 |
|
17 Febr 2002 - 22
March 2002 |
|
 Seen: 22 March. 2002. Director: Michael Mann. With: Will Smith, Jamie Foxx, Mario Van Peebles, Jon Voight, Jada Pinkett-Smith. Cassius Clay turned to Islam to become Muhammed Ali. Why? He refused military service and was almost put behind bars for it. He decided that the white man's society, Christianity, is mad and that the black idealism of Malcolm X and of Martin Luther King were proof of the fact that repression in the white arena had to be countered by the glory of at least his physical prowess in boxing. So became the man a modern time hero. Not being the great intellectual genius having knocked his brains out in the end, he still needs to be remembered as one at the right side of the truth. The movie closely relates the feats of Ali's career. Because of his troubles with the government he lost his boxing license and thus he had a key-fight in Africa where he had a revelation of his true adherence: the natural of the black heart of rhythm and communal consciousness ('Here even the pilots are black!'). He was the representative of the natural power and the cramp of white society was his enemy. 'Not the Vietcong are my enemy, I will not kill them, you who take my freedom are my enemy, you I will fight.' Very nice it is to see his theater talents of rhyming his opinions and bragging about his superiority in the ring. We sympathize with Ali, although we do not like the violent proof of God. But some have to use their fists, if not in the army, then in the sports arena. So be it. Thank You Ali for all your fortitude keeping to the right side of truth. Never we'll give it up, We will go on till all the shit of modern time is beaten out of us. (website) Seen: 22 March. 2002. Director: The Hughes Brothers. With: Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm. End of the nineteenth century Prince Edward of England got syphilis because he cohabitated with whores from the Whitechapel district of London. He had a child with one of them, whom he maintained and even married. The group of her colleagues were as witnesses to that secret marriage one by one murdered directly after the arrest of Edward and his love. The scandal of that pregnancy, of that promiscuity and breach of the noble culture had to be covered up. Edward already syphilitic became a member of the Free Mason Loge, who had taken care of the cover-up according this so very truthful version of the famous Jack the Ripper mystery. A physician mason [a crazy American?] did the Job with the consent of all conspirators. Later on having gone mad of the cruelties he was lobotomized and incarcerated to be forgotten, being condemned and denied by the Loge. The child called Alice, taken away from the mother that was lobotomized to become silent, was missing ever since. This intensely cruel act of the higher class protecting its false prestige of being holy and virtuous stirred the whole world and is still recognized as the onset of the murderous twentiest century with its serial killers and its collective insanity of war that we have left behind us. Freud spoke of the tide of the unconscious that he couldn't stop nor fully understand. What went wrong with the victorian virtues? From where this regression into hell? Was it the mechanical of man increasingly estranging from nature that created the split of consciousness that could materialize such a monster as Jack the Ripper? Or was it the last cramp of the bad nobility that we suffered by a lack of democracy? Since we, despite of all political experiments , have not really solved the problem of the cultural madman that is nowadays known as the 'terrorist', am I in favor of the first explanation. In the movie is it inspector Abberline who has to figure out what is going on. He is addicted to 'The Dragon': the chinese opium and the movie begins and ends with him smoking away the problems he couldn't really solve. He manages to get himself together. He is clear-voyant and foresees the scenes of murder. But despite of that he can't prevent things from happening. He tries to protect the woman but only the one he has fallen in love with knows to escape in the end with child Alice who from now on is in Wonderland about her royal blood (the book with that name was written by the Queen of England). Because he has to protect her he cannot join her and thus he stays behind in London back to the opium with which he kills himself in the end. The all-powerful loge of the Masonry cannot be defeated. As some fundamentalist Muslims say: the Free Masonry is the secret conspiracy of power in the Western world set up especially to cover up the self created shame of modern time and all its aberrations. The pope condemned the Masons but the honor had to be defended. The show must go on while all fell down. Who is guilty after all? It were the bad materialistic habits of everyone that brought about the twisted reality of our standard time culture because of which we suffer till today from the individual and collective symptoms of the schizoid of being estranged from the natural classical harmony that was so carefully cherished in the eighteenth century just before we introduced mean time. Napoleon is still the symbol of the modern madman and Jack the Ripper is the criminal Icon of that materialistic predicament of modern man's failure of true enlightenment. I consider it a great achievement of the cinema to be able to picture this drama with such a clarity. Although a very dark and bloody performance, it still gives one, as a vedically reformed christian, hope that finally we are able to face the truth of our modern time troubles and guilt-complexes. Only by analysis' like these, we can cure from the ailment of the modern time estrangement and its subconscious freak-outs. I would almost think that Hollywood has understood the full scope of The order of Time. Our compliments. (website) Seen: 15 March. 