Music ties itself to moments in our lives. Each once beloved song carries with it specific memories and emotions of the time when listened to most. Pop music exploits this and, by its ephemeral nature, it creates a collective link to a time. This summer will, for many, be remembered through Adele’s Rolling in the Deep, or Lady Gaga’s Edge of Glory and with those melodies comes a twinge of nostalgia, a memory of heartbreak or a flicker of a smile. For some songs there is only a brief, “Oh yeah, I remember when I listened to this song,” but for others, the connection is a time portal; immediately upon hearing it, consciousness drifts back to a moment in our history, and lost time becomes found again.
The Waldstein sonata by Beethoven has this effect on me more than any other song. It was the first piece of classical music that I ever loved. Probably not the first, but during one of my early listens, the wave of catharsis brought on by the piece was overwhelming. The first movement is frantic and scattered and the brief second movement acts as a moment to catch our breath before launching into the amazing third movement. The third movement is always reaching for the highest high. It’s chasing after something, though it’s never sure what it’s looking for. It, like much of Beethoven, is relentless striving. What always caught me about this piece is that it doesn’t end in success. I always heard it as reaching, but the end is anti climatic. As the piece races towards the end it builds and builds, but can’t provide a satisfying conclusion and at the end of every listen, I always wanted to hear it again and again and again hoping this time that I would hear the conclusion I wanted but couldn’t find.
I was at St. John’s at the time and the search for meaning was paramount. There’s a sort of desperation in most St. John’s students or probably anyone who spends all their time reading philosophy. I loved this piece because it felt as though Beethoven’s as well as my search was marked more for failure than for success. While searching, and like the Waldstein sometimes the thing seems so close, but it is always elusive, tantalizing and always out of reach. It’s tragic, but with the tragedy comes catharsis and the Waldstein came to represent the catharsis of the search. And then, the meaning in the search for meaning sufficed.
It’s been years since St. John’s and the search is of a different kind. It’s become more pragmatic and less frantic. I think more about what I want my life to look like in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or 50 years and wonder how I can get there then what it all Means. My mind is more set in its ways and revolutions of consciousness happen passively and over long stretches of time rather than zig zagging with every new book. The idea of finding “meaning” is an absurdity to me, until those wonderful, familiar notes come racing and dancing upwards over the speakers, then i'm sitting in my dorm again and laying on my bed. Finding meaning is all that matters. As I listen to the piece crescendo as it hits its highest notes only to retreat back down for to end, I feel unsatisfied and listen to it again.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Science is Optimism
Charles Darwin was always hesitant to apply the theory of evolution to human beings. The Origin of Species ignores humans as a subject, and the Descent of Man takes an absurdly positive view of human nature. He wrote that civilization came to be through the evolutionarily favored empathy and compassion between early man. He suggests that compassion is one of the primary qualities that makes modern man successfully reproduce and believed that the more advanced civilizations were advanced because the compassion of civilized men had a broader reach than those of less advanced people; his argument is "since I loved my universal 'neighbor' as myself, I would be more evolutionarily successful than if I only loved my physical neighbor as myself." Modern biologists take a much more nuanced and realistic approach to the subject and we know that while compassion is important in humans, fouler motives tend to guide most of our behavior. Perhaps he chose this rose-colored view of human evolution because he wanted fame for his discoveries and believed they would be rejected if he brought them to their dark conclusion, or perhaps he was too influenced by his contemporary philosophers, but there is another possible reason: When he lived, the world had become so astonishing due to human ingenuity, it only seemed possible that such a world could come to be by a cooperative group of people working together, and the virtues of compassion and empathy are absolutely necessary to make something so wonderful.
His world was post industrial revolution Englad. We tend to look back on that age and think of huge clouds of smoke covering the cities, the subjugation of the poor and the romantic poets complaining about all of it. That age, however, was the beginning of technology. The arcane sciences, which once only mattered to philosophers, now were changing the face of the planet, and their discoveries started to improve the quality of life drastically. This was the beginning of a trend.
