MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I always got the sense that Slade did know who Shane was, but was just playing his cards close to the vest. In the scene where the cattleman comes to dicker with Starrett, note how Slade & Shane quietly size each other up while the others argue, taking each other's measure & both already knowing that they'll be deciding the fate of the valley, not anyone else.
I quite enjoy it. Yes, it's a bit old-fashioned, but in a good way, like one of those mid-2oth century children's books with gorgeous color illustrations. If it doesn't delve into the mythic depths of a film like Excalibur, it's still fine entertainment, with some unexpected touches that delight the uncynical
eye.
The original needed no sequel—but if someone were to make one, it should be much better than this mess. As you say, there were so many possibilities that might have been explore.
For instance, how does John maintain his secret in a world of increasing digital presence, with cameras & computer data everywhere for anyone to use? How long can he hope to keep his secret in such a world? And what if he can't?
And turning the story into a poor copy of the old TV series The Fugitive & The Immortal, throwing in an immortal serial killer, is as about unimaginative as could be. The original dealt with real ideas that were far more interesting than those overused storylines. And there were more ideas to explore—if they'd only taken that approach.
For me, this sequel is just bad fan-fiction. The original stands on its own perfectly.
It's more about the destructive power of blind, unfeeling, bureaucratic authority that's so labyrinthine & far-reaching that nobody can understand it, or escape from it. In short, a prescient vision of the late 20th Century continuing into the present, when individuals are lost & ground up in the mechanism of the system. From Kafka's early 20th Century viewpoint, he can see the alienation already at work in industrialized society, and how it must continue to grow & consume everyone eventually.
No chain will ever get a penny from me. :)
Well said!
I live in an area with such a large Italian-American population that there's a real pizzeria about every few blocks, serving wonderful food. And yet awful chain pizzerias do a thriving business here, while the family-owned places go under.
Yes, for IAWL being seen as a sentimental fantasy by many, it's actually quite honest about the rich & powerful continuing on their self-serving ways, and needing to be fought again & again.
But people have always been creative even when there's no money involved. Self-expression & inner growth are part of being human, and they don't necessarily require money. Indeed, money can sometimes hinder that.
Granted, in a culture that defines itself by money, it'll be important & a major incentive. But human beings were making art & artifacts & tools long before money was invented or even imagined. I make art for myself, simply because of the fulfillment it brings, without wanting or needing to sell it. If circumstances forced me to, then I'd change my mind. But I make it now without any financial incentive.
This is a good point.
Neil wasn't a coward, he was a sensitive boy of 17 pressured & browbeaten by his father, who saw Neil only as a way to fulfill his own thwarted dreams of youth. Neil was going to be all the things that his father had wanted to be; Neil as an individual human being didn't really exist for him. So Neil knew very well that his father would never agree to such a meeting with Mr. Keating.
No, Neil was NOT a coward. He was trapped, as he stated to Mr. Keating with a despairing laugh, and he saw no way out, because had inflicted such emotional damage on him for those short 17 years of his life. And in 1959, outside options & help were practically non-existent. The culture that maintains schools like Welton would have backed his father 100%. All of the circumscribed world that Neil knew would have done the same thing to him.
Larry did work for a living, wherever he went, and he never felt any job was too menial for him. And the question of living an authentic, personally meaningful life isn't reserved just for the rich. You don't need massive wealth to delve into a deeper life. In fact, even though the rich probably need to consider that question more than most, few actually do it. Yes, we need a certain amount of money in a consumerist culture; but too much of it can insulate & numb the soul all too easily & thoroughly.
I feel this happening to me right now, in fact, in my late 60s. Intellectually I know what was bad in the world of my youth; but emotionally, I remember the good aspects much more strongly, with an added luster to it over each passing year. Sometimes I have to pause, look back with clearer eyes, and remind myself of the entire range of what was going on decades ago, not just the good stuff.
While I don't think The Prisoner can have a worthy sequel, as it says everything it wants & needs to say in itself, I do think Shattered Visage is one of the best attempts to follow up on many of the ideas in the original series. Even when I don't agree with every interpretation by Motter & Askwith, it's clear they're fully engaged with the original & that it matters to them. And the fact that both Patrick McGoohan & Leo McKern read & approved of the script says a lot.
Just came across your comment & I like it. Agree that LeGuin had definite ideas in mind, and the PBS shoestring production did a fine job of bringing her story to life with those ideas intact. Far more so than any multi-million dollar contemporary movie crammed with CGI in place of ideas could ever hope to do.
The final episode is a triumph of surrealism, Theater of the Absurd, mordant satire that leaves the engaged viewer with both an intense emotional experience & plenty of questions to ponder afterward. But I'll grant that it isn't for everybody, especially in these current days of diminished imagination & vision.
Respectfully disagree. I found it to be a scathing, dark, even despairing, satire of politics & media, delving into the ways people are distracted, deceived, manipulated for the sake of whatever Powers May Be. And those powers span the entire political/ideological spectrum.
I agree, as much as I loved him on MTM, he was superb in Lou Grant. But then he was good in anything he did. Always interesting to look at older 1960s shows like Route 66 and see him playing totally different characters with equal presence & depth. And he did take the practice of democracy quite seriously in his everyday life.
Or perhaps his extreme rationality was the "mentally unstable" aspect of his being, one that could only be corrected by his final despairing realization that life & love, here & now, is was truly matters.
Alligator is a wonderful example of what can be done with a B-movie if it's got a sharp, witty script & good actors.