2002. Director: Wes Anderson. With: Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Danny Glover, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray. How does a postmodern family look like? The question is answered in this movie stuffed with all the ingredients of the modern ego wrestling with the concept of selfrealization in a disheveled society. Royal Tenenbaum a father of three children once was a successful lawyer. But things went the wrong way. He had to divorce early from his noble wife, an archeologist. Their three children are child geniuses, one in playwriting, one in business and one in tennis. Their inventive father fails to educate and guide them properly and they all three fail later on in life. The girl sits all day in the bathroom smoking cigarettes in secret, the business man is a compulsory neurotic with two boys that look like him and even wear the same clothes. The sportsman suffers from an identity crisis not knowing how to continue his life and tries a suicide. Tenenbaum tries every possible way to reunite his broken family when he finds out that his former wife after so many years has fallen in love again and wants to remarry. He feigns a mortal disease and swallows tictacs for pills with borrowed healthcare equipment to deceive his family into believing that he is about to die. It is a tragical comedy set in the style of the sixties, the time when all went awry, showing that living a postmodern life is an artistic challenge at the one hand but an emotional disaster at the other hand. The father gets the blame for all the failures proving that, as Sigmund Freud said, the alienation from the father is typical for the modern and thus also postmodern neurosis. Postmodernity is no liberation but just a justification of the modern ego's developed. No one finds any hold anywhere in life, in the story. No individualistic talent can bring one together and maybe it is only the cinema that can mend the broken pieces in a happy end of having father alive and mother remarrying. But in reality people do not find one another back as easy or as interesting and original as this brilliant story suggests. However to the bone of misery, there is with this story still the hope that genius and heart will be enough to reunite the broken human family of intelligence. And indeed that is not impossible if one recognizes the problems of modern time as the problem of modern time itself. (website)
Seen: 15 March. 2002. Director: Simon Wells , with: Guy Pearce, Samantha Mumba, Mark Addy, Jeremy Irons. This successful remake to a story of H.G. wells deals with one central question: why can't we change the past? Alexander Hartdegen, professor in mechanical engineering, looses his wife and builds a time machine to undo the unfortunate event. He fails though discovering that she simply dies another way and that life is smarter than him. He sees only one solution: to go into the future. Doing so he finds out that the earth exploiting the moon in the 21 century destroys itself breaking the moon in pieces with nuclear explosions destined to generate energy on the moon. He, because of the grave accident, narrowly escapes with his machine to see the evolution on earth starting all over. He ends up 80.000 years ahead to find mankind split in two parties: the innocent Eloi living above the ground and monsters eating their bodies living underground. Arriving there he penetrates the underground world to destroy it finding out that the evil genius behind it is another kind of human being like himself living eternally with an alien creature on his back. He is the evil God of that new world and shows Alexander his life and desires. One cannot change the past because one cannot change ones destiny. He himself is part of his destiny and Alexander is there to free the Eloi from their false God and his carnivorous demons. So Alexander ends sacrificing his machine being unable to travel back to his own time, saying in favor of the love won 'It was only a machine'. Some scenes of the old movie return, like the changing showcase proving how much fashion changes with the time. The rest is all new and sparkling doing justice to Well's beautiful story about returning to the original nature and the unity of heart. Technological advancement has only one purpose: to return to that new land where anew we will appreciate the natural of man. In the defeat of the darkness and demoniac the machine has to be sacrificed. One leaves the cinema with the feeling that still a lot has to happen, and indeed, so it is. A classic on our timephilosophy. (website)
