![]() They said: “Let’s hang ourselves.” But even death was too boring for them. Two bums waiting for Godot 60 years ago were more sincere. So I don’t believe that those two can hear something…ineffable. The Noise of Madness that has devoured subtle Music of the Spheres long time ago. Or if it is – It’s the train of civilization which has run amok and can’t hear or feel itself anymore, because everything inside and outside is just this permanent and absolute Noise. Maybe the old blind man, but not the young one. I don’t believe that those two at the station can hear something. This attempt of summing something up…looks weak, naïve and sentimental. Introduction of vertical dimension (or spirituality) in the final episode of the film is not really working. Now, let’s go back to instinctive teleology, that is to Choice, Destiny and Fate. ![]() And Train Station looks like quite a good version. And now art can at least ask essential questions. But if you turn to philosophy or absence of philosophy (what I believe was the intention of this film, conscious or semi conscious) – everything falls into right places. “Art is the shadow of reality”, Mishima said. It’s the beautiful Form and the inconceivable Idea – that’s how it reflects incomprehensible reality of our existence. Because it’s the Fractal reproducing itself endlessly and beautifully and senselessly. But it does not and it does at the same time. But I want to look at it as a manifesto, as something quite abstract and conceptual, pretending (with much fun and taste) to be realism. Of course it’s the question of interpretation. I don’t think this movie needs to imitate reality because it’s not realistic art. As I said, I’m not impressed by the drama/psychology side of this work. This work must not loose it’s beautiful form by trying to display reality. Remember kaleidoscope, that is beautiful shape. If that is the case it automatically stops looking elegant to me. Maybe it’s the “variety of life”, “the multi-faceted nature of human existence” that they are trying to represent here. I think, they should have tried to go a little bit deeper, especially in a conceptual film (as I see it).īut I may be wrong. So is this philosophy or the end of philosophy? Or both? The Creators do not have an answer and they don’t even try to look for it. What does the movie say about choice except showing the very process of choosing? Or the shallow depth of the blindly enigmatic Ocean of Fate. ![]() Of “ Either – Or” (not necessarily in Kierkegaardian sense).īut now we plunge into the deep sea. And there is the problem of bifurcation (map of possibilities in the heroes mind) and of choice (his/her imminent action). Because it’s narrative, it seems to me, here works as some kind of carcass or structure or form – a container for the Content. So let’s talk about it.Īs the movie is more conceptual than psychological, in my view (psychology is not it’s strongest or most important point), we must concentrate more on the philosophical messages it contains, than on the dramatic aspect of the story(ies). In fact it’s their basic theme)īy the way, kaleidoscope means beautiful shape in Greek. (Creators of the movie are extremely interested in this problem of choice and openly demonstrate it many times in many ways. So this rapid and permanent change of the central Persona (and everything else) in the movie, works like an elegant reflection/metaphor of our modern psyche – fragmented, disoriented, spinning, disappearing, convulsing, but still working somehow, desperately trying to cling to the semi hallucinatory logic of sequence, the string of life which is represented in the movie by the Plot (the narrative connecting the segments).īut there is another question rising out of this funny and demonic action kaleidoscope, this spiral motion of the Plot. It may lead to schizophrenia.īut wait… It’s happening anyway, all over the world inside everybody’s mind, as time and life are speeding up exponentially, madly, every day, every minute. If it’s an alternative – this fragmented perception of the world – I’m not sure. Or perhaps our perception of life itself. It questions and challenges our way of perception and appreciation of films and stories. Of course it’s a bit irritating when you start to attach yourself to one incarnation, one image of the central figure (Brown), when you begin to like the actor and the character and then – snap – he/she transforms in a second. And the acting is good in almost every fragment in spite of so many transformations, emanations and incarnations. ![]() The story gallops in quite an enjoyable way. CollabFeature's Train Station:Status Is Unknown A Critical Analysis from Tomas Sinkariukas
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |