potentiality is determined by that individual's DNA. Although it is not obvious in the movie, but I am positing here that there is an abstract force in human beings called WILL that is the driving force for intelligence that has almost nothing to do with DNA. It is that force that makes an individual do things that are seemingly impossible on face value, and beyond the indicated scope of the best possible DNA. And if you don't have the Will, even your potential intelligence that may be indicated by DNA is worthless. "Gerome had everything he needed to get into Gattaca, except the desire to do so."
GATTACA is a very good satire on this myth and also how damaging this kind of scientific mythology has been to humanity. In the plot this has been done by projecting this myth to its logical extreme into a fictional future society that controls human behavior and assesses all human capabilities according to individual DNA by making it almost mandatory to produce off-springs that are genetically controlled by removing all genes that are associated with diseases or any potential deficiencies in the physiology of the offspring. Natural conception of off-springs is highly discouraged – almost a taboo and any such persons are refused the top jobs. Vincent is natural born, with a short life expectancy and so he is a janitor, however he dreams of going to a space mission but is rejected only because his DNA isn't good enough, "I belonged to a new underclass – no longer by social status or the color of your skin – we now had discrimination down to a science".
Vincent manages to get into Gattaca fraudulently by using the DNA of a 'perfect' person, but has to use all the precautions daily so that he is not detected as an 'invalid'. This builds up the tension and the suspense in the movie which lasts till the very end. Another interesting element in the dialogs or voice over is the frequent references to "they", meaning the scientific establishment that has defined human potential only in terms of DNA. "They won't believe that one of their own elite could have suckered them all this time. You don't understand
when they look at you, they don't see you; they see me (my DNA)." When Irene, who becomes romantically involved with Vincent discovers that he is an impersonator and also a 'God child' and not a 'science child', she is upset, angry and confounded as to how Vincent has been able to pull it off despite not having the potential – the right DNA. Vincent confronts her bias and prejudice and shows her how narrow her thinking has been become because of 'them'. "You are the authority of what is not possible, aren't you Irene. They have got you working so hard looking for flaws that after a while that's all that you see. For whatever its worth, I'm here to tell you that it's possible."
This is a must watch movie for those who suspect that the scientific establishment has abused its authority in the educational process of this now globalized culture to narrow down reality only into what 'they' think that 'they' have determined as valid knowledge. This is the presently unconscious terror that 'they' have unleashed upon this world, the terror of the most deadly kind of ignorance.
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
The Ecstasy of Music is far higher than the ecstasy of gold
This movie is not only sheer entertainment, it has the most profound music in the number 'ecstasy of gold' by Ennio Morricone. Although there is no comparison in the quality of one musical piece with another, but I would rate 'ecstasy of gold' as the best orchestral piece ever - simply a masterpiece from Morricone, who has produced the best music for western genre films. The theme music is also superb.
The mood of the film transports you to that time and world and gives a feeling of that time and places were everyone was desperate, adventurous, daring, even reckless for the most coveted thing - gold. It has been called the yellow fever - a state in which people were willing to die or commit massacres for gold.
This is the theme, and although it is a sad and haunting picture of man turning into wild beast - more savage than the so called savages, the action, the plot and the acting turns it into an ecstasy. Not to be missed.
The Terminator (1984)
In the end the Terminator will triumph - that is the real terror of mankind
The basic plot of the movie is that a highly sophisticated machine (The Terminator) with extraordinary physical powers that also looks like a human on the outside (Schwarzenegger) has been sent from the future to the present so that the machines can terminate the mother of the only person who can save the human species in the final war between humans and machines that rages in the future world. This is being done so that the 'savior of the human species' is never born, and with that done the machines of the future can win easily. The humans of the future come to know of this plan, and so they too send a human into the present time to stop the terminator from carrying out this plan. All the action revolves around this plot, and all the sequences are brilliantly choreographed, along with superb visual effects and dialogs. The role of Schwarzenegger is so perfectly fitting as 'The Terminator', that it is spooky. This has rightly earned him the nickname 'Terminator' of which he too is proud of. It is this spooky feeling that indicates that this is no simple sci-fi action movie, and that there runs beneath the surface theme of man versus machine, a more fundamental theme of life and death, of 'Eros' and 'Thanatos' than just action and adventure, and that is why this is a classic.
Coming to the abstract ideas behind the movie, the idea of 'time travel' is now well recognized as purely fictional and therefore serves as an artistic and imaginative prop or support for other ideas. The core abstract idea is that of an ongoing struggle between mankind and the destructive effects of the reckless use of technology, also unleashed by man, which going 'out of control' threatens the entire human species. So this is actually a metaphysical battle taking place within the human mind at the 'collective unconscious' (Jungian term) level. The 'archetypes' of 'savior' and 'terminator' are again props for this battle between those human minds that through their actions and creative expressions support the sustaining force of life, and those human minds that act mechanically and insensitively, and who by their actions support the 'life terminating' or 'death' force.
"Our technology has already outstripped our ability to control it." Gen. Omar Bradley The key fact or the truth that is not apparent is that machines themselves are not players or 'beings' in this struggle, they are not entities that act themselves because they have no 'volition' or 'will' of any kind, rather machines are value neutral tools that are used either to create or to destroy. And since this core abstract idea cannot be presented or explained very explicitly, it has to take the art form of a movie like this one. (Also compare this to The Matrix). Thus 'The Terminator' is a powerful symbol of the ever increasing potential for destruction unleashed by technology that is bound to occur in the future - the event that can only be extended in time ( 'buying time') by the creative use of technology.
"Art is a lie that reveals the truth" said Pablo Picasso. And the truth is that The Terminator will ultimately succeed in wiping out mankind because it is 'designed' or 'fated' to do so. This movie buys some more time for us by it's art.
Fight Club (1999)
Plight Club: in the end, it will be too late to stop it.
There are two basic modes in which every animal (including human) lives its life. The first mode is characterized by security, safety, comfort, patience, defensiveness, caution, consolidation, inhibition, staidness, mildness, meekness, suppression, submission and conformity, whereas as a complete contrast the other mode is characterized by aggression, assertion, excitement, risk, initiative, boldness, spontaneity, impulsiveness, recklessness, violence and domination. Often the shift from the normal staid mode to the aggressive mode takes place very rapidly, even as small as a fraction of a second.
Modern man has been forced by the need to attain social control of the masses to suppress the aggressive mode which was a necessary mode for the hunter-gatherer and warring man to survive and thrive. Today, most people have been programmed to live the staid life of a 9 to 5 routine, neatly dressed up, working to build a comfortable life, accumulating possessions that fortify this life style of maximizing luxury. But there is a downside to this: there is no sense of adventure left, it is a lifestyle of ultimate boredom because it is totally predictable, it leaves no room for a creative, innovative choice driven life style, and the mass aggressive outlet is in the contrived wars that dominating nations unleash upon the hapless smaller nations that dare to defy them even in the most trivial of issues. The only positive mass channeling of this aggression is in competitive sport or games, but come to think of it, that too is a contraption which is a distraction from the genuine aggressive response whose real value is in creativity.
The other result of this suppression is in the development of a neurosis that leads to mental disorders, drug addiction, life of crime and ultimately an irresistible urge to destroy it all without even being consciously aware of it.
Fight club is a story that vividly encapsulates this plight of modern, civilized man, the developing neurosis, the urges of aggression that are a response to boredom, the need for genuine excitement and adventure that are now a near impossibility, all build up to the inevitable destruction that is the only default genuine excitement that is left for man, an urge to destroy, that modern man is not even conscious of and will not be conscious of until the last moments of 'recorded time', and by that time it will be too late to stop it.
"Perhaps only poetry had the strength to rival the attractions of narcotics, the magnetism of TV, the excitements of sex, or the ecstasies of destruction."(Saul Bellow)
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Deep satire on 'evolution' – you will not like what you find.
There is a haunting mood in this original make that is missing in the subsequent remakes despite all of the new special effects in the remakes. So one point is already made – more and more technology does not necessarily make art better, rather most of the time technology degrades art and humanity, and at best technology posits a greater and tougher challenge for art and to humanity in general. This is because technology, apart from producing weapons of greater destructive power also entices us with 'appearances' or 'virtual reality' in which we are more likely to get lost and lose sight of our nature and purpose as human beings. Technology is only a tool, a means, not an end in itself; it is a physical tool, just as language is a metaphysical tool for expression and communication.
Therefore what may appear as 'evolution' may actually be 'devolution' in another sense.
