Game Night - Screwball Heart

Quick Thoughts: Game Night (2018)

A group of friends get caught up in a murder mystery game that just might not be a game.

Game Night is a pretty brilliant comedy. At the most fundamental level, it simply succeeds in creating humorous scenarios through solid characterisation. Specific character traits are then funnelled and manipulated into a convoluted mystery plot that, thankfully, distracts itself with character. My only criticism of the film comes from the fact that it does distract itself with characterisation - which is to say that, it feels like one half of a larger game that, just maybe, has too many parts. But, whilst character, and subsequently a meaningful conclusion, doesn't naturally emerge from this narrative--which leaves many traces of the construction a writer must do to create comedy, character and a complex plot--it doesn't seem to want to make statements that are too grand. At its core, Game Night is a screwball comedy that, in spirit, is reminiscent of Bringing Up Baby. Game Night is more complex and self-aware than the 30s screwball comedy, but it preserves its ability to see two people combat in a seemingly unbreakable relationship, and in turn develop through absurd comedic quarrels. This is in fact repeated about 5 times over between the three couples, a police man and a brother. Each character is then given their comedic faults - arrogance and stupidity - but the faults are distributed well so that there isn't just one fool, instead a foolish group, and, whilst no one sheds their foolishness completely, it acts as a painful road towards greater truth and harmony between the numerous couples. So, like Bringing Up Baby and many other screwball comedies of its kind, comedy is used to manifest conflict between characters that doesn't result in true drama, but, comedic drama that will eventually bring two combatants closer together. And such, macrocosmically, is the general point made by the film: When you play through your stupidity earnestly and with good intentions, you can only ever carve out more space in your own mind and in your world of friends for growth. For this, I have to say that Game Night holds as a comedy of somewhat rare class; not only is it funny, but it has heart. Less cerebral and more entertaining (or rather, less European and more American), Game Night is a contender to last year's The Square as a top comedy of recent times.

To bring things towards an end, I'll leave things with you. Have you seen Game Night? What are your thoughts?

Previous post:

The Look Of Silence - Humanity, Humility, Humiliation

More from me:



The Look Of Silence - Humanity, Humility, Humiliation

Quick Thoughts: The Look Of Silence (Senyap, 2014)

Made by Joshua Oppenheimer, this is the Indonesian film of the series.

Oppenheimer's The Act of Killing, which is certainly the centre-piece of his retrospective documentation of the 1964-65 killings in Indonesia, is one of the greatest achievements ever made in the realm of documentary. However, the film feels incomplete. It feels incomplete because it is a success. The Act of Killing is made complete, however, with the failure that is The Look of Silence.

Where The Act of Killing succeeds in getting the perpetrators of heinous crimes to confess and reflect upon their pasts, revealing their simultaneous humanity and inhumanity, The Look of Silence sees the victims of the crimes seek a response and all fail in securing anything of much substance at all. And such seems to reflect the reality of the situation in modern-day Indonesia; truth now floats semi-freely, but no one can grasp and deal with it; the facts are there, but no one is willing to take responsibility for them. In watching The Look of Silence, you're made to question how anyone could take full responsibility for such monstrous crimes and in turn pay just penance, but, these questions quickly fade away and are replaced with a vacuum of humiliating inertia. And I believe that such is the key failure of The Look of Silence - again, this failure does not mean that the documentary is bad, rather, it seemingly reveals the true nature of the film's subject. The Look of Silence is about displaced shame and unjustly inherited humiliation with truth somehow shedding all that is shameful about history and the lies weighing down the present victims with impossible humiliation - so much so that humiliation and humility come to mean one and the same as we stare at the vacant and devastatingly human powerlessness in victims' faces.

Little can really be said about The Look of Silence as all that is it is encapsulated by the title; this documentary exudes dumbfoundedness and the best any audience member can do is look at it.

< Previous     post in the series     Next >

Previous post:

Shades Of Consciousness & The Cinematic Dream

Next post:

Game Night - Screwball Heart

More from me:



Shades Of Consciousness & The Cinematic Dream

Thoughts On: Types Of Meaning In Cinema

This is a look at how we engage different kinds of films and their meaning.

In my best estimation, art is simultaneously a collective dream and collective dreaming. That is to say that art is the product of unconscious minds and thus a projected dream, but also a perceived dream and thus a vision dreamt somewhat unconsciously. I believe this to be especially true with those who simply experience art. For the general audience member who just watches movies, just sees paintings and just reads books - often with the genuine, but ill-understood belief that they are only being entertained or are just entertaining a hobby - art remains as pure of a dream as it can be. This is especially true with children. A different process occurs with those who analyse and critique arts. This process sees the dream move out of the unconscious and up into the conscious and maybe even back down again. Alas, whilst dreams can be analysed, they never stop being dreams, which is to say that they retain a mysterious and shadowy element of unconsciousness no matter what.

What fascinates me most in regards to this idea of art, more specifically cinema, as a dream is the element of meaning. As is the philosophy of the psychoanalysts, the unconscious bears the most meaning and the most profound answers to questions of human psychology and the human complex. The dream is one of the primary roads to the unconscious for the psychoanalysts, and so it is a primary road to understanding and meaning. Alas, whilst a figure like Freud considered this idea literally, Jung is one of the key figures who sees the fundamental narratives we tell as dream-like, and so roads into, not just the individual unconscious, but the unconscious of all of us: the collective unconscious. Jung's philosophy of the collective unconscious was profoundly simple. He posited that we so easily consider ourselves collectively human in regards to our physiology and biology, and can do so through our psychology too. In regards to biological science, every human is a unique individual, but nonetheless operates with a heart, lungs, brain, spine, etc. that aren't unique at all on a macroscopic level. What then makes us all biologically human is not necessarily our individuality alone - our unique genetic code - but our capacity for individual expression through our common constructs; through eyes, which everyone has, reaches out the soul. Such is just as true in the psychological domain for someone such as Jung. Psychologically, we are all individuals. However, there are psychic constructs that are tantamount to hearts, lungs and spines. Jung called these the archetypes and they were concepts of moral and behavioural being that we all embody, reflect upon and project onto the world, and must in turn wrangle and contend with as to express our higher individuality. It is through the archetypes that Jung found meaning in the unconscious; meaning that transcends personal existence and is in communication with the great human conception of the beyond from which we emerged and were gifted our consciousness. I believe a very similar process can occur through cinema.

With cinematic stories as dreams, they become gateways into the collective unconscious presiding over modern society. And this is not to say that movies express a quality of the unconsciousness that some of our oldest mythological narratives do. Movies interact with the collective unconscious somewhere between unconsciously and consciously. That is to say that they are operating on levels far more self-aware and conscious than more fundamental stories are thought to. As a result, they mould meaning, comment on meaning, and also mean to have meaning, they do not just embody/express it. They do this knowingly and unknowingly and so put between the screen and the abstract collective unconscious a persona and an ego via the very present artist. Because cinema is always constructed, it is not a true dream - but a dream of sorts, I believe, it nonetheless is. Alas, before anyone can begin analysing the elements of any cinematic dream, routing out its archetypes and, in turn, accessing its meaning, it would be important to ask what kind of dreams cinema can dream up.

