WARNING: THIS POST WILL CONTAIN FILM SPOILERS.
Looking back at the book as a whole, what really resonated with me was the plot twist. I absolutely love plot twists. Something about taking the story and throwing it to a far, distant land seems so freaking awesome to me. So, I've decided to locate some films that have equally as fantastic plot twists.
1. Fight Club:
Quite possibly one of the coolest plot twists I've seen in a while, which takes place primarily in a hotel room, where the narrator, Jack (Edward Norton), learns that his friend Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) is no more than a dissociation of his own personality. At this point, we use our vast medical knowledge and understanding of the human brain to diagnose Jack with Schizophrenia.
2. The Sixth Sense:
As crappy as 95% of the films M. Night Shyamalan's makes are, I give him credit for having some of the greatest plot twists of all time. This being one of them. The thriller opens with a sequence that involves Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) getting shot by a former patient of his, one whom Crowe failed to cure. As the next scene portrays Crowe meeting his new patient, Cole (Haley Joel Osmont), we assume that he made it through the shooting okay. As the film progresses, we learn of Cole's ability to speak to the dead, and how it relates strangely to the patient we met in the first scene. However, in one of the final scenes of the film, we learn that Crowe didn't survive the shooting, and all this time, Crowe had been a walking spirit, and Cole was the only one that could see him. This explains a lot in the film, especially the estranged relationship he has with his wife.
3. Shutter Island:
Shutter Island is one of my favorite Martin Scorcese films, as well as one of my favorite novel adaptions of all time. The psychological thriller follows Federal Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner as they investigate the disappearance of one of the patients at Shutter Island, a mental asylum for the criminally insane. The utter strangeness of the case itself, as well as the apparent inability of any of the staff to help, leads Teddy to believe that something is seriously wrong with this place. However, approximately 90 minutes and several dream-sequences later, Teddy learns the truth: this entire situation isn't real. In truth, Teddy is an inmate of Shutter Island, sent there after he killed his wife out of revenge for the death of their children. We learn that this entire plot has been a set-up, in hopes that Teddy will snap out of his reality and come back to the real one.
Good god, this book is strange. And yet, it's one of the most creative books I've read or even heard about in a long, long time. I love how, just when I thought things couldn't possibly get any stranger, Alberto and Sophie escape from Albert Knag's world.
However, all this talk of reality is bring questions to mind. Is Albert really writing this book-within-a-book? Because what confuses me is, if this is in fact his universe, his creation, then how did Alberto and Sophie escape in the first place (assuming, of course, that Alberto was incorrect in his assumption)? How can one lose control of his own story? It seems to me like, if he actually wanted to keep these characters in his story, he could just write them back in? Or is it possible that this book is writing itself? This is where everything is leaving me purely and utterly baffled.
Still, however, it was a great read. With the exception of maybe the appearance of cartoon characters, it was very interesting, creative, and compelling. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for, not only a good read, but also a background in philosophy, because the novel also has plenty of information.
Truly, one of the best books I've ever had to read for school.
Kierkergard's chapter has basically been my favorite of any chapter so far this trimester. I love the contrasting ideas that the "imaginary juices" showed us. The two worlds being one where everything is disconnected, where everything on earth is it's own entity, and the other where everything is one, where looking at someone will give you a main idea, rather than focusing on the details.
I think that, at this point, Sophie's character arc is becoming clearer. In the beginning of the novel, we met Sophie as a very smart, interested young girl, but who hasn't found what she believes in. I think that, by the end of the novel, Sophie will find whatever that truth may be. Even if she's not strictly speaking, real.
Since my reflection was about parallel storylines, I thought I'd find a film that utilized that technique. I found a few:
1. Inception. This has not two, not three, not four, but FIVE parallel storylines. Each storyline represents a level of reality/a dream. The levels included are Reality, Dream Level 1 (Rainy Downtown), Dream Level 2 (Hotel), Dream Level 3 (Winter Fortress), and Limbo. With the exception of reality and limbo, these storylines are present throughout the entire film.
2. Vantage Point: This film tells the story of the (attempted) assassination of the United State president. Essentially, the entire film is the (more or less) same 9 minutes repeated over and over again, from a different point of view. I believe it tells the story of 8 different viewpoints?
3. Memento: This film, which tells the story of a man with anterograde amnesia trying to find the man who killed his wife. The film is set up into two different storylines, one of which is told (in color) and reverse-chronologically, and the other told (in black and white) in chronological order. The best and most satisfying part of the film is when the two stories meet at one single point.
At this point in the novel, we're now switching between Sophie's story, in Albert's universe, and Hilde's story, in the real world (or so we are led to believe). We're now gaining more insight into Albert's character as well. When in Sophie's story, we view Albert as somewhat of a god. He is the creator of all things, and the ruler. He makes the rules, breaks the rules, basically, he does whatever he wants to Sophie's World.
In Hilde's story, we learn a little bit more about him. About how he wrote "Sophie's World" as a book for his daughter's birthday. He seems like, more of a normal person. When looking at Albert through Sophie's eyes, we view Albert as the antagonist of the story. An evil genius, if you will. In Hilde's story, Albert is a benevolent, "good-guy" character.
It's very interesting to see contrasts as we move between realites.
My apologies for how long it's been since I've posted:
At this point in "Sophie's World", Sophie just got the banana peel letter. I'll be honest, things have been screwed up for a long while now. Most physical laws have been bent or broken by this point in the novel, and Albert seems to be playing with Sophie and Alberto.
However, what I find interesting about this book is the parallelism that the story shares with the philosophies being taught (with some rare exceptions). In this chapter, we're discussing Hume. In the narrative, Sophie is instinctively trusting Alberto, even in a world where we now realize that nothing is truly real (or is it?).
If you think about it, she's been doing this for a while now, too. Ever since the very beginning, she's been reading these letters, watching these videos, all (at the time) from a man she had never met. Any normal person would have ignored the letters until they went away.
I'm really not much for superheroes. To be perfectly honest, they've always seemed very cheesy, wimpy, unrealistic, and just plain obnoxious. However, the Batman is a hero that I've always loved, since my early childhood, because of the realism of his character. I've always loved the idea that he's not necessarily a "superhero", but rather, he's a masked vigilante. Ever since I started this philosophy course, I've started to notice many of the philosophies we've talked about integrated into the real world. In this beautifully deep and thoughtful connection, I'd like to take a look at two of the characters in the Batman universe.
Batman is a rationalist, which means a number of things:
1. He's rational (funnily enough).
2. He essentially rejects his emotions when making decisions.
3. Everything needs to be based on fact.
4. Very logic driven, but to the point.
Now, let's take a look at the Joker.
1. Instead of repressed his impulses and emotions, he embraces them, and lets them take control.
2. He doesn't need facts, he just needs a reason to do something.
3. "I'm like a dog chasing car. I just… do."
4. Embraces theatrics.
I've always been intrigued with this. I like this idea of how two polar opposite philosophies can clash, and do some amazing things, such as create what was considered "one of the greatest sequels (and superhero films) of all time".