While we humans may 'appear' to have evolved from apes, in some ways we are worse off than apes in our behavior. "What is called human progress is purely an intellectual affair - not much development, however, is seen on the moral side. It is doubtful whether the methods of modern warfare are preferable to the big stones used for cracking the skulls of fellow-Neanderthals".(Ludwig Von Bertalanffy) The plot is simple: the crew of a spaceship crash lands on some unknown planet after having left Earth long ago. The planet has life on it but in a reversal of sorts, human like creatures are living in jungles, and hunted and enslaved by apes living in cities. Not only that, but the apes behave very much like modern day humans, and the humans are in all aspects of behavior very much like apes on our very own planet Earth. At a very superficial level it's all quite silly and 'cheesy', if not outrageous or atrocious. It would even seem blasphemous to the typical blockheaded scientist, if not assured of the fact that this is all harmless science fiction that is meant to be amusing for their kids. Let them rest assured that the formerly theory of evolution (which now, of course, according to scientists is an established irrefutable fact) is not being refuted here, only being made fun of. Who says that there is no humor to be found in 'hard as rock', 'facts' of evolution? 'But you are so ugly' says the ape to the human – funny for some, but morbid for others.
Yes, we humans will 'seek and ye shall find' (Jesus!), but we will not like what we find, for although we are much more intelligent than other primates (a huge gap or paradox in the 'fact' of evolution), we are even much more destructive proportionately – a fact that we are yet to 'find' and acknowledge, and then also 'find' why and for what that is so – and that is the significance of the last shots of the movie – that it is our destiny to eventually 'find' our true nature, it's significance and to what purpose. Also significant is that like Taylor very, very few humans even want to do so, and even they will not like what they find.
At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991)
Why did God make missionaries?
God made missionaries so that they could be 'at play in the fields of the lord', harvesting souls so that they (the missionaries) get confirmed entry into heaven on judgment day. No kidding here – check with any religious authority. The only problem is that just how many souls need to be saved or harvested per missionary? That apart, another problem was that what to do with the savages once they had been saved by having accepted the Lord Jesus as the savior? Here there were two choices – either they could 'serve' the missionaries and their political masters for the rest of their lives, but in case they were not suitable for that purpose, or the land they were living on was required, then the best solution was to kill them, because the perfect logic was that once their souls had been saved, they had no need for their bodies any longer. The important point to note is that they must be saved first and then only must they be killed, otherwise who knows where their souls might escape to, never to be harvested? Again I am not kidding, check the History of the 'conquest of paradise'.
The Amazon forests are the last of the 'fields to be harvested', because they are difficult to access. Although systematic cutting of the forests is now well under progress, the speed at which it has been done earlier without machines was quite slow.
The basic storyline is that the government hires half Native American pilot Lewis Moon to bomb the wooden settlement of the nearby Niruna tribe so that they run away and the land can be used by the government, as also gold has been found there. There are two missionary couples who want to 'save' the tribal people before they are made to run away by the government. When Moon takes his plane over the settlement, a highly charged and unafraid tribal leader shoots a futile arrow towards him. Shaken by this experience, and with the help of the local drug something snaps inside him and he refuses to drop the bombs over the settlement, dumps his job and goes to live with the Niruna who accept him as some kind of person who has 'power'. Meanwhile the missionaries reach there and try to befriend the Indians by giving them gifts. Moon tries to warn the Indians that they should have nothing to do with the missionaries, and that any kind of contact is going to be fatal for them.
But fated it is already, as disease first consumes the son (Billy) of the sincere missionary Martin. Billy has become close friends with the natives, and when he dies, they are also heartbroken and try to figure out who killed him, rather than accept the civilized man's 'fact' that malaria was the cause. Through their religious visions they conclude that Billy was killed by the other missionary Leslie, who flees.
Subsequently, disease hits the Indians as they are infected by flu carried by Moon, and they have no immunity against it. The religious leader of the Indians begins to suspect that Moon is a fraud, and Moon feels he is trapped between two extreme world views which cannot be reconciled because there is no common ground between them. One world view is that of civilization grounded in material science as well as organized religion of monotheism, the other world view is of raw nature in harmony and hidden entities as causes or controls, and Moon is in the No Man's Land between the two. The settlement is bombed and destroyed, the Indians flee into the forest, and Moon is confronted by the native religious leader who calls Moon a 'white man' before he dies.
Moon is left 'all alone in the world with nothing but folly' (Carlos), the movie ends with him determined to live his life in the forest, all alone if need be. In a very strange way Moon reminds me of a real life character caught in the No Man's Land between organized religion and primordial personal religious experience that makes that individual all alone in the world confronting the monumental follies of man. Kierkegaard roamed the streets of Copenhagen all alone 'at play in the fields of the lord' and his harvest was that of volumes of creative writing that probed the true meaning of religion.
American History X (1998)
Rewrite your history for your own sake.
The interesting title of this movie supposedly comes from the teacher in the school (Dr Sweeney) who tells his student (Danny) to write an account of his life especially in regard to his relationship with his brother who is a Neo-Nazi Skinhead whom he idolizes and wants to follow in his footsteps. The teacher is telling Danny not to be stuck in the past of others who have made the same disastrous choices but to find for himself whether he is capable of thinking on his own rather than follow the logic and rhetoric of a gang of bigoted Nazis. By writing out his own story, Danny first revisits his past, and finally discovers through the experiences of his brother in prison that indeed he has only been following the prejudiced logic of others, a logic that is fortified into an emotional frenzy of hatred by the archaic rhetoric of people like Hitler, and in this process they have become mere pawns in a game of domination that seems to go on eternally. The whole point of the movie is that this game of domination is a lose-lose game of false or illusory honor or pride in which even the 'king' is eventually forced to commit 'hara-kiri', whereas the pawns, whether on the side of the oppressor or the side of the oppressed who react violently, are either slaughtered or lead a foolish, meaningless life of subservience or futile violent reprisals in which they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, learning nothing from their past. So American History with the suffix X (symbolizing the unknown – that is, capable of being reinterpreted without racial prejudice) is the attempt to breakout of this vicious power game, so that something valuable can be learned from History, rather than be trapped in it. The X is also a sort of tribute to Malcolm X who renounced his racism against whites and said that the problem of race was not merely an American problem but a world problem – a problem of humanity (Dr Sweeney's story about dealing with the problem is quite similar to that of Malcolm X's transformation of attitude). This movie is an attempt to deal with this problem by pointing out that this must be dealt with fore-mostly in the educational institutions and that the teachers have a crucial role in this. If this issue is not dealt with at the school level, then it becomes extremely difficult to correct at the later stage of an individual's life as there are no existing institutions that deal with this issue of reforming racial prejudices and attitudes. The turning point in the movie comes when Dr Sweeney posits the key question regarding the problem: "I didn't get no answers because I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions – has anything you have done made your life better?" Yes, everything depends upon the questions that you put to yourself and then honestly try to answer those for your own sake. A near perfect acting by all the leading cast, excellent editing and well researched script that presents all the main arguments on this issue concisely makes this must-watch movie, especially for young people in schools.
The Hunger Games (2012)
The Gods demand sacrifice. The Gods are always demanding sacrifice.
If plain entertainment is your cup of tea and you are in your teens, and if you take lightly to kids killing kids in a game intended for entertainment for the masses, then go for it. Apart from some good acting by the pleasant looking Jennifer Lawrence, whose character development this movie revolves around, there is not much to commend in it. A shaky, inconsistent and incoherent plot, only a couple of good dialogs and jerky action scenes are what characterize it. There are no really good ideas in it, and a couple of very bad ones. The first bad idea is that a contest in which all but one of the participants are killed by the others can be called any sort of 'game' by any stretch of imagination. The correct term is clearly 'war' if the movie is to be taken seriously. (Perhaps in the post- postmodern dystopia words have entirely new meanings, or totally hazy meanings.) The idea that games can be a substitute for war is a good idea, but only if these games are not fatal, or are fatal only exceptionally. The other bad idea is that children are forced by lottery to participate in this death contest (notice that nobody volunteers, and the only exception is also motivated by the desire to save her sister). This is similar to the 'archaic man's' (Jung) worst habits of trying to please the gods by ritual human sacrifices that were almost never voluntary. The popularity of the Hunger Games books and now this movie could be that it stirs that archaic visceral excitement of seeing people being sacrificed as tribute or to please the powers that were presumed to be, so that those powers (gods) give the cult, community or tribe a bountiful harvest so that they don't go 'hungry'. Let me bring some rational balance here by pointing out that these archaic practices did work in exceptions, and only if a powerful person of the community sacrificed something voluntarily with a pure heart and impeccable motive. In all other cases, it was a perverse ritual that had bad consequences for the community, but which was not to be realized by the perpetrators of the ritual. Does watching this movie ring a bell?
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
No good thing ever dies.
