Shall we continue the debt questions?
Is this a priority now?
Why debt again?
Well.. Did we not endup not talking about the debt movie?
2nd name has to do with a deal.. Are you saying a debt is a deal?
Maybe its to do with dealing debts?
The film.. The main character.. I think what typifies him..
Him? Why do you think its a him? There’s the boy and the woman as well.. Maybe one of the central characters..?
Arguable.. I think the story revolves around his supposed evolving conception of debt, or reactions in the face of debt.. Not sure he evolves.. Is it not fair to say that the film attempts to illustrate debt and, in a sense, using the boy and the woman, to illustrate the main guy’s changing relations with being owed and ownership?
Why fair..? Why logical? I think you can argue the way you suggest.. But the question is really whether it is interesting – even if it departs from the movie.. Are we doing here a movie critique or talk of debt?
Hopefully not critique.. But maybe am wrong.. Maybe a critique of debt..?
Well.. The guy.. For me.. When his wife tells him off for being a bit of a bastard to their child, he does something really violent. He demands from her to understand his short-comings. Instead of saying – shit, I fucked up! Sorry. I change. He goes on to excuse himself.. That work is hard, stress, etc.. Even after excusing himself, he doesn’t offer that which he requires of his wife – which he claims to love. He wants an understanding, but offers none back. He could have said after excusing himself that he is going to change and ask apologise to the child. Nope. In that exchange, I think he owes a lot – but refuses to acknowledge. Is it not his ongoing debt?
Ongoing? Why? The woman.. Supposed to feel a debt to her mom, right? Is that noty ongoing? He learns at the end.. He foregos debt, no?
Yes.. That’s what it seems like – but I think, in fact, he doesn’t learn anything, but simply alters his actions according to how sorry he feels about himself.. Did you see his face when sitting by the waves..? 😉
haha – not very funny.. He does the right thing though.. surely it counts for something?
Yes.. a hollywood feelgood parkinsons’.. We know what needs to be done, but Do the shit we always do..
How did you get there..?
Lets look at the film thing 1st.. OK? When does he seem to alter his attitude?
When he offers a contract for the life of the child?
I doubt.. That was more of a faustian deal, no?
Hummm.. Probably when he realises his partner was killed?
Probably.. Maybe that and when he realised that he himself was played a bit by power?
Exactly.. Power.. And then.. Can he face the consequences, or has to let the woman do the facing while he allows himself to walk away?
I think the woman facing the child was for her own story. Her narrative of being stuck in the system that enforces debt for allocating power.. Is it not just part of telling that narrative?
Could be.. I think though that the walking away is part of the hollywood wishywoshy though.. You see, according to the hollywood rules, if we didn’t pay to watch the film, we are supposed to be in debt.. In a sense, is it not the case that the very being of the film undermines the system it tells us that it critique?
How else would they finance the film?
Hold on.. So you want people to pay money for watching a film, while also proving you – film maker/owner – with a context, and giving their time, and all the while, to do the film you are using free cultural references..?
Well.. That’s the way the system is. What do you want? The film to change the system?
LOL Just curious about the interval between the films’ messages and how the film actually is.. Does it not sound like the movie itself, if it was a person, is a bit hypocritical..?
Could be.. A bit tired though.. So you are saying no one should really be in debt?
So.. If there’s no debt.. How would the boy get to do the operation?
Debt helped him?
Debt fixes the queue.. The more indebted the queue provider is for a person, the shorter the queue.. Right?
Yes.. But then.. We can not do everything at once.. We need to have a queue.. Otherwise people might use violence to get ahead, no?
Are we not using violence already?
Most cueues seem very civil to me.. Which queues are you on about?
The ones that are based on money/debt.. If I have more money, I have more power – hence ability to inflict violence – hence queues are shorter for the well off and they get a priority.. Is it not violent?
At least no one dies.. How else can it be done?
Sounds like you haven’t watched the film.. 😉
Priority.. How do we do priorities in a way that isn’t violent?
Maybe a priority machine?
Are you suggesting if something is mechanical it is not violent?