Dreams and Memories - Dark City Volume III

I was watching and episode of MASH today called Dreams, in which we see what each of the characters dreams about after hours of operating and lo and behold, they simply cannot escape the memories of war. So I began to wonder, since I haven't been able to stop thinking about Dark City and all of its interesting little messages since friday, what do dreams have to do with memories? We suppose (quite logically) that dreams are the subconsious memories we don't know we have until they surface during REM (is that right?) sleep. But if we erase someone's memories, would their subconcious go, too? In Dark City, we see that the Strangers never allow the characters to really sleep (except during Tuning, but that, as we know, is not sleep) because all the action is going on during the night (or rather, let us be technical and call it the eternal day). Is that where the Strangers went wrong? Was that place they should have been looking in (because we all know it's not "the heart" - I mean if we think it's there then we might as well go back to Shakespearean times when the liver was the love organ) actually the subconcious (in whatever layer it is you feel "it" resides - I'm betting on the id).

The Power of Love? (Dark City Post Volume II)

So, John and Anna walked off into the sunset after John's revolution from the Strangers. And as we discussed in class, we know they will be together forever. But is that going to happen because Murdoch has designed it to be so in his mind, or has he simply set up the parameters of an experiment in which he can control, but choose not to control, the outcome? Basically, what is going to make Anna/Emma fall in love with him - his control of her or a deeper, more powerful force? If we are not the sum total of our memories and there is a human spirit beneath it all, is love the emotion that seeps through this inner layer into our concious state and remind us that it is there? Or better yet, does it prove it is there?

The Existentialist on Global Warming

With all this talk of existentialism after The Asphalt Jungle I started thinking about how I could apply existentialism to every single aspect of my life and if it really is possible to live like that - with, shall we say, loose or no morals, because after all, the existentialist affirms they are nonsense.

Well I could rationalize not doing my homeowork, neglecting my chores and whatnot, and coming to terms with embarrassing situations (for example, I always mispronounce words...some may not have noticed because I try to be very careful and not even dare use a word I'm unsure of how to pronounce but lately I've just said to hell with it all) but I can't rationalize one thing (aside from, ya know, murder, rape, and minor things like that): eco-unfriendliness.

Please, just for a moment, accept the idea that humans can do something to help our environment (for I know many, even myself, are still not fully convinced). And furthermore, let's make it really specific - let us accept the fact that driving your car less would help save the earth - whatever that means for you. So, in this twilight zone I've placed us in, what would the existentialist do? It is clearly extremely entertaining to drive your car to the store at 60 mph, with the hood down (oh yea, you also own a sexy red convertable) with the breeze blowing through your hair, but you know that your action is definitely, 100%, for sure hurting others around you and generations to come. So what do you choose to do (as an existentialist, of course)?

I think we can bring it closer to reality with smoking - if you have kids (as an adult) or younger siblings (as an adolescent). You want to enjoy yourself, but you know you have a good chance of hurting others in the process. What do you choose?

I suppose there is some "happy medium" the responsible existentialist must find to accomodate the "foolish masses" who are not also racing down the block in their sexy convertable or puffing away on Marlboros. But I'd like to hear from the class.

Dark City Volume 1

I suspect I'm gonna have a lot to say about this movie because it resonates much closer with the movies I've seen in the past (like for example, Imposter, the Matrix movies, and so on as opposed to avant garde or westerns) so I've named this Dark City volume 1.

I have to say, I didn't mind the fact that the Doc (I love it, they - the 'Docs' - are always German or Jewish...tell me, is that supposed to make then sound more sinister?) briefed us on what was going on at the beginning of the movie, because with a camera cutting that fast and that frequently, someone like myself, who can appreciate the deeper meaning but needs a lot of guidance getting to it, appreciates the heads up.

Now as for the memory discussion we were having in class today. I agree that part of who we are is made up of our memory, but I must argue that we also exist by virtue of other people's memories. That's why the movie had me puzzled a bit (puzzled not in the good way the director intends you to be) - when the Goodwills are changed from a Joe-Shmow into an aristocratic family we hear the difference in their conversation - before the husband was talking about Freidenshneider (or something to that effect) giving him (the husband) a few extra days off but after they are "'tuned" the husband is talking about how he had to let Freidenshneider go. Now, was Friedenshneider in on all of this change? No one else's memory is erased beyond those few people the aliens pick every night, so how can that work? We do exist because other people say we exist. Didn't Shakespeare write in his "shall I compare thee to a summer's day" sonnet that "So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see/ So long lives this, and this gives life to thee"?
And if Shakespeare said it, well come on, case closed.

