Print

Print


Derk,
 
[original posted on personal e-mail]
 
> Well, as I said, I am a novice.  And I saw "Sneakers" some time ago. In my
> mind, I found a parallel to "Three Days of the Condor" relative to the level
> of violence, running around to escape folks on both sides who want to nail
> one's hide to the door, etc.
 
Hm. I never considered that scene and I have never seen "Three Days..."
But I think that violence in Sneakers does not play an important role.
Anyway, does an action film automatically imply violence?
 
> I guess that there isn't the destruction of property and spectacular
> pyrotechnics of some other films.
 
The destruction lies elsewhere in that movie.
 
> What is the criteria for "action films"?
 
Ummmm.... violence? ;-)
 
> Does "Terminator II" qualify?  The nuclear war was spectacular.
 
I think that it would.
I find Schwarzenegger films ambiguous. sometimes they seem to plead
against violence and then again, they are an orgy of it.
 
> I think it had potential to be a "SciFi" flick--the film's version of SDI
> becoming self-aware and some exploration of  why the SDI system exercised an
> instinct for self-preservation while the "Terminator" selflessly destroys
> itself, even though both are supposedly based on the same computer chip.
>  [Again, as I recall.]  But I digress.
 
I believe that detailed consistency was not that high on the list of things
to care about when they made T2, whereas Sneakers was taken more care of.
What are we doing here? We're comparing Sneakers with T2! Does that make
sense?
 
{Spoiler Warning for text below}
 
> Back to "Sneakers":  As I recall the ideology of the Russian nihilists, they
> would indiscriminately try to kick over everything.  That which was
> artificial and had not real roots in society to sustain it would collapse.
>  That which had the social base to sustain it would survive.  Wouldn't that
> fit the "not real" aspect of finance which Cosmo was seeking to destroy?  Or
> did I misinterpret your message?
 
No. I cannot find anything wrong in your formulation although it makes me feel
uneasy. It fits, however.
Ah, there I have it.
Cosmo only kicks at the 'invisible' financial structures, not at every single
little aspect of civilisation.
I think that he comes from the other side.
He sees society's handling of finance as a tool to exert power that does
not guarantee equal chances to everyone (part of the American Dream) and
makes them suffer. With that, he wants to end the suffering by 'resetting
the game'. AND THEN he kicks at it _specifically_, not randomly.
So he may not be a nihilist after all.
 
What are Cosmo's chances of being an individually acting character who
has made up his own ideology (rather than adapting an external one from stock)
and now pursues it for the good of humanity?
I think that I can recognize in the portrayal of his character that he is
a 'born leader'. He leads the discussions in the three main 'revelation
dialogues', as I call them: 'Ordering for Pizza', 'Cray Room' and 'Rooftop'.
They are placed at the very beginning, right in the middle and at the very end
of the film - key positions.
I just realized that there is a definite shift between the balance of  the
expression of external (physical) power and internal (argumentary) power in
these three scenes.
First, Cosmo only talks and binds Marty to him with his arguments, with Marty
leaving at the end by himself (and Cosmo letting him go)
Then, Marty is his prisoner, and he is brought away (by order of Cosmo).
In the last scene, Cosmo points a gun at Marty and forces him to listen to him.
Marty practically escapes.
 
How's that?
 
Enough for today, read y'all tomorrow.
Daniel