MovieChat Forums > Fandango > Replies
Fandango's Replies
<blockquote>No problem, thanks for replying to replies of a 1 year old comment.</blockquote>
I enjoy the dialogue!
<blockquote>I was going to say, I wouldn´t call Bill virtuous in this film. haha.</blockquote>
You have a sharp eye for objectivity. By all practical measures, you are correct; by contrast, this is a debatable point. Although Bill is materialistic, prideful, and submissive, he is not quite on the level of Ziegler, who has no qualms about cheating on his wife upstairs while she entertains visitors downstairs. Although Bill worships mammon (i.e., frequent mention to money and status), Ziegler worships "the god of this world."
<blockquote>Interesting observation about Bill and Nick though. Although, I never considered Bill of the same class as Nick because of his ties/friendship with Ziegler, who himself is "elite" and who is clearly part of the "secret society" for lack of a better term.Not sure I read too much into that symbolism. I would assume Bill as a Doctor is supposed to wear a white coat and Bill and his wife were invited as guests, not as "the help".</blockquote>
Bill was invited to Ziegler's party the same way that Nick was invited to the orgy. The former helped Ziegler deal with a potential dead body, the latter served as a pianist. They were servants in their own right, and although Bill may be considered upper class to Nick's middle-class, both of them are far removed from the category of "elite."
<blockquote>As a Christian, there are Christians who believe in the false concept of being able to lose your salvation, and it is a hotly disputed topic in Christianity.</blockquote>
My focus was to highlight Bill and Alice's decision to eschew the path of virtue in favor of the path of darkness. Looking back, I see that perhaps inserting John 9:25 may have been unnecessary.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
I concede that interpreting scripture can become contentious at times. I am aware that the original verse in the bible refers to the miracle as a figuration of Jesus' divine grace, and that once touched by divinity, closing one's eyes may be difficult and/or arguably impossible.
Metaphorically, however, I contend that one can choose to remain in a state of untruth or blindness. What we may argue is whether or not Bill and Alice ever had the scales dropped from their eyes. I say there is a strong possibility that Bill's ordeal had humbled him, yet the path of Alice is less certain. Did she learn anything? What is interesting is that although Alice tells Bill they need to have sex immediately, we never see Bill's reaction, perhaps subtly implying that it was only Bill who went through the transformation. Corinthians 4:4 "Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of the unbelievers....."
An interesting detail is that Alice is a mix between red and blonde, giving her the additional attribute of possibly representing Lilith. Just as Bill wishes to walk the path of virtue, she lures him toward sin. However, this does become a contentious point if we consider her interrupting (phone call) Bill before he commits infidelity, as this scene can be interpreted as her saving him.
The detail about Bill is curious. What I think is interesting is that, at least symbolically, Bill and Nick represent the same servant class to the upper echelon of society. For example, even though Bill is of considerable wealth, he is not part of the elite. He rents out his costume for the mansion, and instead of driving in a limousine, takes a cab. This point is made clearly following the party sequence in the beginning. At the party, those of status are wearing black, while those who are entertainers (e.g., Nick and orchestra) are in white. In the scene following the party, we see Bill in his office wearing a white coat, mirroring the white worn by the entertainers the night before.
The film—much like <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i>, <i>A.I. Artificial Intelligence</i>, <i>Moon</i>, and <i>Ex Machina</i>—envisions the dissolution of humanity with each passing technological evolution. There is a suprahuman element in <i>Gattaca</i>, articulated through the film's fascination with visual perfect. "Visually GATTACA conveys an antiseptic world that has been purged of imperfections... [The sets] show a sterile and blemish-free world filled with smooth stainless steel surfaces" (Kirby 2000, 204). The scene in the gym shows symmetry, balance, and order, leaving no room for creativity or individuality, but more importantly, anything human. The treadmills mimic a manufacturing plant, where mankind is commodified and repurposed for "progress."
When Vincent is shown transforming his body, ridding it of imperfection in order to become more like Jerome and merge with the artificial world, he is symbolically and literally shedding his personhood. In his triumph, he loses his individuality and merges with the same world which he hoped to escape, becoming just another serial number of GATTACA's alleged perfection.
During their exchange, Ziegler is symbolically closing Bill's eyes, returning him to an unseen state. Ziegler gives his placating interpretation of the events, reassuring Bill that everything is fine, but warns that he best not tread further.
He agrees, and now has his eyes wide shut.
Why does Bill go to Ziegler’s party every year? On one hand we can say that he is networking, hoping to add wealthy clientele. On the other hand, we can see that Bill wants to fit in. He wants to be a part of the elite of which Ziegler is also a part of, yet he can't. There is a running motif throughout the film pertaining to money. Although Bill is frequently seen physically handling money throughout the film, the clearest example is obviously Bill’s name, referring to a banknote or invoice. In the opening sequence we hear Bill ask Alice whether or not she has seen his wallet. During Bill’s dialogue with Nick at the party, he asks him why he ever left medical school, subtly indicating how the prospect has increased his overall status, both financially and socially (e.g., Alice as a trophy wife; relationship with Ziegler). In other words, the career of a physician has brought him to the apex of the pecking order. He is now in the company of Ziegler, unlike Nick, whose status is that of servant.
But even though Bill is of considerable wealth, he is not part of the elite. He rents out his costume for the mansion, and instead of driving in a limousine, takes a cab. This point is made clearly following the party sequence in the beginning. At the party, those of status are wearing black, while those who are entertainers (e.g., Nick and orchestra) are in white. In the scene following the party, we see Bill in his office wearing a white coat, mirroring the white worn by the entertainers the night before. Bill is part of the same servant class as Nick, only in a different format.
An interesting question. If we consider the context of its time, we note that the <i>Indiana Jones</i> trilogy is a product of 80s Reaganism—"an administration led by a president who sees the world mainly as a contest between good and evil...." (Dallek, n.d.).
With Indy, the audience forgives his transgressions, if they are to be called that, because he represents the side of good which must prevail at all costs. There is an interesting scene in the film where Belloq tells Indy that, under not so different circumstances, he could have been just like him. This display indicates that we only side with Indy and consider him good because he represents the side which we believe is pious and virtuous.
It is perhaps for this reason that this thread has stirred up such discord. The audience associates Indy with goodness and Michael with evil because in their minds, Indy is serving the collective good (Western values) through individual triumph, whereas Michael is only seen as serving himself. Yet in practice, both represent a type of individualistic spirit. While Indy symbolically represents American heroism, Michael is the businessman who must succeed at all costs.
In <i>The Last Crusade</i>, when Indy condemns Else because she values the Grail (a token of Nazism), we see that her ideology is irrelevant. The film constructs her, alongside her compatriots, as evil; therefore, we side with Indy and his symbolic representation of good. The film makes no mention of Nazism as a destructive ideology, but only of ideology as destructive in and of itself. When the audience cheers for Indy and his killings, they cheer for Reagan, masculine virtues, American heroism, and the triumph over alleged evil (i.e., fascism, communism).
To regard either one as evil or good would wrongly reduce their complexity.
I appreciate your insight and find your arguments to be sound and well-reasoned.
It is easy to watch the film and, like <i>Gattaca</i>, be in awe of themes of individual triumph. On the surface, Keating's ideology of individualism, wish fulfillment, and taking the path less traveled may seem sincere and noble, but upon scrutiny, it falls flat.
Keating's philosophy is perfectly encapsulated with his own interpretation of Robert Frost. While he reads aloud a passage regarding the road less traveled, he reinterprets it to fit his own subjective worldview. In its original connotation, Frost also states that both roads were ultimately equal. One does not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. New modes of thinking can be established and adopted without eliminating old tradition.
When the students toward the end of the film climb on top of their desks, mirroring the earlier scene with Keating climbing on his desk, what we see is not a shift from incorrect thinking to correct thinking, but a subjective change of focus; but, perhaps more significantly, Keating's focus. The ending scene highlights how the students have not adopted their own worldview, but the worldview of Keating. They have symbolically replaced tradition with an incomprehensible individualism.
That's not to say that the film or its messaging is bad. There should be critical thinking, and one should question tradition and authority but, like <i>Fight Club</i> and <i>Gattaca</i>, we see a transposition of extremes as bitterness is replaced with acidity.
I enjoyed reading your response, but couldn't help but feel a false note of positivity. It has often been said that <i>Dead Poets Society</i>, <i>Heat</i>, and <i>Fight Club</i> are movies made for men.
Like <i>Fight Club</i>, where one extreme (domestic femininity) seeks a solution in its antipode (feral masculinity), <i>Dead Poets Society</i> offers another contrast, only within a postmodern context. The school which the students attend was erected in the mid 19th century, right after the apex of enlightenment. As an institution, it personifies the core enlightenment principles of democracy, intelligence, and rationality. Keating, a purveyor of its antithesis, promotes a postmodern approach to education and life. While the eschewal of authoritarianism, stifling tradition, and an attenuated intellectual curiosity is appealing, he offers no alternative to the students' current paradigm.
<blockquote>Keating gave students nothing to replace their previous beliefs. He did not help them develop an alternative way to analyze poetry, or to express themselves, or to develop principled stands. Moreover, he did not even help them identify a method by which they might achieve such goals. They no longer believed in the authority of parents, schools, or scholarship, but hey had not developed an attachment to collaboration, or pragmatism, or empiricism. All Keating brought them was a vague admiration of indefinable personal experience, and even this derived solely from Keating's own charismatic authority.....</blockquote>
(Barton, 2006).
Much like the philosophy of <i>Fight Club</i>, <i>Dead Poets Society</i> does not offer any profundity that is not already available to the viewer. Its deeper message is the postmodernist representation of form over function. While ditching one's occupation to pursue, in most cases, some nebulous dream may sound fanciful, there must be a path toward outlined objectives.
On one hand, the audience's empathy for David mirrors their own. Here is a story about "hopeless human attachment and our bottomless capacity for self-delusion" (Kreider, 2002). He is exploited by his creators, abused by his brother, mistrusted by his father, abandoned by his mother, and nearly executed for amusement.
Yet on the other hand, one cannot help but feel a strong sense of ire toward David. If he mirrors humans, as the film makes allusions to (e.g., opening mecha and Monica; David with Martin), then what does his relentless pursuit say about agency and our own blind chasing? David is as preoccupied with his hopeless and fixed dream of an unrequited love as much as Monica and Professor Hobbs are preoccupied with theirs. Dr. Hobby creates David in the image of his son, so that he may love him. Monica substitutes Martin with David, in the hopes that he will love her. In the end, David opts for a simulated love with a fake Monica, in the self-delusion that she will love him, completing the desolate cycle.
The depiction of love as a token of artificiality asks us whether or not we are the same deterministic models as David, blindly chasing unconscious goals.
Good point and I agree, a good art medium has multiple interpretations.
The way he sleeps is symbolic of a boy sucking on his thumb; his surroundings are a symbolic gesture of maternal comfort; his symbolic father is his boss; the firm he works for is the family that feeds him; and his house, which he furnishes with feminine accoutrements, is the womb.
When he is in pain, he seeks prescription from the doctor in order to numb himself and prevent growth. According to the APA, ~16% of women take antidepressants, compared with ~9% of men. Jack's willingness to take medication is yet another testimonial to the world viewed from a feminine paradigm which he inhabits.
Additionally, here we can see Jack's plight as that of a boy breaking away from the maternal influence and attempting to become a man.
Interesting and perhaps valid, however I contend that the phallic symbolism, references to castration, and Jack's overall repressed masculinity are not so much indicative of homoeroticism per se, but of homosociality and an antithesis to the "crisis of capitalism."
The film highlights the extremes of domestic femininity and feral masculinity. If Jack represents the crisis of domesticated masculinity through consumerism as a surrogate for identity, then Tyler represents the antithesis to this "repackaged crisis" through violence, revolt, and anarchy. The violence which fight club represents is the antipode to Jack's anesthetized and anhedonic life.
<blockquote>Tyler Durden tells Jack after he has poured an acid solution on the latter's wrist, thus implying a conflation of the particular mode of pain and the general mode of existence</blockquote> (Grønstad, 2003).
Penetration, then, is nothing but another form of pain, from which Jack develops himself. Here we note Gilles Deleuze:
<blockquote>The body is no longer the obstacle that separates thought from itself, that which it has to overcome to reach thinking. It is on the contrary that which it plunges into or must plunge into, in order to reach the unthought, that is life. Not that the body thinks, but, obstinate and stubborn, it forces us to think, and forces us to think what is concealed from thought itself, life. (189) (13)</blockquote>
The phallic symbolism (penetration), the castration (pain), Bob's breasts (physical alteration), and the literal/metaphoric death in the end (bullet entering body) can be interpreted as a transformative process (from boy to man; from domestic to feral).
In the end, <i>Fight Club</i> states that while domestic life offers no deeper meaning or purpose, Tyler is merely the commercialization of an alternative, who himself offers no deeper meaning or purpose, because purposeful solutions cannot be found in extremes.
Objectively, the audience doesn't really know. The film doesn't make it clear, and only makes allusions to his possible guilt by the way he puts his head down when Grace returns.
In terms of the film's thematic elements, I don't think it really matters either way. Even if Tom genuinely wanted Grace to escape, he did not prove to be the virtuous ideologue he envisioned himself as, and Grace would have never confronted him even if he was aware of what would happen, because symbolically her role was to forgive all sins.
Tom is symbolic of the intellectual who believes himself superior to others. In the film, he subsists only due to his father, and is never shown working. He views himself as the ultimate arbiter of the town, and through his actions (vying for Grace), ends up having the town destroyed. He is the Quietist, preferring contemplation and passivity over action (e.g., never confronting Grace's rapists).
From one religious standpoint, the town of Dogville is symbolic of the Old Testament. Here, we see people tethered to tradition and bound by principles which limit the extent of human reach (i.e., Ten Commandments). The town is located on a mountain, highly symbolic of Mount Sinai, the place where Moses was given the Ten Commandments by God. The dog, whose name is also Moses, represents the principle maxim of the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye.”
With the appearance of Grace, the town sees the arrival of the New Testament, whose underlying and simplified principle was to turn the other cheek. If the Old Testament sought to punish amorality, the New Testament attempted to forgive sin. Grace, taking on her eponym, and without regard for boundary or transgression, attempts to help the townsfolk. Here, the director outlines his beliefs about the New Testament, indicating that people are unable to moderate themselves independently, invariably succumbing to intemperance. In the presence of grace and kindness, people are unable to control their appetite for more grace and kindness, evolving into extremes.
In the end, we see Grace eschewing the elevation of man and taking "an eye for an eye" to its extreme end. With this, we see photos during the Great Depression, indicating the 20th century death of religion.
<blockquote>The aimlessness of the Russian people is rooted in its dogmatic history. Eastern Orthodoxy is viewed as highly dogmatic, both in its belief of the sinful nature of man, of his imperfection, and of his deserved status as a sheep that must be herded. Through this, a notion was formed, averring that those on top are infallible, immune to criticism, and that the people have no right to protest or express individual thought by virtue of their sinful and imperfect nature. The state and government are de facto divine, as they control the church, which is seen as the proxy for Christ and ascension. This branching between the elites and the people invariably led to the dissolution of both groups and government. The Czar was seen as carrying the message of God, officials as above the law and the people, and this Russian tendency stifled any spiritual development. To this day, Russia does not punish its authority-figures, while the common man can be sentenced to 5-10 years for a misdemeanor. This reaches beyond corruption. It is a mindset, believing that government is always right, cannot be controlled, and can only be changed from atop, never from below. Not only did Orthodox religion constantly reaffirm this worldview, but communism as well, as under communism, criticism of the party was impossible, reform was impossible, and punishment of a party member’s misdeeds was impossible.