Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[HenryFlower]

Spoiler

Why is it that for each person the "Innie" takes total control and the person they were the rest of the time, the "Outie" just disappears. It's like only the "Innie" matters and that doesn't make sense.

Spoiler

well, there are two selves (the "outie" & "innie") & one body, therefore both selves occupy the same vessel. so, actually, it is the "outies" who are the ones that typically wield all the power in the outie/innie binary. the overtime contingency is an override that basically forces a reversal of that relationship; the "innies" are now (temporarily) the active selves when the body is off the clock, per se, which is where the "outie" self exists in what we can suppose is the real world.

can't tell if i explained that well, or if i just jumbled your confusion further lol

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Spoiler

well, there are two selves (the "outie" & "innie") & one body, therefore both selves occupy the same vessel. so, actually, it is the "outies" who are the ones that typically wield all the power in the outie/innie binary. the overtime contingency is an override that basically forces a reversal of that relationship; the "innies" are now (temporarily) the active selves when the body is off the clock, per se, which is where the "outie" self exists in what we can suppose is the real world.

can't tell if i explained that well, or if i just jumbled your confusion further lol

Yeah, I think I'm still confused (lol)

 

[moreorless87]

All true. Then again, Mizoguchi's moving camera was very much ahead of the curve, a progenitor of the contemporary art cinema (and especially slow cinema) fondness for camera movement, whereas Ozu's idiosyncratic and ostentatious static geometrism could be seen as very stagey and old-timey if not "uncinematic."

Meanwhile, sociopolitically, one of the reasons that Mizoguchi is experiencing a resurgence of late is precisely because of his ahead-of-its-time and still I'd say rather progressive feminism. As for Ozu, I've always found it fascinating to hear in one of his films (remembering that Ozu served in WWII and was part of a regiment that used chemical warfare on the Chinese and did all sorts of heinous stuff) Chishû Ryû in An Autumn Afternoon discuss how it was a good thing that the Japanese were defeated by the Allies.

Lots of fascinating stuff in both men's films, both when viewed in context and from a contemporary vantage point.

If you look back to the mid 20th century I would say that Mizoguchi was probably the most praised director in critical circles, Ugetsu appears in the top 10 Sight and Sound lists of that era for example and Cashiers Du Cinema jurnos often focused heavily on him were as I think by the 70's Kurosawa and Ozu seemed to move ahead of him in acclaim and its only in the last few years he's making a bit of a comeback.

Again i think it might partly be that politically whilst Ozu is conservative that very nature makes him very much of his era, something which can be looked back to as a representation of the era. Mizoguchi's feminism was definitely more forward looking but perhaps takes a form which is rather out of fashion, it tends to have female characters as suffering saints rather than "empowered", its a feminism championing what could be viewed as more traditional feminine values.

I think part of it though is again that Mizoguchi is obscured a bit by Tarkovsky the same way say Charlie Parker is obscured by John Coltrane in jazz circles, one influenced the other but then the second one ended up being the larger influence on those who followed. Indeed I think Ozu/Micoguchi perhaps is a bit of a preview of Kubrick/Tarkovsky in terms of the divide in visual style between modernist geometrics and flowing organic visuals which could now be viewed as post modernist I spose. Maybe also a bit of the same masculine/feminine divide between them as well, Kubrick tends to focus mostly on cautionary tales of male violence were as Tarkovsky whilst often featuring male characters tends to focus on anti modernist and empathic cinema.

 

[HenryFlower]

Yeah, I think I'm still confused (lol)

Alright, so the severance procedure "severs" a person's irl memories when they go to work—that person & their past, present, & future memories (outside of work) is now the outie. this severing effect, in turn, causes a new "self" (think Freud's Ego) to come into consciousness because they are a mind wiped clean, building past/present/future memories that do not exist beyond the time spent at their job—this is now the innie. it's basically like having two separate memory storage systems that are installed in the same person/body/mind, but they run parallel to each other, without any intersection or access to the other's memories
(in theory, at least). in short, innie Adam Scott & co only come into consciousness when outie Adam Scott & co are "severed," which is activated/deactivated when they go down/up the main elevator at work.

Spoiler

the "overtime contingency" that Zach Cherry's character, Dylan, activates for the others at the end of the 8th episode causes that severing to happen regardless if they are at work or not. so, at the beginning of ep9, the innie self/Ego is basically switched on, in essence taking control of their outies' body (technically it's both the innies & outies body, but that's neither here nor there. all that matters is that the innies are now conscious while off the clock). the outie self/Ego technically didn't go anywhere, they're just "shut off" until the severing is deactivated at the very end when Seth Milchick tackles Dylan

edit: i apologize if my piss poor janky ass attempts at breaking this down is only compounding the confusion lol

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Alright, so the severance procedure "severs" a person's irl memories when they go to work—that person & their past, present, & future memories (outside of work) is now the outie. this severing effect, in turn, causes a new "self" (think Freud's Ego) to come into consciousness because they are a mind wiped clean, building past/present/future memories that do not exist beyond the time spent at their job—this is now the innie. it's basically like having two separate memory storage systems that are installed in the same person/body/mind, but they run parallel to each other, without any intersection or access to the other's memories
(in theory, at least). in short, innie Adam Scott & co only come into consciousness when outie Adam Scott & co are "severed," which is activated/deactivated when they go down/up the main elevator at work.

Spoiler

the "overtime contingency" that Zach Cherry's character, Dylan, activates for the others at the end of the 8th episode causes that severing to happen regardless if they are at work or not. so, at the beginning of ep9, the innie self/Ego is basically switched on, in essence taking control of their outies' body (technically it's both the innies & outies body, but that's neither here nor there. all that matters is that the innies are now conscious while off the clock). the outie self/Ego technically didn't go anywhere, they're just "shut off" until the severing is deactivated at the very end when Seth Milchick tackles Dylan

edit: i apologize if my piss poor janky ass attempts at breaking this down is only compounding the confusion lol

Why are the outies shut off though with only the innies to think and feel for them? It should be a combination of the two but instead it's all 'innie' with no 'outie'. I didn't get that. But the show was really good, especially tripping, wow that was a perfect final episode for a trip.

 

[HenryFlower]

Why are the outies shut off though with only the innies to think and feel for them? It should be a combination of the two but instead it's all 'innie' with no 'outie'. I didn't get that. But the show was really good, especially tripping, wow that was a perfect final episode for a trip.

The innies don't think & feel for the outies though; the innies think & feel for themselves. they are basically two separate entities existing within the same body but at different times (innies: at work//outies: all other times). their memories are bifurcated, so they cannot exist simultaneously.

Spoiler

although there are still plenty of mysteries to unlock, & there could def be some leakage happening, or multiple severings as a form of control or discipline, or something, considering outie Irving's paintings

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

The innies don't think & feel for the outies though; the innies think & feel for themselves. they are basically two separate entities existing within the same body but at different times (innies: at work//outies: all other times). their memories are bifurcated, so they cannot exist simultaneously.

Spoiler

although there are still plenty of mysteries to unlock, & there could def be some leakage happening, or multiple severings as a form of control or discipline, or something, considering outie Irving's paintings

No, I get that. The Innies are active at work, the Outies are active out of work. Yes. But I'm saying

Spoiler

when the Innie and Outie are reconnected at the end of the season the Innie is the one that takes over and does all the thinking. You don't see the outies actually knowing anything or participating at all, it's all the innie at that point.

 

[HenryFlower]

No, I get that. The Innies are active at work, the Outies are active out of work. Yes. But I'm saying

Spoiler

when the Innie and Outie are reconnected at the end of the season the Innie is the one that takes over and does all the thinking. You don't see the outies actually knowing anything or participating at all, it's all the innie at that point.

Spoiler

they're technically not reconnected, per se. it's more of an escape or a takeover or both, really. they are able to do this by using the overtime contingency override function (you might remember Milchick using this override to grill "innie" Dylan outside of work hours)

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Spoiler

they're technically not reconnected, per se. it's more of an escape or a takeover or both, really. they are able to do this by using the overtime contingency override function (you might remember Milchick using this override to grill "innie" Dylan outside of work hours)

Ok, I'm not understanding the override then. I don't remember him grilling "innie" Dylan. My memory has been way off recently

 

[HenryFlower]

Ok, I'm not understanding the override then. I don't remember him grilling "innie" Dylan. My memory has been way off recently

Milchick speaks to him inside of "outie" Dylan's closet & right before Milchick shuts down the override, "innie" Dylan catches a brief glimpse of "outie" Dylan's young son, thus discovering that he ("innie" Dylan) is a father, technically. this is a pretty major turning point for Dylan as a character. i believe it was episode 6 or 7

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Settlers (2023)

Visually stunning revisionist western from Felipe Gálvez Haberle (his debut film), but don’t think it packed the punch it should have.

Set in 1901 along the Chile-Argentina border, Tierra Del Fuego to be precise. We are on land owned by José Menéndez, an incredibly wealthy man who has made a fortune importing sheep and acquiring vast acres for grazing. He erects fences all across this inhospitable landscape to prevent the indigenous people from killing his livestock, but they remain a threat to his farming empire.

To deal with this “problem” Menéndez sends one of his overseers, Scotsman and ex-British Army man Alexander MacLennan, on an expedition. Ostensibly his mission is to find a safe route to the sea for his livestock. However, it is made clear from the get-go that his real mission is genocide. The extermination of any ‘brutes’ he finds along the way. This is real history, known as the Selk'nam genocide. MacLennan takes with him a young mestizo sharpshooter and a brash Texan, hired by Menéndez specifically for his skills in hunting natives.

The film aims for classic revisionist western stylings, deconstructing familiar tropes to explore the horrors of colonialism. The first portion takes a mythic, almost archetypal approach to things with sweeping vistas and a Morricone-esque score. Naturally this is supposed to be undercut by the brutal events depicted. However, in an attempt to link these events to Chilean state-building it makes an abrupt turn towards the end into more of a period drama. And while I get what Haberle was aiming for, I am just not sure it worked.

There are isolated moments which are harrowing, but taken as a whole the film is too narratively disjointed, filled with hollow characterisations and stilted dialogue, to incite the kind of anticolonial indignation to which it aspires.

Of course, it is important to draw attention to horrific episodes of history such as this. Particularly when they continue to be ignored by the nations which perpetrated them. However, I don’t think simply doing that is enough to make this a great film. It is far from a bad one, but it just left me wanting more.