To start at the beginning, for thousands of years, the world was largely the same. Between the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese and Japanese, each made great discoveries and advanced their civilizations beyond primitive, but as each civilization’s technological prowess grew, they were continually hindered by the gluttony of their monarchs or civil war or religion. Then there was a miracle, the Renaissance. Though the Italian Renaissance was quashed by the Borgias, the greatness of Da Vinci, Dante and Michelango could not be contained by political borders. Soon all of Western Europe began to reinvent itself. Descartes arose as the philosophic voice of the new world as he revolutionized both philosophy and science. Everyone set out to tear down the previously sacred philosophy of Aristotle. Empiricism was popular in England and spread to France. Every man of intellect tried his hand at making the next new scientific discovery. The speed of technology began to speed up. Boyle discovered that gas laws and because of him, the steam engine was invented. Then trains and railways spread all over the world. Similarly, factories were invented and improved the speed of manufacturing a thousand fold. Volta and Galvani learned to control electricity then Tesla and Edison learned how to use it in cities. There was a massive undertaking to build power grids connecting villages, towns and metropolises to generators and illuminating the night sky. Soon we had heated water in our homes. The Great War showed how technology could be used for the rampant destruction of human life, and the Second War showed us the true potential technology has for destruction. It would not have been possible without the work of Einstein. In this new science, theory precedes invention. Behind each advancement in technology is the work of engineers, inventors and a theory, and behind each theory is the work of many scientists.
Science is competitive and people always want to outdo their contemporaries, but as each field has advanced, people more and more are forced to rely on the work of their competitors. While every scientist dreams of uprooting all current theories, most scientists don’t make major breakthroughs. Many, however, make minor ones which don’t overturn theories, but amend them. The big theories are refined by the little and along the way seemingly insignificant discoveries lead to wonderful advancements. The anthropologists studying a tribe in South America discovers the way in which the shaman uses a hallucinogen to ease the mental anguish of a family who had lost its father to war, and that research leads a psychiatrist in America to reevaluate value of hallucinogens in therapy. The zoologist who studies a lizard which exists in only in the Sahara Desert notices that they absorb and recycle water in an extremely efficient way, and a researcher realizes that these techniques could be used to vastly increase the efficiency of water usage in cities. The zoologist and anthropologist are adding bits and pieces to the massive (and I mean extraordinarily massive) body of information we call the theory of evolution and at the same time helping to develop new technologies (I don’t currently have the internet, but I feel like this example could be with a little research). I find it a great comfort to know that there are hundreds of thousands of people working right now on sciencey things that could improve the world in unfathomable ways.
There is a tendency to look back at the past and think that the world was better than. It seems a natural human instinct as even that characters in Homer see their ancestors as better stronger men then they. The reasons why are unnecessary to explain here, but this form of nostalgia is pointless and irrational. When we think about the “good old days” we mythologize them. We don’t think about how the modern wars, which admittedly are horrible, amount to near insignificant death tolls relative to the per capita death tolls in any other part of human history. Over this century, even if you include both world wars, the percentage of people killed by warfare is a small fraction of people killed in previous centuries and a near insignificant figure compared to that of tribal peoples. The figures for infant mortality, rape and murder are the same way. The quality of life for most people has risen exponentially. We tend to fear China as a tyrannical country who will end up ruling the world, but they’ll pass America in civil rights sooner than we think. Their ascension will continue to improve the world’s quality of life statistics. Perhaps their rise will diminish America‘s, but I think that unlikely. Even as our wealth fades, technology will compensate for it. The invention of the internet is underestimated in how much it has improved people’s lives. Too many people still fear it. The approaching environmental crisis will force us to change, but we can and will adapt. I would never bet against the ingenuity of all of the world’s scientists. How could you when they’re the people who turned invented the computer, and landed on the moon and even turned matter into energy. Nothing is impossible (even sending information faster than the speed of light!). And now, we have more scientists and engineers than ever before; Vegas has the odds as dollars to donuts for them.
I‘m not necessarily suggesting that humankind is progressing and will soon reach some perfectly happy state of being. Science in inherently incomplete and flawed. It will never be perfect. Even if it was, human beings sometimes harm each other out of boredom as often as pain and those tendencies are a part of our race. Suffering and tragedy are in our DNA (bleh), but as technology and science advance, some of the needless pains that we suffer through disappear. When Montaigne wrote about his kidney stones, he said the treatments in the 1500s tended not to work and would require drastic shifts in his lifestyle. He decided that he would rather continue to enjoy his way of life and deal with the pain of his stones. He was choosing to accept some of life‘s pains to keep his more valuable pleasures. In modern days we can break stones down instantly and, though I‘m told passing them is still a bear, we are freed from the pain without changing our lives. The modern kidney stones might be migraines or some other ailment, but there will always be some pains that cause us trouble, but the more of them we eliminate, the rarer they become.