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Through religion, the officials of state and government have taken penal and moral control of the administrative apparatus. And through this have planted the mine which has replaced Christianity with paganism. Human logic is the logic is mammon, benefit, and power, which have been facilitated through Christianity, by distorting its foundation: Christ became God; People have become tainted and imperfect. By marking people as imperfect, there is not only no longer a path toward God, but there is no longer a path toward anything. Instead of striving toward holiness, the purpose of Christianity became entering God’s kingdom in Heaven. What is Heaven? No one truly knows. Heaven is merely seen as a place of endless pleasure and happiness, absent suffering. It is the temple of hedonism. By allowing the church to forgive sin, striving toward God no longer became a consideration. When the priest prays for you, forgives your sins for you, and acts on your behalf, you lose agency, and now become dependent on the church. Protestantism, at least in this regard, was correct when it did not believe in a proxy between man and God. The more this dependent relationship is allowed to grow, the more akin it becomes to slavery. It is in this way, that erroneous religious dogma has turned people into inward slaves. The retreat from Orthodox Christianity toward Catholicism was an attempt at compensating the errors of the oldest Christian sect. Catholicism attempted to strengthen the importance of the individual, the importance of the material aspect of the world, and the importance of money and labor. In other words, Catholicism brought about the semblance of a dialectic. If the orthodox church only worshipped spiritual values, then the catholic church added temporal values. In this way, it became more attractive than orthodoxy.</blockquote>
Thematically, it makes sense that the second package was in fact related to divorce. Here is why:
There is an interesting contrast between Dick and Bettina and Chuck and Kelly. While Dick has literally and figuratively cast away his former life, Chuck is literally and figuratively firmly rooted in his. His trip to Malaysia is his way of leaving his former life, as we see him leave a small present with Kelly, telling her not to open it until after the New Year. He understands that once he is married, he will no longer do what he is passionate about, but will be given an office job with consistent hours. This decision is heavily emphasized during the plane crash scene, as Chuck is distinctly shown having to select between two options: choosing the life jacket (symbolic of his current life), or the watch with Kelly (symbolic of the new life he will have). He agrees to metaphorically sacrifice his life (not picking life jacket) in an attempt to start a new one (grabbing watch with Kelly’s photo). As Chuck finds himself stranded on the island, he symbolically and literally becomes a different person, while at home he is presumed to be dead (“we buried you”).
Chuck, just like Bettina, is cast away symbolically on the island, while Bettina is cast away in Texas as her husband moves to Russia. Just like Bettina, Chuck holds the hope that Kelly is waiting for him, but finds out that she has remarried, just as Bettina’s package (attempt at reconciliation) to Dick is returned. Bettina, living near a vast emptiness must come to terms with Dick not returning, which she does (symbolized through the sign no longer having Dick’s name in the end of the film). Similarly, Chuck, living in a vast emptiness of his own (the island) must overcome Kelly, which he does by removing his tooth.
Although Dick loves Bettina, he cannot overcome his old American life; just as Kelly, loving Chuck, is unable to overcome his inability to let go of his old life.
Although the modernist architectural approach may, at times, be groundbreaking, its proliferation has interesting meaning. In 1950s, a shift in form over function occurred in the United States. This was marked initially by the construction of the Lake Shore apartments in 1951 and Lever house in 1952. In 1969, Lundy’s modernist manifestation of the U.S. Tax Court, followed by the Federal Courthouse in Pennsylvania in 1975. Perhaps the most representative piece of architecture cementing this new preference of aesthetic was the Twin Towers. The tallest skyscraper upon its completion, its main utility was seen as a landmark holding cultural significance of America’s apex, yet offering limited functional purpose.
“Once civilization reaches its zenith, it has already begun its decline” (Gimpel, 1956, my translation). In the years and decades following the construction of the Twin Towers, America saw eight economic recessions, an inversion of artistic expression where the extreme of form over function reaches its logical end (e.g., selling invisible artwork), crumbling infrastructure, dwindling investment in human capital, and generalized cultural degradation. This loss in form, cohesion, and structure sees a sharp turn from the mindset of early American pioneers, who escaped European aristocracy in an attempt to find meaning through the Protestant Work Ethic, temperance, and diligence. The European aristocrat, through years of comfort, became decrepit, preferring leisure and privilege over work and form, and although the Prussian and Anglo aristocrat may have attempted to reform government and build a better society, inevitably their children adopted the same European principles that led to decline (e.g., <i>Barry Lyndon</i>).
With the rise in modern consumerism, work and disciple no longer became the highest virtues, they were replaced with comfort and delectation.
One of the points marking the end of modernism was the stagnation and invariable halt of progress in the fundamental sciences, primarily physics. After WWI, the world saw the development of quantum mechanics (1920s), nuclear physics (nuclear fusion around 1933), and the theory of relativity (acceptance in 1920s), which led to breakthroughs in atomic physics and the aforementioned fields. Since that time, the form of development has shifted from fundamental science toward technical science. The transition from the fourth wave of innovation (mass production) into the fifth wave of innovation (information) brought about an interesting change, where with the advent and iterative development of the internet, the offline world began servicing the online world.
Although I responded to a user in a different thread with the following, I believe it bears relevance.
In the 20th century, the United States stood at the center of serviceable innovation, taking over the 19th century baton from England and Germany. Of note in this time, we saw the U.S. commercialize the car, invent microprocessors for domiciliary computing, and create the online world with the internet. According Jeanette Gimpel, the turning point in technological sentiment changed in 1971, with Congress refusing to fund supersonic flight. With the Vietnam war and counter-culture, America saw its psychological drive wane, no longer seeing itself as exceptional or unique, and susceptible to the same collapse as empires preceding it. Such questions were asked in 1975, when a selection of US historians wondered whether or not America was on the same trajectory as Rome.
It does seem difficult to strike a balance between commercialization and meaning. If <i>Fight Club</i> were less catchy, then I believe it would not have had as much appeal; however, a more solemn approach may not have worked in the 90s, as at that the time we were already seeing the effects of the digital age on interests.
In the 20th century, the United States stood at the center of serviceable innovation, taking over the 19th century baton from England and Germany. Of note in this time, we saw the U.S. commercialize the car, invent microprocessors for domiciliary computing, and create the online world with the internet. According Jeanette Gimpel, the turning point in technological sentiment changed in 1971, with Congress refusing to fund supersonic flight. With the Vietnam war and counter-culture, America saw its psychological drive wane, no longer seeing itself as exceptional or unique, and susceptible to the same collapse as empires preceding it. Such questions were asked in 1975, when a selection of US historians wondered whether or not America was on the same trajectory as Rome.
Although Gimpel was wrong in certain respects, as the internet was a paradigm shift which he did not include, he was correct in noting mental decline. He stated the psychological drive of a nation should be parallel with its technological innovation, yet what we see is an inversion; technology has stagnated alongside the waning of psychological interest.
Today, the majority of art in every medium appears to be more about style than substance. The average YouTube video is ~7 minutes long, with the average TikTok clip being ~15 seconds long. The demographic that overwhelms YouTube is 25+, with those under 25 preferring TikTok. What we notice is that the way we think has changed. Despite the abundance and overflow of information, there is a noticeable trend of general disinterest.
Perhaps this is a form of analysis paralysis, or perhaps just a function of the times.
In terms of dialogue on screen, there is evidence to suggest that Tom never wanted to let Grace leave. Early on, Grace suggests Tom hold another town meeting to decide whether or not the townsfolk want her to stay after the police visit them. Later on in the film, Grace tells Tom that she should probably leave, to which Tom resoundingly responds, "No, I suggest the opposite!"
Beyond the cautionary tale of <i>2001: A Space Odyssey</i>, one cannot help but feel a lingering note of human triumphalism. Kubrick viscerally depicts man reaching the apex of progress, conquering not only the finitude of Earth, but the infinitude of the Universe. In this exultation, where the unfulfilled becomes fulfilled, we see man elevated to status of deity, reminiscent of Roger Bacon’s <i>Scientia Experimantlis</i>: “to build a world oneself, to be oneself God, that is the Faustian inventor’s dream.”
Although Dick loves Bettina, he cannot overcome his old American life; just as Kelly, loving Chuck, is unable to overcome his inability to let go of his old life.
The message of the film suggests that we must remain true to ourselves. For Chuck, keeping the FedEx package and delivering it to Bettina highlights his subconscious understanding of who he is as a person. Chuck is committed to his job and remains committed throughout his ordeal. As he delivers the package to Bettina, he is cemented as the postman. Just as Chuck remains true to his conviction as a FedEx worker, Bettina remains true to herself as a sculptor. It is likely she may have been able to return to Dick, but would have had to sacrifice that which is important to her.
In the end, what the film strongly suggests is that even though we may be thrown away, we should not sacrifice our ideals.