Seen: 7 March. 2002. Director: Pixar Animations. with: John Goodman and Billy Crystal. Did you know that America is populated with monsters out there to collect the screams of frightened children? Presenting themselves as monsters they process the screams of the innocent to derive energy therefrom. Mike and Sully are in the story two professional trained scaredevils screaming the wits out of children they approach with space-time portals. Privately they are good chums in fact afraid of being contaminated by the innocent. The story shows us how they live in a high-tech world in which the monsters are the hero's of the community who with the (former) status of astronauts do their job hailed by the community. They are in competition. The fair and the unfair compete as usual so that the fair monsters may win. Mike and Sully make the best team but accidentally transport a little girl called Boo into their monster world. The little thing thinks it all very entertaining and plays to her hearts desire with all the nice monsters screaming 'Mike Wazowski' in delight. They discover that having the kid laugh produces even more energy than scaring her. Thus the theme is set and do they have to suffer to accomplish their new set goal. Hindered by the evil Randall, they are banished to Nepal, to visit the terrible snowman out there, a kind of colleague. But they manage to return and defeat the schemes of Randall who has invented a scream-sucking machine, a kind of torture-instrument for non-terrorists, that would be much more efficient. But laughter was the holy purpose and best profit, and of course, the duty of America is to make the world laugh about their monstrosity as a world power. After seeing how successful Boo was in convincing them with her innocent laughs of the real energy one should live on in dealing with others, must we say that we sincerely hope that America will be able to put all of this humorous idealism into practice and let the fellow man also outside of the cinema and the comic book find trust and laughs with them. If Walt Disney is the leader of this New Gospel, so be it. We still remember Dinosaur with which we also could find sympathy with monsters. As a youngster I always believed in Donald Duck and his nephews however naughty and impatiently screaming. (website) Seen: 7 March. 2002. Director: Robert Altman. with: Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Emily Watson, Michael Gambon, Kirstin Scott Thomas. What was wrong with the old class system? In this movie the problem is worked out in the form of a murder mystery: Sir William McCordle together with his wife have invited their (foreign) friends and family for hunting, diner and conversation. The noble company gathers together with all the servants. The servants live one level below in the building. Everybody is the same kind of modern troubled human being, grumpy, lusty, vengeful, idle, conceited, and confused. Everybody is a kind of victim, not just the host that gets killed by his own neglected and denied son with a knife as well as by his former wife with poison as she is now working as a servant. There are more people with a motive to kill him. He threatens to withdraw the allowance of an aunt. He has the money and the power and everybody hates him. He is the impersonation of the capitalist in exploit classically bringing down the nobility of the roman empire as in this case cultivated in England. But what is wrong with the effort to keep the culture? Why is everybody so unhappy and out of order? Also the servants have a hard time controlling their emotions and lust. The police inspector investigating the murder is a weak character sending everybody home, as he has their addresses! One knows that nothing will be done afterwards and that the perpetrators can walk free. This is a breach of standard to our storytelling. Nobody is the hero and everybody is a possible murderer and suspect. Everybody is guilty, the system is guilty, and Altman does not get beyond this. Very cunning and adept he poses the problem with all his talent of filming and directing, but he does not get above the problem. He is a pessimist seeing everything going down. It is also a cliché to accuse the system of the old class society. Still everybody knows that there will always be a stratified society. The matter is that of impurity in fact. Everybody troubled by modern time excuses everybody for his misbehaving. Altman shows it as a weakness of justice and humanity and of course is the way out of our cultural dilemma of class versus human equality to be found in the proper concept of progress and not in the abolishing of natural strata of age and vocation. Being attached to ones class indeed can be a hindrance, but of course there is more: one is attached to killing animals, which does not make a decent conversation at all. One is attached to Greenwich standard time which does not make a natural quality of consciousness and nobility. One is attached to speculations on the possession of capital without being of any sacrifice for any good cause and one is out of control with the holiness, the sacrament of sex and thus is one just as fallen a soul as anyone else of the personnel e.g. Not being on natural time, not being of respect for all