And that poem "the Unknown Citizen" - it talks about how poeple become just numbers and statistics to a government gilding a life on paper - but nonetheless the end of the poem leaves us acknowledging that yes, a part of us is what we mean to others - no matter how small or how large.

Please let me know your insights, oh revered All-Star Team. :P

Thank you Mr. White

I just finished persusing most of the comments on The Asphalt Jungle and one of the questions I asked in my previous post has been cleared up, so please don't waste time answering it. Now I understand Emmerich's left-handed quote. Thank you Danny White.

Some thoughts on Asphalt Jungle

I must say, when Mr. Bennett mentioned film noir in class I thought, oh some weird indie stuff that I am not literate enough to understand. Here we go. MoMA worthy films.But I'm glad it turns out that the genre is actually something I've always admired from a distance. I mean that in the sense that I saw a few films (does On the Waterfront count?) and liked them, but just never got a chance to pursue it further.Anyway, here are my musings thus far. Firstly, to comment on some of Doc's lines. At one point, when he is planning the group he needs for the heist, he says "drug dealers are unfortunate but necessary." It's funny he says that because I recently read a speech delivered by Kurt Vonnegut in which he talks about Marx calling religion the opium of the masses. He (Vonnegut) says that contrary to what God fearing capitalists took that to mean, he actually meant it in the more innocent way - opium was practically the only painkiller at the time. So Doc's line resonates with that logic - that it is easier to numb oneself to the pain and who better to help us than drug dealers. Doc also says, "If you don't cause trouble [in prison] they make you the assistant librarian." On one level, yes, of course this is true (usually). The Shawshank Redemption is a perfect example of this. However the statement can be broadened to be analogous to the whole world and our lives in it - don't raise your head above the crowd or you'll get cabbages thrown at you. But enough about Doc.

There are some other great lines. Like when Bob Brannon says "You big boys. What do you have? Front? Nothing but front. And when that slips..."
It goes along with one of the themes of the movie quite nicely, that being we all disguise ourselves in one way or another. The alcoholic girl wears fake eyelashes (that come off in her hysteria, of course), Emmerich presents himself as a rich tough guy but is a broke wimp, and the Doc presents himself as an educated, above the foolishness kind of guy (for example, during the heist he simply stands there smoking his cigar like a noble in a gentleman's parlor) but is actually a base pervert. I think the only one who is true to himself, or thinks he is, is our man Dix. Is that why you love the line, "Would you quit crying and get me some bourbon" Mr. Bennett? Because that's what it all comes down to? I'll leave this piece of my discussion at that.
I was confused about one line Emmerich said: "Crime is only a left handed form in human endeavor." Does he mean it's just an uncomfortable thing some of us have to do (like it is uncomfortable for most of the population, which is right handed, to hold a spoon with the left hand) while some of us are ambidextrous and can just switch between morals like we can switch between hands? I don't know, that might be way off.

And two more things (sorry this is so long feel free, if you haven't already done so, to nod off). At one point Dix is on a stair case and in the background is a naked lightbulb. Now, last year we spent a great deal of time on the naked lightbulb in A Streetcar Named Desire in English class, so I won't repeat what all of you already know, but I must say it's an excellent choice of props by the director.

Finally, something occured to me yesterday while the camera zoomed in on Doc while he's watching the safe being rigged. His face is very animated - almost like in a silent film. I remember when we watched All Quiet on the Western Front last year in US History Mr. Bennett said that the faces were very animated (to a level of absurdity) b/c these actors came from the silent film era. I wonder if these actors kept hints of that in their craft as well.

So yep, now it's over. Thanks for tuning in.

Jons can see Death

I'm referring to the part at the very end when Jons goes to open the door and he comes back saying that "I saw no one" (or something to that effect). I think it's false to assume he couldn't actually see death, because when he sits down he passes a sly look at Block - and then Block knows the hour has come. The reason he didn't say it was death is because he believes in living life to the very last moment and knows that he has a strong enough character to do so even if he knows that death is a few minutes away. However, as I said in another post, he knows that the fools around him don't have that strength, and so to protect them (in line with his "protecting everyone" motif) he will spare them the agony until Death himself shows up in the passageway. So yet again, Jons saves the day.