last night I saw that movie The Jacket. I thought it was thought-provoking, if only in a superficial level. is that what I mean? I�ll tell you what I have problems with as far as that is concerned. as far as what is concerned? as far as�. I remember Tes, in class, saying something about the credibility of the author..or maybe I mean narrator, which is different altogether. yes. I think I mean that she said something about the narrator being clearly represented as one thing or another and if not why not. she asked if the narrator who is not the author (and I should really not be confused about this by now) if the narrator was male or female because it would make a difference. I tried to make him male and I even dropped hints (lines) making that suggestion. But I guess bailey didn�t pick up on it. so much for that. ah well. she didn�t really like it too much. I wish I could find a way to redeem myself among my peers in this awful, clique-ish, writing �community�. no. I really don�t. I just want to get the idea across and if everybody in that class misses the point that�s a problem I have to try and fix.. at least to the point that there is one person on my side. but I guess that�s the wrong kind of goal in the first place.
the thing about The Jacket was that it provoked certain ideas, thoughts.. and twenty percent of it I think was the story and the rest of it (do the math because I can�t even do this simple thing of eighty percent) fell upon the performances of the actors.
there was a very strong suggestion (in fact I think it might even have been more than suggestion) that time travel was that only possibility of surviving the trauma of death or life or--?
what I liked about The Jacket movie:
**it employed some interesting effects when it came to entering the mind�s eye of the main character (played by Adrian Brody) and his memory and/or his future
**the element of time travel as a possibility (yes, very somewhere in time-esque: check the love scene, though it was rather forced, and her whispered voice over saying �come back to me� or something very like the scene with Jane Seymour and Chris Reeves)
**I liked that it made me uncomfortable in short bursts (i.e. with the scenes involving the morgue drawer, close-ups of Jennifer Jason Leigh�s face (wow.. talk about single white female.. she�s now more like single white and ragged.. sorry, J.J.)
**and I suppose, overall, I liked that the movie made me think of two other movies I quite liked (though they were imprecise also in their own ways): The E.S.O.A.S.M (eternal sunshine of a spotless mind) and Somewhere in Time. both movies I really enjoyed.
I do remember thinking, whenever there were places in the story that I thought they (the people behind the movie or making it) were trying to deal with too many issues or answer too many questions, I remember thinking that if this was a short story it would be (or must be) quite a read. and I�ll tell you why. because anything that is deeply psychological should be dealt with on the page if it has any chance of being really present and compelling for the person on the receiving end of the concept. I mean, look,
what I didn�t think the movie succeeded in (or what I�m not sure I was fully ok with):
....
**in the same cinematic breath, as it were, there is a strange sort of latent pedophilia going on or something. i mean, i'm not being crazy here. really, i'm not. and don't say i'm reading too much into it. that's another pet peeve of mine to go along with the line: "its no big deal." picking up on something that other people may not is not, i don't think, reading too much into it. you just pick up on what you pick up on.and though i'm sure (or almost sure) that the filmmakers didn't mean anything harmful by it, it was still there. i'm talking about the relationship between the (now i remember Brody's character's name) Jack Starks of 1992 and the jack starks of 2007 AND Jackie as a child and Jackie as kiera knightly.
we (the audience) are told through on of the characters--dr. becker i believe--that he had a patient who was sent to the institution through the courts (like adrian brody's character). According to the doctor character (played by chris christopherson [John, stop laughing]) that a patient/criminal of his was in for sodomizing an eight year old girl.
now then, adrian brody's character, Jack Starks, is not guilty of the crime that he's been accused of--that of murder, not sodomizing a child. HOWEVER, isn't it kind of weird to be shtuping (read: giving it to, making it with) the woman that this little girl will one day become? i mean.. sure its ok in that future time (which by the way no one else can visit because no one else has mastered the art of astral projection to such a precise degree that Jack has) but what about when you've just come back from the future and with the smell of sex still on you, you're at the door of the house of the little girl (who's not yet a woman)
[lyrics traveling through tin and years]
the
best
of
times is now...
whats left of summer but a faded rose
the best
of times
is now
as for tomorrow well
who knows
who knows
who knows
10:23 - Saturday, Mar. 05, 2005
Recent entries:
oday.html">the 3 month countdown begins - 05 May 2018
anothrburst.html">another burst - this used to be my playground
newlife.html">begin at the beginning. - 10 April 2008
moody.html">a blanket for a bad mood under the sun. - 25 March 2007
emilludwig.html">...kissing a fool... - 05 December 2006
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others:
lv2write00
squirrelx
cdghost
smoog
muppetathena
crystal42
thatdame
iwillsurvive
monstre
ouvrelesyeux
poolagirl
lintpickle
i-am-jack
anniewaits18
alicewonders
sunnflower
crateobscure