BEFORE: I didn't even get a chance yesterday to mention the "Tristram Shandy paradox", this is a sort of a mathematical thought experiment that resulted from the original novel, in which the character struggles to write his autobiography, but after many distractions and digressions, he finds that after a year of writing, he has only chronicled one day of his life. The paradox states that at this rate, he will never finish the project. I live in a paradox of my own making, because even though I watch 300 films a year, it seems that between new releases and older films that I want to watch, I end up finding AT LEAST 300 films to add to the list in a year's time, so much like Mr. Shandy, I may never finish. Perhaps someday they will name a paradox after me.
It seems rather straightforward to say that neither Tristram or I will ever "catch up", and some people who refute this have taken this to extremes, and their logical argument goes as follows:
1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be infinite.
2) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition
3) Hence, the temporal series of past events cannot be infinite
4) Hence, the temporal series of past events is not infinite.
5) The universe began to exist (at some point).
6) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
7) Hence, the universe has a cause of its existence.
8) Hence, God exists.
However, I say "Nay, nay", this is B.S. logic that takes a REALLY big leap at the end to prove its God-centric point. Where my blog is concerned, allow me to posit that:
1) A collection of blog posts formed by successive addition cannot be infinite.
2) At some point in the future, I will cease to exist, at which time the task will be considered complete.
There, see? It's actually quite simple, no paradox, and there's no reason to drag your imaginary God into the equation.
Stephen Fry carries over from "Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story", and I just found out that this February, Turner Classic Movies will be showing their "31 Days of Oscar" programming in my favorite format, which they call "360 Degrees of Oscar". This means that, like me, they program their films so that each film shares an actor or actress with the film before it, and the film after it. I'll be listing their schedule here a day in advance because I LOVE what they do, and if I can get any of my tens of fans to tune in for their movies, it's well worth it. Oh, this is going to be so much fun!
They also get bonus points for making sure that their first movie on Feb. 1 also connects to the last film on March 2. I can't get my last film in December to connect back to my first film in January! Or maybe I did, I hadn't checked... I'd love to send a shout-out to whoever programs things over at TCM, I feel like we're kindred spirits somehow, and I'd like to buy that person a drink, seriously.
I'll be tracking my percentages again this year, how many of the films I've seen - but if I'm being honest, I haven't recorded much off of TCM in the last year, except for Bergman films - partially that's because I've now seen most of the classics that I want to see, plus I lost the ability to dub TCM films to DVD, so anything I record clogs up my DVR until I get around to watching it - and I've been spending most of my time watching recent films lately, so that means it could be a while. Still, maybe if I ever (never) catch up, maybe I can dive back into the earlier eras.
THE PLOT: The Borrowers are four-inch high "little people" who are discovered living under the floorboards of a house.
AFTER: So it turns out that NEITHER adaptation of the "The Borrowers" was very faithful to the original novel, but I suppose that's to be expected, a film tends to reflect more about the time it was made, rather than the time its source material was written, unless it's a total period piece, like, say, "Little Women". And even then, I bet the new version of that story is very 2019 in some way, to adapt the book and stay true to even the sensibilities of a novel from the 1860's would feel very backward, and not just retro. We always view the past through the lens of the present.
The children's book "The Borrowers" was published in 1952, and it's set in an English mansion where activities performed by the characters include quilting and scrapbooking, and these are things that children only did before there was TV and the internet, so those story elements just wouldn't work in a modern movie. The 1997 film "The Borrowers" was set in a version of London with no fixed date, there were still rotary phones and retro automobiles, I think the biggest piece of tech seen was a pair of walkie-talkies. The 2011 BBC remake is more modern, with characters at least being aware of modern electronics - a group of Borrowers is seen watching the 2003 film "Love, Actually" on some sort of miniature device, which of course to them is the relative size of an IMAX screen perhaps.
Yes, it's Christmas time in this film, for some reason, and I've decided to soldier on with it here, because we're still just 2 weeks after Christmas, and I need to make the connection to tomorrow's film, so I can't really delay this one until December 2020 - anyway, if I had my choices for this year's Christmas films, I'd prefer to watch "Bad Santa 2", I've tried for a couple of years now but the linking never allows it. I'll shoot for it again this year. The passage of time here is marked by a sort of "advent calendar" format, which is different, but does it really bring that much to the table? I guess they needed a reason for the kid to get a model airplane as a gift, which becomes an important vehicle for a couple of tiny people later on. Also, it's even worse if the Drivers are about to lose their home if we know that it's the holiday season. Damn those banks, always wanting mortgage payments, even in December! Everyone knows that there's no extra work available in December, not at the post office or with shipping companies or in retail stores, because really, who shops in December? OK, I think I found my first NITPICK POINT right there.
Speaking of Christmas, do the Borrowers believe in God? What kind of God makes a species of little people that are just four inches high and always in danger of being squished by regular-sized people? God supposedly made man "in his image", and the Borrowers look like tiny people, so can I get a ruling on this one? One of them sings a Christmas song, and two of them hide out in a manger scene at a church, but that's not the same as practicing a religion. If you squish a Borrower, does it go to heaven? The answer is no, because heaven doesn't exist, sorry.
But we do learn a few more details about the Borrowers in this one, it turns out they wear a lot of clothing made for dolls and action figures. Makes sense, I guess. The character Spiller wears a red leather jacket that looks like it maybe came from a Michael Jackson figure. And we finally get a name for their species, Homo Sapiens Redactus. So that also leads us to believe they're an offshoot of humanity via this taxonomy, not a completely separate species. Great, count them in the census so they can start paying taxes. Oh, wait, they don't have any income because they borrow everything and don't have jobs. Never mind. And you don't want them voting because they don't understand the Brexit issue, but to be fair, who does?
The villain here is not an evil lawyer and real-estate developer, but a zoology science professor at some university, one who's had a theory about the existence of little people for years, just because they turn up in so many folk tales around the world, as fairies and leprechauns and such. He's really a laughing-stock in the scientific community, because he believes that if someone wrote about it at some point, then it must exist. No, see, that's religion again, and that's the opposite of science - science is based on evidence and logic, not fairy-tales and idle speculation. Still, if he can find a little person and capture it, then his whole life won't be wasted and his career can take off. Publish or perish.
He does manage to catch a couple of the Borrowers, but he's easily distracted by Granny Driver - he just sees her as a GILF and can't keep his eyes on the prize - and the little people keep escaping from his lab when he's looking the other way. Though there was talk in the Borrower family about moving to a new house, ultimately the parents decide to stay in the Driver home (after matters are settled with the bank) and they also allow their daughter Arrietty to visit Borrower City (located in an abandoned tube station) after keeping her confined for so many years. So all's well that ends well, I guess.
There's another version of this story told in Japanese animation form, called "The Secret World of Arriettty", but that's not my thing, I don't feel the need to be THAT much of a completist. Two versions of this story is quite enough, thanks.
Also starring Christopher Eccleston (last seen in "The Others"), Sharon Horgan (last seen in "Game Night"), Aisling Loftus (last seen in "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"), Robert Sheehan (last seen in "Mute"), Francis Chouler (last seen in "Dredd"), Charlie Hiscock, Victoria Wood, Shaun Dooley, Anne Hirsch with archive footage of Keira Knightley (last seen in "King Arthur"), Andrew Lincoln (last seen in "Love, Actually").
RATING: 4 out of 10 strawberry creams
No comments:
Post a Comment