Cinema is a construct, a dream if you'll have it, that exists between a screen, an audience and filmmakers; it exist between objective reality, perceptual interpretation and perceptual projection. As a result, there are three factors that determine the kind of dream that can be conjured and called cinema. Firstly, there is the objective reality: the screen. One (audience and/or filmmaker) can watch a film with the screen being a screen, or a screen as a window into a different reality - one can even mediate between these two views of what a screen is. As a result, there are two key philosophies of what a screen is; a screen can either be a human construct, and thus all that it contains is seen as a human construct, or it can be a functional illusion and a magic box that allows us to peer into other 'real' realms that are, themselves, autonomous and self-dependent. As a child, one often assumes the latter, that the screen is a window into alternate reality. That isn't to say that the screen is literally seen as a portal into a different place - though, for some particularly young children, maybe this is true. Whilst a toddler or a young child can tap on a television screen as a movie plays and know that what exists within isn't truly existing within, they do not necessarily perceive what is within to be non-real and, in turn, inconsequential. Movies can deeply affect children. As most parents know, movies can scare children because they do not understand that what they're seeing isn't real. And parents understand this quite specifically. It is not that the child doesn't know that an evil clown can't come out of the TV, it is just that they can't separate their unconscious fear from such a recognition and perceive what is on the screen as truly inconsequential. We know this to be true as adults. We know that monsters can't come out of the TV - moreover, that they don't exist within. Nonetheless, movies can still scare us because we do not always have the ability to separate this fact from our unconscious urge and recognition of consequence; the evil clown surely can't come out of the TV, but try tell you're unconscious nervous system this when you jump out of your seat.

In truth, some people can assure their nervous systems that they are safe and, in turn, that the screen is just a screen. Some of us can then tell ourselves that "this is just a movie" and not be affected by even a jump scare. We do the same thing any time we start to question how a filmmaker blocked a scene or achieved a certain shot. We stop seeing the constructed illusion of a cinematic space and the screen stops being a portal into an alternate dream-reality. One mediates between these two modes when they not only ask what a filmmaker is doing with a camera, but asks why and how this affects story. In such a circumstance, a screen is simultaneously real and unreal. In being both, a screen can become supra-real and thus transcendent of the dichotomy of real and unreal and thus something new, whole, unified and imbued with greater meaning.

The screen is just one component of three. The next we can discuss is the audience themselves who can project into the cinematic space between the screen, themselves and the filmmaker, a persona or self of varying quality. We can save the individual analysis of the filmmaker's role as they project into the cinematic space a persona or self, too. The difference between the filmmaker and audience, however, is that the audience projects a persona or their self as to understand and experience a movie in the context of themselves; a filmmaker projects a persona or self to express something, to put out, not to receive.

The difference between persona and self is quite simple. The persona is a conscious construct guided by unconscious drives. The self on the other hand cannot be constructed; it is what we inherently are and so it oversees all that we become. The self can then be consciousness guided by unconscious drive, or it can, to some degree or another, just be unconscious drive for a person who never engages in introspection and self-analysis, who is not self-aware. By projecting a persona into a cinematic space, an audience member or filmmaker is choosing to play a game of sorts; to construct a framework through which a cinematic story can either be told or received. An audience member or filmmaker can do this as they watch/make a movie and decide to do so with certain ideological constructs. When they watch a movie, they project a persona that is constructed by the rules of an ideology of any kind and thus operate in regards to it. For example, if you like looking for the 'sins' a movie makes, you subscribe to a set of ideals and one of them may be that exposition is bad. If you project this persona into a cinematic space as you watch it develop, you will see and interact with it with little tolerance for exposition and in turn mould the cinematic space around rules it may not have been constructed to comply with. Another example may be found in being a teacher. If you watch a film as a teacher, you will see it in regards to the lessons it can help you teach children or the lessons it is already teaching children. What becomes obvious here is that the rules that come along with that persona drastically affect the cinematic space - whether you are projecting into it as a teacher who is making a film or gleaning from it as a teacher in an audience.

As opposed to projecting a consciously-constructed persona into a movie, which, to a degree, is inevitable, one can engage it unconsciously. This, quite ironically, can take conscious effort. Nonetheless, it is possible to watch a film as an individual who is not just bound to a set of ideas and ideals, but is the conveyor and manager of all such things. When one watches a film with multiple personas I believe they make a move towards watching it as a true individual. This is because, if you are both a teacher, a father, a husband, a Jew and a part-time fire-breather, you will be able to have multiple sets of ideals conflict and conflate when you watch a film in a manner that simulates the way in which your self conflicts and conflates multiple domains and rule sets as to be you. By watching a film as the multiple yous, in turn, the overarching you, you begin engaging cinema as an individual self and, in turn, project your unconscious temperament and abstract ideals into a film. This is just as true for a filmmaker constructing a film. They can choose to make a film as a feminist and thus will construct a political document, or, they can choose to make a film as a wife, daughter, Cambodian and knife-enthusiast with a masters in business management. For the fact that people are always and inherently composed of multiple personas in such a respect, I find it reasonable to suggest that we watch and make films as our selves--through our self--far more than we do our personas. Alas, it remains a possibility that one can make or watch a film as just a persona or as a self despite the fact that there is always, at least, some minor conflation and confusion between the two.

To take a step back, we have three major elements of the cinematic space - the screen, the audience and the filmmaker - and, in turn, we have the three factors of its construction: objective reality, perceptual interpretation and perceptual projection. These three factors are divided by 4 positions; objective reality, the screen, can be seen as real or unreal; perceptual interpretation, the audience, can function in regards to a persona or self; and perceptual projection, the filmmaker, can also function in regards to a persona or self. What emerges from the collision of these different positions are 4 different kinds of cinematic space with 4 different kinds of meaning. These four types are: conscious, non-conscious, unconscious and subconscious. These four terms imply the kind of dream-meaning that a cinematic space can be perceived as having and so we shall look at each individually and then in regards to the equations that build them up.

Conscious dreams are pseudo-dreams; they are imaginations and thoughts sold as products of the unconscious when they are, in fact, tightly wrapped in conscious decision. The conscious cinematic space is manifested when the screen is real and the audience and filmmaker projects a persona:

real + persona + persona = conscious

This kind of cinematic space is often reserved for documentaries, especially those of the political kind. Experiencing documentaries of this kind, the screen presents itself as a message board of facts whilst the filmmaker and audience member analyse those facts with pre-constructed sets of ideas. Narrative films that operate with the same equation will break the cinematic space whilst demanding and receiving a specific set of ideals so that it may be interpreted. This kind of cinema can then be propagandistic, highly reflexive or exploitative. Most propaganda then assumes people are thinking a certain way and enforces their beliefs with what should be perceived as just reality, or a highly symbolic reality, emitted from the screen. Deeply reflexive films, however, play games. This game is acknowledged with the screen being seen as a screen, as real. It is then played with using sets of rules, or sets of ideals, that must clash. An example of this could be Interior. Leather Bar. This is a film that has you perceive the screen as real and unreal, but mostly real (meaning consciously constructed), and then introduces rules of identity politics that must conflict and conflate. How one concludes will determine if the meaning of the film is solely conscious or if it transcends consciousness and becomes deep or poetic (terms we will come to shortly). Finally, the exploitation film perceives the screen as a board upon which to play a game; the audience and filmmaker becomes players who bring forth personas: the filmmaker must scare, disgust, arouse, etc. and the audience must refuse or indulge and/or confront this. Conscious cinema of this kind is sometimes an ironic test of the cinematic space. Alas, the meaning of the game played needn't always be conscious. It can very easily be non-conscious.

Non-conscious cinematic spaces are like dreams that are forgotten or maybe never even realised by their dreamer. They require the screen to be unreal, in turn, it is not seen to be constructed, and the audience and filmmaker project personas into them:

unreal + persona + persona = non-conscious

This kind of cinematic space is so often entertainment that is not assigned meaning. It is then created by an audience member who thinks they are just a consumer waiting to be entertained and a filmmaker who thinks that are just a producer who must entertain. With the screen operating as a fantasy-land and an illusion that is never questioned, it engages the senses, but remains benign and cannot be interacted with. Thus, it is never given meaning and/or the meaning that may reside within it is never found. The kind of films with non-conscious spaces are so often pop-corn movies that no one takes seriously - or are very hard to put meaning into. This space can, however, also be tantamount to propaganda with a false reality being sold and understood by simple idea-structures. It lacks real meaning and is just a means of projecting rules and engaging certain feelings.

Next, we come to unconscious, or deep, cinematic spaces - spaces that delve into the unconscious and so have meaning buried within them. These spaces operate with the screen as unreal or real and the filmmaker and audience project their selves into the space:

real + self + self = deep
unreal + self + self = deep

These two kinds of spaces are rather precious as they come to represent two deeply personal kinds of cinema that require a genuine and complete engagement with what is on a screen. The difficulty that arises when cinema becomes highly personal, however, is that meaning can become too difficult to find. This becomes the case when the screen is seen as unreal. In such circumstances the filmmaker and audience do not know how to decode what they sense to have deep meaning and to be bound to the essence of their being. However, when the screen becomes real, when it is seen as a construct, coherent meaning is much easier found and placed. This isn't to say that deep cinematic spaces with unreal screens do not have meaning; these bear the potential to have the most meaning - it is just most difficult to find. As a result, a mediation between seeing what is on the screen as constructed and a functional illusion often helps tease out truth. I find that our personally favourite movies have deep cinematic spaces with unreal screens. Deeply profound and difficult movies, or decoded personal favourites, usually have real screens.

Finally, we come to sub-conscious, or poetic, spaces. Poetic cinematic dreams are dreams that are stuck between consciousness and unconsciousness. These are the most likely films to emerge from cinema because cinema itself is also stuck between consciousness and unconsciousness. Cinema strives to journey downwards, but so often only gets so far, and so becomes sub-conscious; not completely unconscious, but almost there. These spaces utilise real and unreal screens and are built upon a disagreement between audience and filmmaker:

real + persona + self = poetic
real + self + persona = poetic
unreal + persona + self = poetic
unreal + self + persona = poetic

These four equations' outcomes are quite similar, but we should split them further into abstractly and technically poetic spaces. Thus, spaces made upon a disagreement between audience and filmmaker, but have real screens, are technical whilst those with unreal screens are abstract:

real + persona + self = poetic-technical
real + self + persona = poetic-technical
unreal + persona + self = poetic-abstract
unreal + self + persona = poetic-abstract

The poetic spaces emerge from an audience member wanting to interpret a film in a certain way or a filmmaker wanting to say something specific. When the audience member wants a movie to say something in accordance with their persona and ideological make-up, but are confronted with a cinema that is more complex than what it is created due to its projection through a genuine and complex self of a filmmaker, then the audience member either provides 'a perspective' or simplifies the film. This can be good or bad, it simply depends on how well this is done. To provide an example, a feminist film critic will see all films in accordance to the structure provided by their ideology. A filmmaker may not make a film as a feminist--if they do, the film becomes a conscious or non-conscious document--alas, if a filmmaker does not make a film as a feminist, but has their film read by a feminist, poetry is made out of the matter of life; the feminist turns the life provided by the filmmaker into poetry. In the reverse, when a filmmaker makes a film as, for example, a feminist, but is read by just an individual without this lens, they will make poetry out of rules.

It is dependent on how the screen is seen that will determine if the poetic space is technical or abstract. If a screen is real and constructed, it will be analysed as if it is meant to say something or as if it is already saying something. Those who take a film projected by the self of a filmmaker and engage it with a persona will find meaning through reduction. Those who take a film projected by a filmmaker's persona and engage it with their self will find meaning through addition; they build towards the rules, or build off of them.

Conversely, if a screen is unreal and an illusion, it will be analysed as if it is unconsciously saying or merely implying something. Meaning is then abstractly given to a film by an audience member. This can be done reductionistically or additively; reductionistically if the persona reads the self and additively if the self reads the persona.


There are values and virtues embedded in each of these spaces. However, there are also pitfalls and vices. One can easily interpret these for themselves and so I will not provide such an analysis. Nonetheless, having provided these different kinds of cinematic spaces and the meanings that they produce, we can become more capable of recognising what filmmakers are doing, how they are operating and how we are operating. In some cases we can alter our perception, in others we can focus our analysis and criticism. But, the point of the exercise one may engage when using these ideas is to become conscious in our journey into and out of unconsciousness and thus become more efficient and capable miners of different kinds of meaning.