The greatness of this film is in its excellent presentation and articulation of what lies deep within a human being that makes him/her persevere against impossible odds, especially so when he/she is facing a terrible injustice. This reminds me of Viktor Frankl's book 'Man's Search for Meaning' based on his experiences in prison under far worse conditions than depicted in this film. It is only under the harshest and most extreme of circumstances that a sensitive and just human being whose integrity is under attack will almost certainly face the question of the meaning of his/her life and in general the meaning of life and the meaning of freedom. The only real freedom that human beings have lies in a creative response to the impossible but challenging circumstances that one faces, and in that creative expression one finds meaning. No one can give that freedom and no one can take away that freedom – its source is within, and completely independent of external circumstances and institutions. All institutions tend to inhibit this freedom and instead 'confine' individuals so that they become 'institutionalized'. The prison is the toughest of all institutions. But the tougher the conditions, the greater is the challenge and if understood that way, the greater the rewards in finding meaning. But until that is accomplished, one must have something essential and substantial to believe in – call it hope or faith or self esteem – in order to survive, for nothing is accomplished in death. At the same time, the idea of death itself is the motivating force – a sense that one could die without having achieved anything in life is the most powerful life sustaining force itself – this is the most stupendous paradox of human existence, something that was hinted at in Joseph Heller's Catch 22. At the centre of this catch is the hope (a word much abused) that one will find meaning even in the most hopeless of conditions, that one will be able to forge something good out of the entire BS that surrounds us. And that which is good lasts forever. That is the true faith, not the false faith of the corrupt Warden, who in this case is not only the proverbial 'devil who is fond of quoting from the scriptures' but also gives the airs and appearances of one who is a 'man of God' only because of his fanatical devotion to the Bible. The irony of it all is brought out superbly near the end. The ending was the best part in a way because this story was no hopelessly fated 'Greek Tragedy', as the central message of the film was that hope within one man can light up the hope in another who otherwise would have given up, and that this evocation is a very powerful bond between humans, in this case between two very different kind of humans, both by background as well as race, but who become the best of friends because they share something vital deep inside that makes them 'to get busy living' rather than to 'get busy dying'. Finally, what makes this one of the greatest movies is that it also has drama, adventure and action which makes it appealing to a wide audience. For the serious, it can revisited several times for the special kind of mood that it evokes – a mood that is both uplifting as well as thought provoking.
Grey Owl (1999)
The greatest love is commitment. A story of two 'Pilgrims of the Wild.'
This is a story of a man who first transforms himself into what he dreams to be – the kind of life he wants to live, and then is further transformed by a woman who commits herself to him. As I see it, this movie is not merely a biography of Archie Grey Owl, but more so of a relationship that transforms him from a trapper into a conservationist and writer. Pony, who befriends him and becomes his wife, lights up the 'eco' consciousness within him so as to make him stop killing the beavers ("You must stop this work. It is killing your spirit as well as mine.") and instead becomes a protector of wildlife by championing the cause of conservation of the ecological system by writing about it. The sequences about the two beaver kits that were saved by Pony after Archie has killed their mother are moving scenes. Pony looks after them and they grow up virtually as part of the family for it is their presence that makes Archie turn away from trapping any more beavers. (The interested viewer may want to check what finally happens about the pair of beavers – (spoiler) and that it is the saddest part of the entire story.) There is another shadow that hangs over Archie, and that is his past, his identity by birth, which he wants to conceal for whatever psychological reasons – one of them being that he loathes the life of the civilized man. It is only a matter of time before someone finds out, and when it is out after his death, the 'civilized' world is outraged at the 'deception'. I would have thought that these 'civilized' people would have been proud of him, and appreciate the joke played on them by the powers that be. As the Indian Chief 'sees' the joke, and has a good laugh at it, the others present also intuit this joke, including Grey Owl, the shadow that hangs over him is lifted. The Chief then makes a remark that epitomizes the life of Grey Owl: "Men become what they dream. You have dreamed well." That scene is the climax of the film, which also lifts the otherwise somber mood. Fairly good overall acting by all the cast, especially Brosnan if one can suspend the 'Bond' image of him. The more complex character of Anahareo (Pony) would always have been a difficult one to portray, but I feel it is good enough, though it could have been better. Compact and comprehensive script, brilliant cinematography, makes it a must watch film for the 'pilgrim of the wild'.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
The Matrix is there for you. Challenge it, know and reconstruct yourself.
It was always going to be difficult to match the brilliance of the first matrix movie, and apart from the high speed shootouts, the rest looks comparatively jaded, along with the acting of all the main characters. My focus, as in the earlier review, will continue to be on the mythology and the ideas about The Matrix in the movie, particularly about the part where Neo reaches the 'mainframe' and meets the 'architect' of the matrix. Firstly the so called 'problem' of choice, which has been fudged in the movie, needs to be sorted out. Let me state at the onset that The Matrix is a deterministic control system, which means that in The Matrix, a broad script of the events of the world have been programmed or 'fated' to happen, without which there would be utter chaos. (Compare with the Greek sub-Matrix of the Gods of Olympus who are constrained by the super-script of the force of necessity 'Ananke', also compare with John C Lily's E.C.C.O.) But within the broad script there is always the scope and the limited 'freedom' for individual human beings to forge their own mini-scripts i.e. make interesting or creative twists and turns. As an analogy imagine you have been asked to play the role of Julius Caesar in a play and you have the choice of either following the script given to you verbatim or make interesting or creative alterations to it. But you don't have the choice of completely changing the character portrayal of Julius Caesar. Coming to the broader context of choice, although the vexing issue of free willed choice versus fate has been pondered for millennia, there is no clarity on it simply because free willed choice happens only in the present instant in reality, so in hindsight may appear to be fated, and because such choices have been the result of the essential nature of the individual who is making the choice. Even beyond that is 'real' choice and that is when the 'free' individual 'creates' an option, that is, does an act that is not determined by past events or has no cause-effect relationship with past events or existing social, cultural norms. The very idea or concept of creativity is that it is something entirely new, not related to or determined by anything in the past. So very few events in world and in the life of an individual are 'real' choices, usually those that happen at critical moments or in crisis situations. But even then micro choices are constantly made by many individuals. For example, as I write this review, I realize that although I may be 'fated' or 'determined' to do this, but the choice of words are 'real' choices only IF I am able to be creative in this, not just making clever permutations and combinations. By this I am bringing to your notice that the prerequisite for 'real' choice is to develop a keen and sharp awareness about how you, IF, and as, an independent, autonomous individual are personally making decisions, even the minor ones, especially by being aware of your motives and intentions behind every act. A tall order? You bet it is. If you take on the challenge, The Matrix is there as an existing edifice (at a superficial level simply the arena of the physical world itself) to make use of as well as scripted to rigorously test you at every step. Always remember, The Matrix is itself value neutral, you have to forge your own values. In the broadest sense, The Matrix runs the script of constructing a scenario in which the forces of sustenance of life is constantly at battle with the forces of destruction, which is what the 'architect' explains to Neo, who also explains that 'the One', the 'Oracle' etc. are basically another level of control. The destructive side has to be, by necessity (Ananke), stronger and therefore will eventually triumph (only in the material sense, not in essence) causing a 'crash' or collapse of The Matrix itself, ending all life, which means the end of the world.
The Matrix (1999)
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see for yourself. And it's going to find you if you really want it to.
The all around brilliance of this movie comes from the multidimensional themes of art, mythology, intellect and entertainment. It stands out exceptional even in special effects and martial arts, so there is something for everyone in it, and that is why it will remain as an all time classic. My focus in this review will be on the myth of The Matrix, the intellectual ideas and the questions that arise in the plot and the dialogs, and these are as I have formulated them: What is real, and by the same token, what is illusory? What is really behind the complex, seductive, at times apparently chaotic and random, at times apparently precisely timed and connected coincidences of the events and between the people of the world? What controls all the events of the world? Do individuals have any control at all through their choices and decisions over what happens or will happen? Or is it all 'programmed' or 'fated' in a scripted manner? In short, who or what runs the show? Are all our perceptions the result of the cultural construct (the set of perceptual interpretations and beliefs about the world 'taught' into each one of us by our social, cultural 'teachers'), or do we have the freedom to make our perception take flight into new territories, where no one has ventured so far? What are the limits of this freedom and how can we then meaningfully correlate with the existing knowledge matrix (and this movie is itself part of The Matrix) of the now diffuse and globalized culture of this world? These questions have been asked by seers, visionaries and thinkers in all parts of the world for millennia. The answers, descriptions, interpretations provided by these people found in the various myths, are so diverse and different that it's mind boggling to the non-thinker, but quite a challenge to the explorer. Levi Strauss put it this way: "A theoretically infinite number of versions of the myth will be generated, each slightly different from the others. Myth thus becomes the third dimension of language; in it a continuous attempt is made to reconcile the other two dimensions of language - the diachronic and the synchronic. Because complete reconciliation is impossible, myth grows spiral - wise until the intellectual impulse which has produced it is exhausted. Myth grows then, because, structurally, the contradiction - the asymmetry – which gives it life cannot be resolved. Different versions are part of the same myth precisely because a myth is not reducible to a single uniform content, but is a dynamic structure. Eventually all the versions of a myth have to be taken into consideration so as its structure can become apparent." So if any of these questions has ever bothered you, then welcome to The Matrix, the command and control system of the world that is by the necessary order of things, hidden from us for the very simple reason that it must be beyond individual manipulation (yes, the factual flaw in the movie is that the Matrix can be hacked). The only thing that The Matrix will allow is for the determined individual is to have a glimpse or a series of images of itself, but the interpretation of those is only one such interpretation that ideally should have correlation to interpretations that others have given. "The test of a true myth is that each time you return to it, new insights and interpretations arise" (Starhawk). Good luck to you and hope you 'see' The Matrix, that is, if you really want to.
Blade Runner (1982)
Suspect?...How can it not know what it is?
I had to see this film couple of times before I could figure out the art, the symbolism and the philosophical ideas driving it. The dialogs seem innocuous on the surface, but as you go deeper and go over them from various angles, they turn out to be profound, especially those that take place in Tyrell's office. This is art and intellect at its best. The central theme or idea of the film is based on a very fundamental question: How does one distinguish a 'real' human being from an 'apparent' human being? Precisely what defines 'human' apart from mere bodily appearance and intelligence? In the movie a lie-detector like machine is used to detect the emotional responses of a test subject to determine if that subject has enough empathy to qualify as a human being, failing which he/she is identified as a 'replicant', which in the movie lingo means genetically manufactured pseudo-humans, designed to work 'slave like' in extreme physical conditions that also require intelligence. Naturally, in the context of the plot, all 'self attested humans' consider the replicants as mere machines, and those that do not perform according to their set role, or display rebel like behavior are to be hunted down and 'terminated with extreme prejudice' by the special policemen called 'bladerunners', who are also trained to use the 'empathy test' to detect replicants. It is the untested assumption, amounting to prejudice, that the replicants can never have higher emotions like empathy, love, compassion, value for life other than one's own, etc. The central idea of the movie is that this untested assumption, this 'extreme prejudice' is now going to be tested for all that is its worth, and lots of 'lives', both 'human' and 'replicant' are at stake
.and both the human characters as well as the replicant characters will display behavior that is not to be expected, is extremely ironic if the existing assumptions and prejudices are to hold. The other striking aspect I found was a great sense of ironic humor in the dialogs. One example is Tyrell proudly claiming 'More human than human is our motto'. That one made me laugh for a long, long time. Then there is the romance between Deckard and Rachel which also blends well with the central theme, an integral part of the plot and which also gives a sense of completion to the movie in the end. Rather than classify this as science fiction I would classify this film as 'humanities reality', that is, a film that should be considered as one that addresses the most serious human concerns about the slow 'disappearance of the human' (Rick Roderick) in the postmodern world, a world in which 'real' is no longer meaningful and only the commercially manufactured images that sell the most are the only values left. This a one of those few movies that can be watched several times from different perspectives in order to fully appreciate the artistic and intellectual quality of the movie.
Devil's Doorway (1950)
It takes only one man to open the Devil's Doorway and hell to pour through.
This movie is in a remarkable contrast to Broken Arrow (released in the same year) insofar that in this movie one bad man (lawyer Verne Coolan) leads a whole community on the wrong path. It's not that the others are innocent sheep that can be led anywhere, but the racial, cultural prejudices are the preying grounds for the Devil to feed upon. And what better agent or instrument of the Devil than an evil lawyer, and an unjust law as the weapon? The hook or by crook manner in which the Native people in the new World were looted and stripped of all their rights is nowhere better exemplified than in this movie. Of course in this fictional (although in reality it was typical) case, the methodology is crude and overt because all that was needed was to push over one man who wanted to hold on to his land and to hold on to it even if he has to buy his own land if need be. But even that is denied to him because a new law framed by the government does not recognize an Indian as a valid citizen (and therefore cannot legally own any land even if bought by him). The far more sophisticated method was to simply pay a few dollars and bottles of whiskey to just one weak and drunkard Indian of the tribe, in return get a piece of paper signed by him selling all the land the tribe was living on, and loudly claim that they were now the owners of the land and the Indians had better push off or get killed by the 'volunteer army'. A further level of sophistication was required when the tribe was united under a strong Chief. In that case a treaty was made that promised protection to the Indians from further encroachment if the Indians gave up a large chunk of the land. Once that was accomplished, a slow process of gradual encroachment would begin, along with provocation upon provocation that would eventually elicit a retaliatory response. Once again a hue and cry would be raised that the Indians had broken the treaty. Naturally, the 'poor innocent settlers' were under grave threat to their lives and 'fully paid-up' property, and the 'poor innocent government' had no choice but to call in the 'highly disciplined' army to restore order in the land by wiping out the remaining Indians, and if some had still managed to survive, they would be confined to a 'reservation' where they would be slowly starved to death. Much later, even Hitler expressed his admiration for these sophisticated methods and advanced political science techniques used to find a 'solution' to the 'problem' of sub-humans. Such is the legacy of the 'conquest' and on such foundations 'the birth of The Nation' took place, The Nation that would claim to be the champion of 'human rights' and 'freedom of the individual' all over the world. Such ill-gotten power carries a terrible burden, and the telling of the story truthfully (in the general context) as this movie does, has substantial redeeming value, although what is done cannot be undone. Try to ignore it, try to forget it, and even that little window of redemption is shut for ever.
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
When all else is falling apart love lives on.
As the title goes, this film epitomizes the beginning of the decimation of whole Indian nations down to insignificant numbers due to colonization, war, disease, and commerce – all of which were cumulatively devastating to the Indians both physically and psychically. This is the overall background of the movie, and violence runs almost throughout, from the beginning hunt to the last few minutes. Despite the sad and violent backdrop, the story is uplifted by the tense developing romance of Hawkeye (Daniel Day Lewis) and Cora (Madeline Stowe), and both of them give a sterling performance as the role seems to fit them perfectly. The romance is all the more intense because it is between two people who are so differently oriented and socially placed and also because it is fused with intense adventure. The script and direction provide several insights into Native American culture, one of which is right at the beginning when Russell Means performs a prayer ceremony over the fallen deer. Neat and economic script with nothing superfluous, beautiful photography, unforgettable musical score, brilliant dialogs
in short, no wasted moments, makes it a movie that can be seen several times, worth having in your collection.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Provocative Poetry in Motion Picture evokes questions, questions
Stanley Kubrick's Magnum opus is a series of interconnected provocative visual metaphors that stir up the human mind so that the most interesting questions emerge out of this cauldron. As I can decipher, the central, most provocative question that emerges is: What is the purpose of life? And more specifically: What is the ultimate human purpose? As Andrei Tarkovsky put it "The goal of all art is.....to explain to people the reason for their appearance on this planet; or, if not to explain, at least to pose the question". Kubrick, the wizard of films, accomplishes this admirably in most of his films. To be sure, this may not strike everyone as true, but that is the nature of art – it's target audience is always a select one – even to the extent that some targets are hit harder by that art than it does even its creator, and boy, as a teenager (around 14 then, the timing was so crucial!) I was hit hard by 2001 when I saw it – both in heart and mind. The visions that Kubrick hands down to us are provocative and challenging, and that is exactly how I took it. The first effect of this film is that it mystifies – creates a general sense of mystery and wonder. Only then do you come to the specific mysteries – the concept of evolution is one which is now a hotly debated issue and we are nowhere close to resolving it. Another mystery is that of time - provoked by the images which sometimes seem to slow down so much that time seems to stop (an irritant for so many people), and at then sometimes it accelerates or even jumps at a dizzying speed. One of the key characters, HAL evokes questions like: just what is intelligence? Is it even possible to simulate human like intelligence in machines? The answer to that one is becoming increasing clear: no. The point is that even if we know that AI at the human level is impossible, does not invalidate AI research completely, as A.C.Clarke put it: 'The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible'
that's food for thought. Then there is a flood of questions about the relationship between machines and humans that have critical moral and ethical dimensions
but I'm running out of space here, so I'll close by urging viewers of this film to go over it carefully and articulate questions that address the core nature of us as human beings.