As we eliminate the problems of humanity, it’s hard not to look at the modern world and be amazed. Sure people are still assholes sometimes and sometimes life is tough, but as I walk through my city and look around to see all the building and the millions of people who coexist without feces on the streets or suffering from bubonic plague, it strikes me as wonderful. The only reason that this marvel is possible is because of the single largest collaborative undertaking in human history: the advancement of science. The world as it is has not come about because of the greatness of a few men, but through the greatness of many who are willing to share what they've discovered with the world. Science is not an occult teaching designed only for the few, but everything that people know is available to anyone who would learn it.
One could say I have faith in science, but it’s not really faith. Even as I sit here and type I know that technology has made my life easier at least, and I’d argue for better as well; statistics are on my side. Who needs faith when I’m surrounded by proof of the wonders of science. The scientists out there trying to tackle some problem, or cure some disease must be thinking the same thing (at least every once in a while because, let’s face it, the progress of individual researchers tends to be oh so slow). They’re working to improve the world in a tangible way and its comforting to think that the people who follow us will have even more wonderful lives because of it. This isn’t the kind of optimism where the glass is half full or empty, because science is a pitcher of water filling the glass all the time. We’ve no idea how full the glass is, but we’re certain it’s getting fuller all the time.
His world was post industrial revolution Englad. We tend to look back on that age and think of huge clouds of smoke covering the cities, the subjugation of the poor and the romantic poets complaining about all of it. That age, however, was the beginning of technology. The arcane sciences, which once only mattered to philosophers, now were changing the face of the planet, and their discoveries started to improve the quality of life drastically. This was the beginning of a trend.
To start at the beginning, for thousands of years, the world was largely the same. Between the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese and Japanese, each made great discoveries and advanced their civilizations beyond primitive, but as each civilization’s technological prowess grew, they were continually hindered by the gluttony of their monarchs or civil war or religion. Then there was a miracle, the Renaissance. Though the Italian Renaissance was quashed by the Borgias, the greatness of Da Vinci, Dante and Michelango could not be contained by political borders. Soon all of Western Europe began to reinvent itself. Descartes arose as the philosophic voice of the new world as he revolutionized both philosophy and science. Everyone set out to tear down the previously sacred philosophy of Aristotle. Empiricism was popular in England and spread to France. Every man of intellect tried his hand at making the next new scientific discovery. The speed of technology began to speed up. Boyle discovered that gas laws and because of him, the steam engine was invented. Then trains and railways spread all over the world. Similarly, factories were invented and improved the speed of manufacturing a thousand fold. Volta and Galvani learned to control electricity then Tesla and Edison learned how to use it in cities. There was a massive undertaking to build power grids connecting villages, towns and metropolises to generators and illuminating the night sky. Soon we had heated water in our homes. The Great War showed how technology could be used for the rampant destruction of human life, and the Second War showed us the true potential technology has for destruction. It would not have been possible without the work of Einstein. In this new science, theory precedes invention. Behind each advancement in technology is the work of engineers, inventors and a theory, and behind each theory is the work of many scientists.
Science is competitive and people always want to outdo their contemporaries, but as each field has advanced, people more and more are forced to rely on the work of their competitors. While every scientist dreams of uprooting all current theories, most scientists don’t make major breakthroughs. Many, however, make minor ones which don’t overturn theories, but amend them. The big theories are refined by the little and along the way seemingly insignificant discoveries lead to wonderful advancements. The anthropologists studying a tribe in South America discovers the way in which the shaman uses a hallucinogen to ease the mental anguish of a family who had lost its father to war, and that research leads a psychiatrist in America to reevaluate value of hallucinogens in therapy. The zoologist who studies a lizard which exists in only in the Sahara Desert notices that they absorb and recycle water in an extremely efficient way, and a researcher realizes that these techniques could be used to vastly increase the efficiency of water usage in cities. The zoologist and anthropologist are adding bits and pieces to the massive (and I mean extraordinarily massive) body of information we call the theory of evolution and at the same time helping to develop new technologies (I don’t currently have the internet, but I feel like this example could be with a little research). I find it a great comfort to know that there are hundreds of thousands of people working right now on sciencey things that could improve the world in unfathomable ways.
