Skip to main content

About Time

A girl in a red dress, laughing in the rain, alongside a tall red-haired man wearing a suit.

I watched a boring movie recently.

Through DVD sent through the snail mail by Netflix (by now a very old-school system) I watched a fantasy about time travel.

There is nothing wrong with fantasies about time travel. H.G. Wells', THE TIME MACHINE is a classic novel and gave rise to an equally classic movie of the same name. More recently, the Harry Potter novels/movies had time travel elements, as did the Terminator films, etc.

The movie I saw last night, ABOUT TIME (2013) was an effort to do something different from all of that, to make time travel a plot device within a romantic comedy.

The closest analog would be THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT (2004). There too, the story was about the multiple paths possible in the life of an apparently ordinary person who can travel back in time to correct what he sees in retrospect as his mistakes. But in BUTTERFLY, the emphasis is on how efforts to fix the mistakes of the past keep backfiring, so each time line seems worse than the one before, and the movie makers seemed to have to draw a miracle out of their Hollywood hats in order to keep their film from ending tragically.  It wasn't a great film, but it wasn't a bad one.

ABOUT TIME is much more determined to be a comedy.  as a result, we keep putting the actual plot (such as it is) aside for scenes instructing us that playwrights are misanthropes and that our lead character has an idiotic uncle on his mother's side.

Everybody seems to like idiot uncle, indeed to find him charming. But I didn't.

Anyway, nothing in this mess worked. Just thought I'd tell you, dear reader.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more