Previous post:

End Of The Week Shorts #58

Next post:

The Look Of Silence - Humanity, Humility, Humiliation

More from:



End Of The Week Shorts #58

Today's shorts: Jason And The Argonauts (1963), Deadpool (2016), Paheli (2005), Force Majeure (2014), Bill Burr: I'm Sorry You Feel That Way (2014), Tabu (1931), Pete's Dragon (1977)

It is no doubt dated and quite dry, but Jason and the Argonauts may be the best Greek mythology film ever made.

First and foremost, this is a technical masterpiece - and it is made so just for the final scene with the skeletal 'dragon offspring'. The stop-motion animation put on display in this sequence, which took four months to put together and lasts just a few minutes, is truly astounding; it is probably some of the most advanced and impressive animation of its age and can quite easily contend with all else.

It cannot be overlooked, however, that there is a strong story holding this film together. It deviates from classical mythology quite a bit, but remains symbolically and archetypally expressive whilst exuding clarity and spectacle. And it's this unity of technique and story that makes Jason and the Argonauts, arguably, the best mythological film ever made.

I remember having a real blast with this when it first came out. Having seen this quite a few times since, I have to say that it has depreciated quite a bit. This is primarily due to the fact that the outcomes and sources of most jokes are too obvious. There's a few ingenious lines and pieces put here and there, but it's hard not to say that this is trying a little too hard to be subversively self-aware and comic. In fact, despite what the opening credits tell us, I don't think the writers are the real heroes; for the large part, they seem to simply let loose a snarky flow of consciousness onto the page.

I nonetheless think that this is a pretty awesome movie; maybe a classic in the making that film students will look back on in 50 years and, despite their initial groans concerning the old superhero movies with crappy CGI, will love; our age's Singin' In The Rain if you'll have it.

Imperfect on the surface, but, at its heart, this is a pretty brilliant movie.

Paheli, or Riddle, is about a husband who leaves his wife on business with plans of not coming back for 5 years. A spirit falls in love with the woman and impersonates the husband, finding a place in the family. This fairy tale construct picks up on the duality of a husband and formulates an allegory about the concept of presence and materiality; what is objective and tangible is nothing if it is not given meaning and value attached to a cohesive moral and human good. Wealth is for people; people are not made for wealth.

If this was more concise in the story department (an elaboration on one or two songs wouldn't do harm), I'm sure I could call this perfect. As is, Paheli has a bit too much fat and CGI in it, but is nonetheless a good watch.

Absolutely brilliant.

Force Majeure deals with angst, reversal and imbalance in an imperfect familial equation; in a family where the bratty kids seem to run the show, where the father is dishonest and rather pathetic and where the mother wants to escape. This family is confronted with a symbol of their faulted state of being that sees the father fail to be the man he is expected to be and who he knows he should be. And the film blossoms from here, not necessarily analysing this symbol, but observing how the interpretation and confrontation of this symbol effects the family dynamic. In turn, we are made to question the validity and purpose of the symbolic event with all the arguments that emerge from it being about what the argument is about, in turn, what family means, as opposed to anything literal. As a result, this becomes a brilliant, slightly tragic, slight comic, uncannily human open study in what family is supposed to be. My second Östlund film and I like this director even more.

I can return to this a thousand times over and it will still be hilarious.

Yours goes quack-quack, mine goes quack-a-fukin-QUACK... the stuff of brilliance. This might be Burr's most physical and acting-centric specials - and it benefits so much from this. In not just telling stories, but stepping inside and getting lost in them, Burr moves past whatever his opinion may be, bringing us with him, and reveals his subject matter's hilarious side. The jokes then become infectiously funny and a straight face impossible to keep. Recommended to all comedy fans.

Tabu is a film that provides an answer to the question: When does a system of customs become tyrannical? Its answer is beautifully constructed with the use of expressive symbols and archetypes, and it goes as follows...

When a system not only disregards an individual's will, but betrays those that become heroes by swimming into the depths of the forbidden, shadow-unconscious to defeat a monster (that which is tyrannical in the system) and emerge with a precious jewel that represents their triumph and will be shared with a greater community, then a system is corrupt. When ritual becomes dogma that squashes all worthy rebuttals to concrete law then only tragedy can befall the innocent and the good. This is the quintessential Murnauan story seen in Sunrise and The Last Laugh powerfully told with mythological and futile overtones. I highly recommend this.

I used to watch this a bunch as a kid. It wasn't a particular favourite, but some of the songs and the image of Elliot the dragon has stuck with me. As I started to re-watch this today, I didn't expect too much - you never really should when it comes to live action Disney - however, I hoped it'd be clunky, but likeable. To a degree, this is, but... it is, technically, far worse than I imagined it to be.

The acting is pretty poor, the writing is ridiculously childish, the special effects are shockingly hammy and the direction never manages to sell the magic that the narrative really relies on. And I think the lack of magic is really the core problem with this movie; the fantasy just doesn't take. So, whilst a song or two made me smile and, overall, this kept me awake for 2 hours, I can't say this is any good for anyone over the age of 4.

Previous post:

Cinema & The Big Bang

Next post:

Shades Of Consciousness & The Cinematic Dream

More from me:



Cinema & The Big Bang

Thoughts On: The Essence of Cinema

The following are the edited notes I made when trying to think about light and the purpose of cinema. I have not tried to turn these notes into an essay as I usually do because they are so abstract and probably best kept as is. I hope you find some value in them...

What is light
Light is photons
Photons are packages of energy that are emitted when electrons move
They aren't just created, but are the transference of energy

No energy is created, it is transferred and was put there by the big bang
The big bang wasn't just the start of matter, but the start of energy?
What is energy
It is a force of effection that becomes affection;
The objective becomes subjective
Did the universe create humans to take in energy;
Are we vessels that catalyse the transformation of effect into affect
Do we give energy meaning, do we assign value to the energy in the light

What is the difference between affection and effection?

Affection leads to the creation of the non-literal?
Affection creates meaning?

Affection is creation, effection is transference

Emotions are transferred;
They move in the collection unconscious

Affection is the movement into a system that is so complex that it is not just a basic process;
It is two dimensional in that it is aware, it both is and can see that it is;
It is present and knows of the past and that there is a future to come

To be conscious is to understand time
You facilitate process and time;
Space and time

What is it to know and understand?
Bear properties that can interact with time

To process something is to do more that exist in a system;
It is to propagate it;
Is to have function, and function is meaning

What is the difference between functioning and having function?

Time is eternal, space is finite
Time is eternal because it destroys space;
It transcends what it possesses
Space is finite because something can only function for so long
If something is to go on, then it must change
To change space must be created and in turn effect time before being destroyed
To function is to contribute to change before being destroyed
To have function is to change forever

Function is finite, having function is eternal

Acting is finite, having meaning is eternal

What is the fundamental meaning?
To exist

Somehow having function - meaning - is to start existing;
Meaning only wants to be preserved because it did manage to come into being

What came first, wanting to exist or existing?

How do you want?

Space is being, time is meaning

Did I find meaning in cinema after watching it or did I watch it because it had meaning

Light hit my eyes and it gave me access to time
Time carried meaning to me

What is the singularity of meaning
Why did time start moving

To overcome not knowing

Not knowing creates the friction that emanates time
Friction can only be there if someone witnesses it

That is the illusion

Light can only be certain colours;
Colour is finite
Light is not light if it does not fit within ranges of possibility

There is no impossibility, there is only what is possible
We escaped it and are escaping it
Time is possibility emerging from impossibility;
Something from nothing

There was never nothing, there was only ever increasing probability

Probability is the unity of the impossible and possible;
The positive and negative

Impossibility is eternal, possibility is finite;
It is smaller and there is less of it
However, possibility wants to grow

Though potential initially laid dormant, potential wants to consume all


That is its nature;
Its being is wanting to be whilst not being;
It is function having function:

We try to imitate and embody potential;
That is human existence
We are trying to be function having function

Cinema is one of the facilitating processes

Previous post:

Sholay - The Masala Film

Next post:

End Of The Week Shorts #58

More from me: