There comes a time in watching and re watching older television series when it really becomes and old friend. I am one of those people who keep a TV on in the house most of the time I am at home. It's like having someone else in an otherwise quiet house.
The original Hawaii Five-O is one of the old friends I use to just play in the background while I am doing something else. I'll even do my reading with the TV on in the background. One of the characters in Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" wold set the TV to an empty channel and let the white noise of static provide the backdrop for sleep.
I can't do that as my low-level mental processing keeps trying to put the static into a pattern that isn't there. Old TV programs work for me. They are familiar as they are largely formulaic. One-hour programs will have a standard four part structure that is predictable even if I haven't seen the particular episode many times before.
In that manner some episodes stand out from the average. Some Hawaii Five-O were very bad. They had a simply robbery and then McGarrett solving the case while barely moving from his desk to the map of Honolulu and back again. To fill out the show there are many shots of cars driving around the island.
Most of the episodes were not that bad but there were just average. There was one that was way above the norm for Five-O, "Over Fifty? Steal". It is not only the best episode of the series, it is far better than the series as a whole.
It is a clever script with plenty of location shots but the best part is Hume Cronyn as the Monopoly Thief. He steals money and jewels while leaving the orange Monopoly cards to taunt McGarrett to catch him.
Catch this episode to remind you how good the old Five-O was.
Original Air Date:25 November 1970
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Inception is more/less complicated than you think.
After viewing Inception quite a few times, I really do have an answer to the question I had half way through the first viewing. Right then I wondered if it was all a dream. Of course it is an opinion and others have different views.
The short answer is that it is not all a dream. Cobb does get to be with his children at the end.
I listened to the Michael Caine interview on NPR for the one line statement that his character never appeared in a dream. I read the other actor interviews who all denied the complete dream theory.
There are subtle and not so subtle clues through out the movie such as Cobb's wedding ring. He only wears the wedding ring while in a dream. It is not a continuity error as the filmmakers highlighted the ring or lack of it in each segment.
The main argument I have heard for it all being a dream is that the children never seem to age and are wearing the same clothes. This falls down as all images of the children except for the last are supposed to be Cobb's memory. He has not seen them for two years and this is stylistically represented by not showing the children's faces except in the last scene. The children/dream theory cites the children's clothes as evidence. Problem with this is that their shoes change. The final nail in this theory is that the cast list shows two children played each child part and are listed as different ages. It is a red herring: it is less than it seems.
The top: does is topple or not? It sounds like it going to topple as it has before but it really does not matter. The token does not tell the character if they are in a dream or not. Clearly stated it tells them if they are in someone else's dream. The token is to be unusual enough that the architect of the dream would not be able to anticipate the token's irregularities.
The short answer is that it is not all a dream. Cobb does get to be with his children at the end.
I listened to the Michael Caine interview on NPR for the one line statement that his character never appeared in a dream. I read the other actor interviews who all denied the complete dream theory.
There are subtle and not so subtle clues through out the movie such as Cobb's wedding ring. He only wears the wedding ring while in a dream. It is not a continuity error as the filmmakers highlighted the ring or lack of it in each segment.
The main argument I have heard for it all being a dream is that the children never seem to age and are wearing the same clothes. This falls down as all images of the children except for the last are supposed to be Cobb's memory. He has not seen them for two years and this is stylistically represented by not showing the children's faces except in the last scene. The children/dream theory cites the children's clothes as evidence. Problem with this is that their shoes change. The final nail in this theory is that the cast list shows two children played each child part and are listed as different ages. It is a red herring: it is less than it seems.
The top: does is topple or not? It sounds like it going to topple as it has before but it really does not matter. The token does not tell the character if they are in a dream or not. Clearly stated it tells them if they are in someone else's dream. The token is to be unusual enough that the architect of the dream would not be able to anticipate the token's irregularities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)