It's been too long since I saw The Usual Suspects to comment on it. I just don't remember.
My problem with a movie like Looper is that you go through the whole thing to find out that the "story" actually ended 20 minutes in. The rest of it was to leave the audience with the impression that the dude changed the future, which was clearly not the case. It was a lie the director told to the audience to make it seem as if it was something more than it was.
I don't have a problem with stories where you don't know the truth. Did that happen or not is okay with me. But in Pi, if you're paying attention, it's pretty clear that the story he tells the guy is just a metaphor to cover up the horribleness of reality. Basically, Pi can't handle the truth, so he's made up a better story to disguise it. If that was a dude I knew, I'd be telling him that he needed to learn how to deal with reality, which is how I respond to it in movie form, too. I just don't have much patience with that, I guess. I've known and worked with too many people that make crap up to excuse their behavior to find that kind of thing palatable.
I think my problem with Pi is more that the omitted story is more interesting than the made up one. And, then, there's the part where, if I had been the guy listening and some dude had just spent a couple of hours telling me some story just to say at the end "well, that didn't really happen, but I like to believe it did," I'd be pissed off at having my time wasted.
I knew fairly early on in The Village that it was modern day and the whole thing about spirits or whatever was a lie. I thought it was okay, unlike Lady in the Water.
I think the thing that gives "realness" to Narnia is The Last Battle. I think that is the book where Lewis is telling us "yes, Narnia is real."
2 comments:
It's been too long since I saw The Usual Suspects to comment on it. I just don't remember.
My problem with a movie like Looper is that you go through the whole thing to find out that the "story" actually ended 20 minutes in. The rest of it was to leave the audience with the impression that the dude changed the future, which was clearly not the case. It was a lie the director told to the audience to make it seem as if it was something more than it was.
I don't have a problem with stories where you don't know the truth. Did that happen or not is okay with me. But in Pi, if you're paying attention, it's pretty clear that the story he tells the guy is just a metaphor to cover up the horribleness of reality. Basically, Pi can't handle the truth, so he's made up a better story to disguise it. If that was a dude I knew, I'd be telling him that he needed to learn how to deal with reality, which is how I respond to it in movie form, too. I just don't have much patience with that, I guess. I've known and worked with too many people that make crap up to excuse their behavior to find that kind of thing palatable.
I think my problem with Pi is more that the omitted story is more interesting than the made up one. And, then, there's the part where, if I had been the guy listening and some dude had just spent a couple of hours telling me some story just to say at the end "well, that didn't really happen, but I like to believe it did," I'd be pissed off at having my time wasted.
I knew fairly early on in The Village that it was modern day and the whole thing about spirits or whatever was a lie. I thought it was okay, unlike Lady in the Water.
I think the thing that gives "realness" to Narnia is The Last Battle. I think that is the book where Lewis is telling us "yes, Narnia is real."
Post a Comment