I never said it had a “tech is evil” stance. But it has a definite “life out of balance” stance, does it not? What’s it saying, with all its pretty pictures?
My original stance in resurrecting this thread was that it was just life-suckingly boring.
I beg to differ; the film quite clearly does say this, as clearly as a flm with no dialogue or scripted action can “say” anything.
The film begins with a long series of shots of “unspoiled” nature; stunning desert scenes, mountains, etc. As the human elements are introduced, the film gives over to scenes of mankind’s destruction of those natural environments. As one watches, it’s perfectly clear that there’s a chronological progression in the editing; the destruction and degradation of the landscape is presented as a relatively recent event, brought about by–or at least inextricably related to–man’s rise to planetary power.
And I’d appreciate a little elaboration on my being “sick in the head.”
Nah. This isn’t the Pit.
You’re insisting that it’s strictly chronological, but that’s your interpretation. Considering all the photography is recent, it can’t be strctly chronological, therefore your interpretation is wrong. It’s more a travel through different places: the unspoiled, & the spoiled.
Anyway, it’s supposed to be trippy; sort of a religious experience. Reading this thread, I now look at it less as an argument than as a measure of the audience.
You really have things to say about someone interpretation of a movie that you can only say in the Pit?!
That’s… um… Well, that’s pretty pitworthy in and of itself.
The fact that it wasn’t filmed in chronological order (most films aren’t) does not mean that it wasn’t intended to be understood as a strict chronological progression. Of course, that might not have been the intent at all, but jakelope’s interpretation is at least as valid as your own, and seems to be quite a bit more common, from what I’ve read.
As is all art.
You’ve got to be kidding.
sigh.
Yes. I am aware that all the photography is recent.
I can’t believe I’m even pointing this out, but here goes: At no point did I suggest, or believe, that the film was actually shot over the course of millions of years.
I didn’t say the film itself was made on a geologic time scale. I said the film presents a point of view about events that, supposedly, happened on a geologic time scale. The film was no more shot millions of years ago than Mel Gibson had to travel back in time to make The Passion of the Christ. Think of the mountains in the film as actors, playing the roles of the mountains that existed millions of years ago.
In fact, I refer you to my first post in this thread. Please pay extra attention to the second paragraph:
Do you see now? The exact thing you’re suggesting I don’t understand was, in fact, part of my original point.
On this we agree.