There is a tendency to look back at the past and think that the world was better than. It seems a natural human instinct as even that characters in Homer see their ancestors as better stronger men then they. The reasons why are unnecessary to explain here, but this form of nostalgia is pointless and irrational. When we think about the “good old days” we mythologize them. We don’t think about how the modern wars, which admittedly are horrible, amount to near insignificant death tolls relative to the per capita death tolls in any other part of human history. Over this century, even if you include both world wars, the percentage of people killed by warfare is a small fraction of people killed in previous centuries and a near insignificant figure compared to that of tribal peoples. The figures for infant mortality, rape and murder are the same way. The quality of life for most people has risen exponentially. We tend to fear China as a tyrannical country who will end up ruling the world, but they’ll pass America in civil rights sooner than we think. Their ascension will continue to improve the world’s quality of life statistics. Perhaps their rise will diminish America‘s, but I think that unlikely. Even as our wealth fades, technology will compensate for it. The invention of the internet is underestimated in how much it has improved people’s lives. Too many people still fear it. The approaching environmental crisis will force us to change, but we can and will adapt. I would never bet against the ingenuity of all of the world’s scientists. How could you when they’re the people who turned invented the computer, and landed on the moon and even turned matter into energy. Nothing is impossible (even sending information faster than the speed of light!). And now, we have more scientists and engineers than ever before; Vegas has the odds as dollars to donuts for them.
I‘m not necessarily suggesting that humankind is progressing and will soon reach some perfectly happy state of being. Science in inherently incomplete and flawed. It will never be perfect. Even if it was, human beings sometimes harm each other out of boredom as often as pain and those tendencies are a part of our race. Suffering and tragedy are in our DNA (bleh), but as technology and science advance, some of the needless pains that we suffer through disappear. When Montaigne wrote about his kidney stones, he said the treatments in the 1500s tended not to work and would require drastic shifts in his lifestyle. He decided that he would rather continue to enjoy his way of life and deal with the pain of his stones. He was choosing to accept some of life‘s pains to keep his more valuable pleasures. In modern days we can break stones down instantly and, though I‘m told passing them is still a bear, we are freed from the pain without changing our lives. The modern kidney stones might be migraines or some other ailment, but there will always be some pains that cause us trouble, but the more of them we eliminate, the rarer they become.
As we eliminate the problems of humanity, it’s hard not to look at the modern world and be amazed. Sure people are still assholes sometimes and sometimes life is tough, but as I walk through my city and look around to see all the building and the millions of people who coexist without feces on the streets or suffering from bubonic plague, it strikes me as wonderful. The only reason that this marvel is possible is because of the single largest collaborative undertaking in human history: the advancement of science. The world as it is has not come about because of the greatness of a few men, but through the greatness of many who are willing to share what they've discovered with the world. Science is not an occult teaching designed only for the few, but everything that people know is available to anyone who would learn it.
One could say I have faith in science, but it’s not really faith. Even as I sit here and type I know that technology has made my life easier at least, and I’d argue for better as well; statistics are on my side. Who needs faith when I’m surrounded by proof of the wonders of science. The scientists out there trying to tackle some problem, or cure some disease must be thinking the same thing (at least every once in a while because, let’s face it, the progress of individual researchers tends to be oh so slow). They’re working to improve the world in a tangible way and its comforting to think that the people who follow us will have even more wonderful lives because of it. This isn’t the kind of optimism where the glass is half full or empty, because science is a pitcher of water filling the glass all the time. We’ve no idea how full the glass is, but we’re certain it’s getting fuller all the time.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Apology for Inception
You can find in a text whatever you bring, if you will stand between it
and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they
will be there. -Mark Twain, A Fable
Christopher Nolan is one of the most interesting directors working today. He's managed to make tons of money for studios while filling his movies with his own obsessions and insights. It's on the heels of the Academy again deciding to recognize other films over Nolan's that I write this. At this point I've thought entirely too much about this movie which I think is really good but not nearly as good as many I've watched halfway through, or with one eye, but I'd better write this so I can be done with it Here goes:
Inception is not about dreams. Any criticism levied against it for portraying dreams as structured, mechanistic things isn't relevant because Nolan never wanted it to be about dreams. Nolan's making a movie about making movies. Throughout the film, while describing the dream state,the character's words could also be used to describe a movie. Take for instance:
Cobb: You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious.
Ariadne: How could I ever acquire enough detail to make them think that it's reality?
Cobb: Our dreams, they feel real while we're in them right? Its only when we wake up then we realize that something was actually strange.
Creating the world of the dream is creating a world in which the viewer can be immersed, but the viewer always brings his subconscious, i.e. his experiences, biases and expectations of the film. In Inception the subject (viewer), literally populates the dream world with his 'projections.' Nolan's characters in this movies are all familiar types who behave exactly as we'd expect them too in any heist film. The typical characters are an effort to keep the audience immersed, that is, to keep us believing in the reality of the film. Characters acting in ridiculous ways or Deus Ex Machinas are ways that this reality is shattered. Keeping the world consistent and making it feel greater than what you've so far seen make the world immersive.
Immediately after the above quotes, "Let me ask you a question, you, you never really remember the beginning of a dream do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on." This conversation follows a jump cut to Ariadne and Cobb eating in a coffee shop. Stories tend to drop us in the middle and let us figure it out as we go along, the director parceling out information to suit his purposes. This is one instance of a filmmaker's tricks being revealed.
Which brings us to the biggest trick in the filmmakers book: The process of bringing the viewer to a cathartic moment. The 'heist' in the film is to implant an idea in Robert Fischer's mind which will make him dismantle the empire he recently inherited from a father who hated him. While deciding whether to do this through anger or love, Cobb says, "We all crave reconciliation - we're catharsis. We need Robert Fischer to have a positive emotional reaction to all this." This is why people go to movies. This is why the sports movies almost always have happy endings and romantic comedies too. People go to movies to feel catharsis if just for a moment. The best of movies make that feeling overwhelming, the trite are like cigarettes, momentarily satisfying. Not all movies are after this goal, but most are, and that word is openly used several times in Inception.
The plot follows a twisting path which eventually leads us to the moment where Fischer confronts his father. Exhilarated and stressed out, Fischer meets his father and, in a powerful moment, is told that his father never wanted him to follow his path and was disappointed he did. Here's where I think a lot of people stopped liking the movie, because if this moment doesn't effect the viewer, he'll be far more likely to disregard the film. It's a strange moment. We know that the moment is manufactured by characters in the movie. Nolan's telling us it's fake. Still somehow it manages to be a moving moment. A boy, detested by his deceased father, meets him in his dreams and for him, it is a life changing moment. It's a moment divorced from reality, sure, but the catharsis craving audience still is moved.
Cobb's story mirrors this in that he is also in need of a cathartic experience, namely that of seeing the faces of his children again. He refuses to do it in dream land and insists he only wants to see their faces in real world. When he finally sees them, however, doubt is cast on his 'real' catharsis. The final shot being the top spinning and refusing to fall. It does have a more noticeable wobble than in deeper dream land, but this shot is Nolan's last little joke for the audience. More so than for Fischer, we're supposed to deeply care about Cobb's redemption and therefore the catharsis is greater for his moment of triumph. The last shot I think is a reminder to us that the emotions we've been through are as fake as those of Fischer. In his made up story, Nolan takes us through an emotional journey and at the end he's asking us whether those emotions are somehow invalidated by the possibility that they're not 'real.' For Fischer, presumably, those fake emotions drastically change his life. Many novels and movies have affected me enough that they've changed my behaviors or my thinking. Sometimes it's a subtle change and sometimes more drastic. Does it matter that those feelings were based on someone else's dream, or that they don't have any stake in the real world?
Inception is a movie that explores the meaning of catharsis brought on by art, and while it's biggest weakness is that the movie itself fails to produce that emotion in me as strongly even as another of his films about making movies, The Prestige, it's still an entertaining action/blockbuster that works harder to explore a subject than countless other 'prestige' films adored by the Academy and such.
Oh! And what does that quote have to do with anything? Nothing but that I'm not sure if I can even see this film objectively anymore because I've defended it too many times.
and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they
will be there. -Mark Twain, A Fable
Christopher Nolan is one of the most interesting directors working today. He's managed to make tons of money for studios while filling his movies with his own obsessions and insights. It's on the heels of the Academy again deciding to recognize other films over Nolan's that I write this. At this point I've thought entirely too much about this movie which I think is really good but not nearly as good as many I've watched halfway through, or with one eye, but I'd better write this so I can be done with it Here goes:
Inception is not about dreams. Any criticism levied against it for portraying dreams as structured, mechanistic things isn't relevant because Nolan never wanted it to be about dreams. Nolan's making a movie about making movies. Throughout the film, while describing the dream state,the character's words could also be used to describe a movie. Take for instance:
Cobb: You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious.
Ariadne: How could I ever acquire enough detail to make them think that it's reality?
Cobb: Our dreams, they feel real while we're in them right? Its only when we wake up then we realize that something was actually strange.
Creating the world of the dream is creating a world in which the viewer can be immersed, but the viewer always brings his subconscious, i.e. his experiences, biases and expectations of the film. In Inception the subject (viewer), literally populates the dream world with his 'projections.' Nolan's characters in this movies are all familiar types who behave exactly as we'd expect them too in any heist film. The typical characters are an effort to keep the audience immersed, that is, to keep us believing in the reality of the film. Characters acting in ridiculous ways or Deus Ex Machinas are ways that this reality is shattered. Keeping the world consistent and making it feel greater than what you've so far seen make the world immersive.
Immediately after the above quotes, "Let me ask you a question, you, you never really remember the beginning of a dream do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on." This conversation follows a jump cut to Ariadne and Cobb eating in a coffee shop. Stories tend to drop us in the middle and let us figure it out as we go along, the director parceling out information to suit his purposes. This is one instance of a filmmaker's tricks being revealed.
Which brings us to the biggest trick in the filmmakers book: The process of bringing the viewer to a cathartic moment. The 'heist' in the film is to implant an idea in Robert Fischer's mind which will make him dismantle the empire he recently inherited from a father who hated him. While deciding whether to do this through anger or love, Cobb says, "We all crave reconciliation - we're catharsis. We need Robert Fischer to have a positive emotional reaction to all this." This is why people go to movies. This is why the sports movies almost always have happy endings and romantic comedies too. People go to movies to feel catharsis if just for a moment. The best of movies make that feeling overwhelming, the trite are like cigarettes, momentarily satisfying. Not all movies are after this goal, but most are, and that word is openly used several times in Inception.
The plot follows a twisting path which eventually leads us to the moment where Fischer confronts his father. Exhilarated and stressed out, Fischer meets his father and, in a powerful moment, is told that his father never wanted him to follow his path and was disappointed he did. Here's where I think a lot of people stopped liking the movie, because if this moment doesn't effect the viewer, he'll be far more likely to disregard the film. It's a strange moment. We know that the moment is manufactured by characters in the movie. Nolan's telling us it's fake. Still somehow it manages to be a moving moment. A boy, detested by his deceased father, meets him in his dreams and for him, it is a life changing moment. It's a moment divorced from reality, sure, but the catharsis craving audience still is moved.
Cobb's story mirrors this in that he is also in need of a cathartic experience, namely that of seeing the faces of his children again. He refuses to do it in dream land and insists he only wants to see their faces in real world. When he finally sees them, however, doubt is cast on his 'real' catharsis. The final shot being the top spinning and refusing to fall. It does have a more noticeable wobble than in deeper dream land, but this shot is Nolan's last little joke for the audience. More so than for Fischer, we're supposed to deeply care about Cobb's redemption and therefore the catharsis is greater for his moment of triumph. The last shot I think is a reminder to us that the emotions we've been through are as fake as those of Fischer. In his made up story, Nolan takes us through an emotional journey and at the end he's asking us whether those emotions are somehow invalidated by the possibility that they're not 'real.' For Fischer, presumably, those fake emotions drastically change his life. Many novels and movies have affected me enough that they've changed my behaviors or my thinking. Sometimes it's a subtle change and sometimes more drastic. Does it matter that those feelings were based on someone else's dream, or that they don't have any stake in the real world?
Inception is a movie that explores the meaning of catharsis brought on by art, and while it's biggest weakness is that the movie itself fails to produce that emotion in me as strongly even as another of his films about making movies, The Prestige, it's still an entertaining action/blockbuster that works harder to explore a subject than countless other 'prestige' films adored by the Academy and such.
Oh! And what does that quote have to do with anything? Nothing but that I'm not sure if I can even see this film objectively anymore because I've defended it too many times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)