living creatures eating them, not being of charity and not being of continence are the four major reasons why the nobility incapable of transcendence out of attachment falls down. It is not the class-system itself that is wrong, it is the lack of progress in virtue of living through that natural order of society that made the roman empire fell down and also the european nobility find no justification for its claim of class. Wake up thou slumbering ignorants, since the sixties there is the pressure of cultural integration and a vedic/islamic reform for Christians that have to keep in touch with the complete and progress of mankind. Nobility also should be of a moral example. Although Altman just poses the problem, offering no solution in a more or less perverted godless 'seeing-no-hero' intellectual interest in the subject, is it still a practical proof and incentive for the right course and cause of cultural integration. It is good to see how Christianity suffocates in its own narrow-minded selfhood not being able to continue in conceit. (website)
Seen: 28 Feb. 2002. Directed by: Ridley Scott. With: Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana. This raw war-movie filled with the toughest guys of the american elite troops and the meanest african rebels, concerns the drama of 4 Oct 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia, enacted under the Clinton government in the context of african peace-operations. A little more than half a day, was America at war with the rebel factions of general Aidit. The Americans dared to try to arrest the rebel general to prevent a further round of meaningless bloodshed sacrificing their lives (in total eighteen died) against a hundred or more dead 'skinnies', somalian rebel forces and civilians in the hostile part of Mogadishu. The operation was intended to be completed in half an hour, but it proved to be a serious miscalculation. The Somali's saw the Black Hawk helicopters and the colonne of vehicles coming long before and awaited them armed to the teeth. They managed to shoot down two Black Hawks, making a battlefield of the whole town, and we all remember the rebels dragging the dead corpse of an american 'hero' through their streets (not shown in the film of course). The problem was that out of human goodness and sacrifice the Americans made the mistake to take sides in the conflict so that they were dragged down in the temptation of the wargame that the africans were reveling in. The lust of blood and guts drips from the screen and this time the rambo-fantasies of America are real: a blunder not to forget. The director said that he made the movie to show how important it is for soldiers to keep together whatever the political failure that is behind the confrontation and indeed the hero, so proves this movie, is certainly not made by the politicians ultimately responsible. A soldier simply does his duty. No one would be left behind is the heroic lead, and although the mission failed apart from arresting a couple of officials of which the movie tells nothing further, we leave the cinema with a feeling of respect and compassion for the fate of the obedient and goodwilling 'only shoot on being attacked' soldiers. That was the purpose. Not one wrong word from the privates against the darn politics that led to the debacle. The film is not really a propaganda movie, nor a debating piece. So we are we hardly introduced into the political complex of going for such a bad karma in Africa killing all those devout african Muslims in their righteous (?) defense of their territory. The sequel to this movie would be the heroic feats of the New York firemen trying to save whatever from the muslim karma-rebound WTC drama of 11 sept 01. Bad karma can only be solved taking the consequence of a natural evening of the balance. Escalation is the never ending of hell of not admitting and seeing ones own faults so that no other solution is found but mutual destruction until the evil mind of revenge has died and for all mistakes has been paid. An eye for an eye - not nice a fact of our modern time karmic life, but good to know. That modern time with its drama of political erring in powerplay will continue this way until we are tired of it, sure to know that the classical of time is of a better respect to the greater nature we have to find peace with. (website)
Seen: 28 Feb. 2002. Directed by: Lasse Hallström. with Kevin Spacey, Julianne Moore, Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett. We see the life of a man called Quoyle with a bad karma. His ancestors were pirates at the cost of Newfoundland. Quoyles father crushed his selfrespect out of the bad familykarma and the movie is about Quolye wrestling with it to get on top of his fate, the family curse and the karma. First he leads a dull life as an inksetter at the local newspaper. Not married suddenly his life takes a turn as a spoilt woman finds a willing victim with him to live out her abuse. She simply uses the dull-minded but good-hearted Quayle. Betraying him with other men she neglects her daughter. Very soon she leaves the house for another flame taking her daughter with her. Quayle is in ash, literally as at the same time he gets the message that his parents have committed suicide. Coming home with the two urns he finds there a relative from Alaska where the Quayle family lived. She too suffered blows of the bad karma being raped by Quoyles father, her own brother, but she manages to keep her secret for herself for half the movie. The mother on the run drowns crashing with her car and her lover in the river, but his daughter survives being sold by her own mother (bad karma again), But when the relative, an elderly lady with a tormented, weathered face, takes the helpless father and his retrieved daughter with her to the ancestral grounds, he finds out everything in the little village in the barren wilderness of Alaska. Everybody knows one another there. Quayle gets a job at the local paper to report on the shipping news. He gains in self-confidence and also falls in love with the schoolteacher of his daughter. He even manages to get on top defeating a jealous colleague at the paper and learns to cope with the evil spirit hanging around the cursed family house where he stays. In the end the house blows into the sea and Quayle gets married after a few more lashes of bad karma. Filmed with humor and humanity the movie charms despite of the uninteresting surroundings and rainy climate at location. The meaning of life is found in getting rid of the bad karma, also other characters in the story prove. One leaves the movie with a good feeling reassured that whatever ones karma is, if a dead man can reawaken (happens in the movie) and being lost at sea one manages to return to the living (also happens to Quayle), that then one can also with forbearance get rid of a bad family history, wrestling with and striving towards the light of the truth. (IMD-info) Seen: 28 Feb. 2002. Directed by: David Lynch with Naomi Watts and Laura Harring. Mr. Lych, lover of cinematographic surrealist puzzles, likes to take the audience on a mystery tour. This time he follows the new trend of filming afterlife experiences. With The Others we saw a pretty straight forward story of a woman in limbo who killed her children and with the Sixth Sense we saw the trouble of a man accepting that he has died in an accident (the movie that started this trend). This time we see a lesbian lovedrama in limbo. Two actresses in love with one another, called Diane and Camilla, see their lives end in a love drama. Rita, a real diva and smashing beauty is a bisexual intelligent partyanimal doing it with almost everyone. Thus she does it also with the director of the movie she is making on a sixties music scene. He announces to marry her, but sensitive Dianne who is not that perfect with less boobs and less regular teeth dies of jealousy. Angered she hires a hitman to secure her beloved materialistic and soulless Camilla a deadly car-accident. Then in hopeless desperation she dies shooting herself, haunted by her accusing ancestral ghosts, after looking at a blue key the hitman gave her. That latter key she did not understand but it returns as a triangular one afterwards to open the blue box kept by 'the devil' of her blue love drama limbo. She consequently has entered the afterlife limbo to have a nightmare of her own fantasies and repressed guilt despite of her dreaming effort to see herself beautiful with regular teeth and a faithful Camilla/Rita full of soul and feeling. She dreams in the vital body of her afterlife limbo to be an innocent perfectly beautiful girl called Betty, arriving in the nice light of a beautiful Hollywood to live out her dream of becoming a perfect actress living in the apartment of her aunt. There she meets with her afterlife Camilla, now called Rita. She arrived in her vital body with a lost memory at Betties apartment after the accident. Together do the vital ladies of imagination try to figure out what happened. Rita remembers a name - Diane: Betties name in her material life, and together they go check her out. To the guiltcomplex there is a sphere of suspense with a bag full of money - they were in the business for the sex and the money after al - and find a stinking dead corpse of Diane. Betty does not directly recognize herself in Dianna, but she helps Rita over her shock of finding her former but difficult remembered and betrayed friend dead. Then the dream continues in which Betty tries to pick up the former Lesbian lust with the beautiful Rita. They find themselves confused and Lynch cuts the film up in many cross-references through time to add to the confusion of the limbo state. In flashbacks of scenes of witnesses and accomplices to the drama we may live through the complex nightmare of the suicide of Dianne. Time is twisted into an endless loop of truth meeting with denial. It is a masterpiece of filming in which the innocent onlooker gradually realizes what has happened and no doubt many a confounded soul will never fully understand Lych's version of warning for the state of limbo after a bad materialistic and narcissistic 'Hollywood'-life full of repression, denial, crime and perversion. Limbo is there to find in selfconfrontation the truth that makes a next life and rebirth into the endless cycle of rebirth, in desire for the better life, possible. That escape from limbo can only be if one has accepted what one has done wrong so that one then is ready to take the load of karma prepared from it for a next life. But we westerners, not really traditionally versed in the vedic and christian esotheric literatures about it, run into a terrible confusion: if one doesn't believe in such a thing as limbo and rebirth is the movie an incomprehensible nightmare with no clear other purpose but to baffle the audience. It is the same effect as with the cryogenic nightmare of a vital attachment to a physical body as shown in Vanilla Sky. With a mind of vedic reform one might realize that the cinema these days is teaching us that we certainly do have an afterlife about which we should be living very precautiously and piously to maximize the chance of a better life in the hereafter. What you do to others now you suffer with yourself later. Only with truth there is continuation, with denial there is the endless loop of a nightmare limbo or a selfmade hell. Watch and shiver. (website) Seen: 21 Feb. 2002 on DvD. Directed by Chris Columbus; with Robin Williams, Embeth Davidtz, Sam Neill . This movie from 1999 never made it to the cinema in our town, so we saw it on DvD. Robin Williams is always a guarantee of poetry in the cinema with a soft human touch of sympathy. This time we see him as house robot Andrew (from android) coming into existence as a master over time. Immortality is more a problem for him than a solution. At first he discovers to be a unique robot with a unique positronic brain possibly caused by falling first floor, on the command of a hateful familymember, out of the window. (he even suffers a positronic trauma from it). But gaining in humanity over the years and even generations acquiring a real human appearance and even a nervous system and sex-organs, he falls in doubt about his status as a survivor wiser than the average human being. The theme is very nicely worked out in this AI--forerunner. Where the movie AI dealing with the same subject concentrated on the problem of relating to a selfdestructive mankind, is in this movie mankind simply mortal and not more progressive or alternative with a flying car or an android in the household. Though less exciting and exotic than AI, does the movie deserve more credit than given by the american filmcritics. Of course is immortality an important subject in manipulating the length of our lives with implants and other artificial help. It is a serious subject that deserves proper meditation. This movie is the meditation for it and stands perfect with all cinematographic qualities of filming and acting as it should. At the end of his adventures in positronic emancipation is it the summit of Andrews development to die together as an officially recognized equal human with his human partner out of sheer sympathy: life is only real if one accepts death as an integral part of the human condition. The untouchable godhead that Andrew would become surviving over time makes no acceptable life among the humans that neatly fade in and fade out of material life. One needs to be recognized in ones humanity, that is the meaning of living a human life. The true life is thus not in the material persistence but in the persistence of the spiritual soul of the human respect for the divinity of the Almighty Time. From that soul is the quality and meaning of life expected, not so much from attachment to an eternal youth as a false and dead fixation of matter. The story suggests that that is the conclusion of a logical positronic brain programmed to sympathize and act on behalf of the human interest. The conclusion that it thus should age and die like a human is surprising and philosophically profound. This contrary to the more pessimistic AI-conclusion that one (android or with implants) has to live eternal as an android to find aliens only as survivors to the meaning of being organic. This story should not be considered superficial because of its humorous presentation. It ranks for the humanist point it makes. The humor gives the flavor to this meditation and I pity the ones that do not appreciate that. (all-movie-info)
Seen: 19 Feb. 2002 Dir.: James Mangold. Meg Ryan and Hugh Jackman. A romantic comedy researching the opposition of classical protocol and modern freedom in relations. Gentlemen should stand when ladies leave the table. The lady is an object of worship. That is how we should relate to our becoming mothers to give them confidence in our manly societies and theories of approach and construction. Packed as a romance and a bit of a time-travel sci-fi this theme is lightly worked out with no heavy conclusions or emphasis. It is always interesting to see classical decor and behavior contrasted with the modern time. What has happened, have we degraded or have we upgraded? What is the fruit of freedom or the shadow? The count stepping through a portal of time, a break in the time-space continuum, is the inventor of the Otis lift. He meets his nephew in modern New York, who found a time- portal in his physics research, and falls in love with the sweet girl next door that can't find her laptop or something. They dine, they get lost in the streets, they go back in time again etc. etc., It makes a happy end and good amusement. It is about love after all and love conquers the influence of time. Nice thesis, nice characters and a nice charming movie. See no evil hear no evil. No pretenses further. Just accept the theme and think about it. (website) Seen: 19 Feb. 2002 Dir.: Ron Howard. With Russell Crowe and Ed Harris. Schizophrenia is a mental state in which the subject cannot discriminate between reality and illusion. It is incurable in that sense that the symptoms, the delusions of some kind like hallucinations or voices heard do not disappear. They can be controlled though so that living with them accepting them as thought-phenomena and not as phenomena of the material world makes an acceptable life non different from that of anyone else who gets a headache or insomnia or rashes as a symptom. Man has to learn to live with his symptoms as a token of his human incompleteness, not fleeing in drug abuse or self-invented worlds with false hypothesis, The individual acceptance of that incompleteness and modern life-mission is what this movie is about. It describes the life of John Forbes Nash jr. a Nobel Prize winning mathematical genius who disappears in a world of delusions shortly after his marriage and being accepted as a college professor because of a break through in mathematical research. Without first realizing it himself he thinks himself a world consisting of a little innocent girl appealing to his heart, an imagined friend who talks to him when alone and a secret agent who engages him in doing service in recognizing patterns of secret info embedded in newspapers and magazines. His genius is highly sensitive to patterns and thus he easily can uncover the conspiracies of the Russians communicating about atomic bombs through innocent looking articles in the papers. He writes secret reports and delivers them at a postbox. His study is full of the clippings that nobody may see as his work is classified. He becomes paranoid as things go wrong with 'the service'. After an accident and a conflict with his 'secret agent' he suffers from persecution mania and is hospitalized. There he mutilates himself to get out the nonexistent secret implant in his arm that changes the numbers of his access-codes for delivering his classified work. When his wife proves him that all that work was a delusion of him showing the letters retrieved from an old postbox that he thought to be a secret address, he has to give up his false assumptions of conspiracy. By intelligence he manages to escape from the insulineshocks and further hospitalization. Living withdrawn with his wife though he stops with his medication and returns to his work of delusion in secret service. But he manages to keep it within the bounds of acceptance. Finding trust with his wife - after a crisis of course - he manages to live with his imagined personalities pushing them back and continues to do his studies as a mathematician. At the end of his life he has won the recognition of his colleges and wins the Nobel prize. Analyzing the delusions the conclusion of Nash himself is that political engagement is a waste of time and energy if not a source of delusions; and indeed little did he realize in his time that the changing numbers of his standard timekeeper at his wrist, his wristwatch, were indeed representing the cold war politics of the day. The abolishing of summertime after the war and the reintroduction of it in the late sixties, just as the regular incongruence of standard time numbers with natural astronomical ones, correspond with his delusions making them more real interpretations of the politically manipulated post-war reality than he would ever suspect from pure mathematics. As a 'secret agent' he simply got involved. But trying to get rid of the changing 'codes implanted in his wrist' he, unconscious of the time factor (he does forget t0 time his life getting delusional), missed the point of what political time manipulation does to the conditioning-sensitive minds of especially pattern-sensitive geniuses like him. The movie is a great contribution to unraveling the problem of the aberrations of the modern mind of numbers with as good as all politically oriented people. Creating a political reality out of a problem of timekeeping [numbers unstable, economies out of hand] is the schizoid business of standard time - a practice thus, as proven by this film, not very different from the individual delusions of professor Nash who simply naturally fills in the gap of his social incompleteness in this state of mind. Ending up in psychiatry with a delusional state sincere about numbers is more heroic than than having a world war out of political deceit, unconsciousness, manipulation and paranoia. Therefore is professor Nash clinging to his research a hero, is this movie a great success proving that many people recognize themselves in it and are the Oscar nominations for it wholly justified because of the great importance of introducing this story so nicely into the mainstream of cinematographic narration. Still narration is the essence of human self-knowledge and progress. It is essential that humanity learns to recognize the patterns of causal confusion and cures from its own mental aberrations in the context of modern standard time and its political machinations and perversions of numbers.. Our compliments. (website). |
|
