The Official Movie Thread

but by the end I think it's safe to say that her entire world-experience has become interpenetrated by what we would once have called deja vu.

but her deja vu's are only for one instance of her 'future' and the chinese part. who determines what becomes accessible to you? that's kind of my point here, she would get more. there is no governing body that would show her the future so she can see it in the present

But now the present is everything--the past and the future. These categories no longer make sense.

I still think they do. The chinese general at the ball clearly was in the future, but she somehow accessed that to use it in the present. no?

One reason why I didn't care as much for Interstellar is that it didn't bother to wade in the complexities of narrative paradox. Arrival, even if it can't realize these paradoxes on screen, at least pushes its audience to ask the questions.

definitely, i cant watch Interstellar anymore. Once you know the twist, the film loses any attraction for a 2nd viewing
 
As far as the medium of film can't get beyond the categories of past, present, and future, then yes--the general was in the future and his words affected the present.

But this is the weird paradox of time travel (or more appropriately for this film, timelessness, or the collapse of linear time): once it comes into existence, it exists virtually in all times. The only way that we as viewers can access the narrative is to see her interaction with the general as a future moment that has consequences on the past; but if we extrapolate the premise, then it was also in the past. Memories and projections become interchangeable, which is why some of her memories wind up being projections; following that logic, we could also say that what we interpret as projections are also memories.

I think everything you're saying makes sense, I just think there are ways to dismantle these categories, and I think the film provides the ammunition to do so. The film can't do all of this for us, since it would take too much time (haha) and would ultimately fall apart as a film; so it's incumbent on us to realize the ramifications, even if the film doesn't make them explicit.
 
Last edited:
Any adams is simply not very attractive. Eyes too big and looks kinda trailer trashy. I would lick her butthole only if it was right in front of me and with no better choice; I would not actively seek it out.
 
Life was meh. No depth at all and the alien was not scary. No stupid writing "hi" in the air though so that's good. Held my attention enough, an ok Saturday afternoon diversion
 
eraserhead has been widely considered a classic for as long as i've been into movies, has it become more popular recently? inland empire is maybe growing in popularity but i think that's natural given it's not really that old and it's a film that takes a lot of getting used to. it's basically his latter era style pushed to the height of abstraction and unpleasantness, a total assault on the senses, not much traditional storytelling in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
No it's definitely been considered a classic for a long time now.

In 2004 it was preserved in the NFR by the Library of Congress, they don't just go ahead and do that for films which have merely had their ratings momentarily inflated by hipster interest.
 
Surprised it's on there but the criteria of aesthetically significant is something I would agree with. But the film now seems to get praise for it's narrative more than its Lynchian-ness which is just strange to me
 
i see people talk about how it's *about* certain things, certain anxieties, but i don't remember ever seeing anyone praising it primarily for its narrative?