Actually, the novel (which I just finished reading for the 2nd time
since I first read it in 1986) ended the same way as the movie, except that
they didn't disappear and re-appear as they did in the movie.
The novel of course was also PACKED with theoretical speculations of
what was happening to Jessup. I found it both fascinating and hard
to understand.
In that last scene where Jessup is explaining to Emily what happened, he
tells her that at one point all of his matter was returning to pure engergy,
pure nothingness. And it doesn't stop there. It never stops. From nothingness,
it goes on to something more horrible! Whatever that means. That has had me
stumped ever since I first read the book, but it sounds alot like Emily did
more that just save Jessup's life, or save him from spending the rest of
it looking like an extra from 1,000,000 B.C.. She did nothing less than
save him from what might be called Hell. And she did so at the risk of
joining him there. I just wish that I could more clearly understand the
exact nature of what she saved him from. Basically, the book seemed more
like a metaphore for human kind's search for the meaning of life than it
did a science fiction.
I was not overly impressed with the DVD. It did have a number of trailers,
and scene access. It also had a page about the scientific theory that went
into the movie. When I first saw that page, my eyes bugged out because I
didn't look very carefully and I thought that each sentence was a link to
a different documentary about the science of altered states, but instead,
the text simply posed the question of wheter or not it was possible to
retrieve such ancient memories? Some scientists think that the answer
might lie it the unexplored two thirds of the human brain. That's the
best of it that I can remember.
Now, if you want to rent a movie with a fascinating "Science Of" documentary,
check out the DVD for "Suspect Zero" and see what it has to say about remote
viewing.
In any case, I really did like altered states (which I saw in the theatre)or I
wouldn't have rented the DVD, or book from the library. But what I wouldn't
give to talk to the late Paddy Chayefsky, or some of the scientists that
he spoke to, whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgements
By the way Gnolti, I noticed that quote at the end of your post.
"Follow those who seek the truth. Beware of those who find it."
When I first heard it, I heard it phrased as "May god deliver us
to those who seek the truth, and deliver us from those who've found
it". I've been looking for the author of that quote for years. Do you
know who it is?
-Patrick-
reply
share
gnolti
18 years ago
Ironic you should notice, Patrick, since I only just changed my tag yesterday, as I do periodically. But I got the quote from Truffaut's Le Peau Douce, where it was attributed to Andre Gide.
"I never had a latency period."
reply
share
tbyrd8
18 years ago
I never could figure out why Chayevsky disowned the film. Not only was the ending virtually the same, huge chunks of dialogue came straight from the book to the screen, though often with the characters (very naturally, in my opinion) saying their lines at the same time, interrupting each other. I liked this movie from the first viewing in the theater, and along the way got a VHS and now a DVD of it. But then I like almost all of "crazy" Ken Russell's films.
reply
share
Nick_Jones
16 years ago
Chayevsky disowned the film (sight unseen, according to the Trivia section), and substituted the name "Sidney Aaron" for the screenplay credit, because he didn't like Ken Russell's direction and tried to undermine what he was doing. When Russell caught Chayevsky telling the actors they "shouldn't act so drunk" in the restaurant scene, Russell had him thrown off the set. In other words, Chayevsky (well-known for his overblown ego) was being a d*ck, got caught, and acted like a spiteful little child.
reply
share