Last night, we watched the film "Run Lola Run" and had a great discussion afterwards which helped me understand it better than I ever had (this was my 4th time seeing RLR). We talked a lot last night about Lola seeming to have control over some situations, and definitely how her choices and actions had a domino effect on the world around her. In her discussions with Manni, you get the impression that she's the kind of person who always relies on herself and her ideas to solve all her problems, and has no doubts about the power she possesses. Manni asks her "What would you do if I died?" Lola responds "I wouldn't let you die."The scenario of 20 minutes kept playing until the 2 characters got the desired result. They made a conscious decision (lying on the pavement thinking about prior conversations with each other) to not leave each other. What's interesting to me is that the last scenario is the only time when she (and Manni, with the blind woman) really opens herself up to outside intervention, and renders herself helpless w/out it (running w/ her eyes closed). In the first 2, she relies completely on herself to try to get what she needs, and it doesn't work. But then, after her options are exhausted, she opens herself up for serious help. she gets the message, goes into the Casino (the place of blind luck) to win the 126,000 in 3 minutes. But, did she realize that she needed outside intervention in order to get the ball to fall on 20? No, she screamed louder and longer than ever, once again believing that if she just wanted it badly enough, the world would bow at her feet and give it to her. and in the movie, it did.
This movie maker (Tom Tykwer) touched less on what he thinks actually makes everything happen, and more on how your perceptions on those matters change the way you behave. One could argue that it wasn't true intervention when the bus almost hit her in front of the Casino, that it was actually just another occurrance that had the effect of making her go to the Casino. On the same token, one could argue that it was actually intervention that made the ball fall on the 20, and that Lola just believed it was her power that was making that happen. These things are not the point of the movie, but it's fun to think about.
So how does our perceptions on these matters effect the way we behave? Anybody? This goes to the core of how we perceive actions and decisions, so how does it effect us... and how can we learn if our perceptions are correct? Any examples of times we would make decisions differently if we interpreted the world in a different light? ready... go
.
.JPG)
8 comments:
First I would like to say that besides the subtitles I did enjoy the film for the most part.
My interp was our everyday lives are impacted by our decisions we make on any given moment. Say I drop ice cream out of my cone that causes a huge chain reaction of events; a guy on a bike slips on the ice cream into oncoming traffic which he gets hit by cars and then cars go flying in the air hitting a building structure and that cuases the building to collapse, then it all the sudden is just me still standing there holding the cone in disbelief that I just caused all that by dropping a fricking ice cream. Not every moment can be used as an example but everyone has or will have moments of truth as they call them. We live in a society were we all can or will affect each others lives for the good or bad. We all hope for good things, but what happens when the bad occurs. In this film Lola was able to create three different scenario's that altered time and there outcomes. Two which ended with her and Manni's death which was not to her liking or his for that matter. Who's to say that maybe their love for each other caused this riff which allowed them to start over until they got it right. Lola Dies in the first senerio from a gun shot. Manni dies from a ambulance running him over.
(Which was a cool scene by the way. Then they shoot scenes of them talking about their relationship on a deep level. If this happened what would you do? Can our love with stand everyday life and it's obstacles. I beleive that Lola is a independent woman who only seeks help when she feels completely helpless. Which is why she went to the Casino in the first place to ask for help from the (higher power) which helped her or was it just luck. As much as I would like to think that luck was with her that moment, I tend to lean more towards the fact that she had a helping hand besides screaming at the top of her lungs causing glass to break. What was that supposed to represent that she was a super hero who screams and gets her way. I don't think so sounds like a spoiled brat scream to me.
Anyways I believe that this film taught me a lesson in life and the consequences that we bring to each other. We meet people on a daily basis whether it's good terms or bad terms but what we walk away with from that moment is what counts. If we were happy then we can look back and say that was a great moment for me. If it was bad then we can look back and think what did I learn from that experience. It's all how we preceive life and it's paths that we choose. Like The Last Crusade said to Indy, "You must choose wisely." Fun Movie!
P.S. Why 20 minutes I would have been like your screwed dude! Call me later if you can! Just Kidding!
Hey there Arnold, thanks for joining us. I'm glad you were honest and admitted that the subtitles were not your preference. Do you (or anyone else) prefer movies that are in a foreign language to be subtitled or over-dubbed? It's interesting to me, b/c at first I find it distracting to have to read what's going on... but when I get into the film, I wouldn't trade the original language for anything. It's part of experiencing their culture, which is a stretching thing that I'm not always in the mood for, yet I feel it's beneficial to me.
This is partly why I showed this film. It's all upbeat and driving you the whole way, and yet b/c of the subtitles it still requires work on our part. I want people to figure out if the work is truly worth it to them for what they can pull out.
Thanks Rye,
Although it was distracting at first once the movie was rolling I could follow it better and really didn't think about the subtitles anymore. I don't mind subtitles to much it will just take some getting use to. I watch alot of Oriental films which are subtitled so I'm getting better as time progresses. Good pick though.
Just to throw it out there, I watched a foreign film yesterday called The Chorus which was pretty good, in that "mr. holland's opus" sort of way. Also, I'll be updating my profile every time I watch a film with a rating score for that movie, if anybody is interested. I'd be interested if other people want to do that (or something like it) with theirs. It also helps me keep track of everything I'm watching.
The discussion over subtitles vs over-dub should tap into what people want to get out of movies. We've talked a lot about movies being work or play. For those who see it as the latter, subtitles don't play much part in play since they are more work. "I don't want to work, I just want to bang on your drum all day" I believe the song goes.
Foreign films require discipline sometimes. I have to choose to not take the easy road, and hope that this other road is worth it. I will certainly admit that I don't want all my movie experiences to be matters of discipline. But here's the funny part to me; in the movie store, typically the movies that look like the best ones to me end up being foreign.
I'm drawn to the artwork, something about the cover looks interesting. I'm a firm believer in not reading the back cover in order to decide whether or not I should watch it (once again, this is a discipline worth it to me). I also don't want a friend who's recommending a film to tell me what it's about or why they loved it or how I'll never figure out the ending. If you want to be a great friend to me, just give me the title of the movie and tell me to watch it.
I know that I'm alone on this. Arnold brought up a point on another post about kamakaze movie watching... this is somewhat what I do every time, although I am guided in my decision to select. Does anybody else think that this practice is worth it?
I would prefer to see nothing as well, not the front cover box or anything. I've learned after years of running video stores how to eliminate a lot of movies that I know will stink based on things like font and the color of the letters. So since I only get about 5-10 great friend recommendations to go by in a year, the rest of the time I have to rely on something to make my decisions so it's not a complete waste of time and energy.
Most people say that they'll enjoy a film more if they're surprised, so why do we have such a hard time allowing others to experience things in that fashion? Why are we compelled to give away too much, especially when it's a movie we WANT them to enjoy?!
Also, I feel that the cover art reveals some of the heart behind a project. If they are pushing a marketing ploy (like sex) to get me to rent it, chances are better that there isn't a lot of artistic interest in the film.
This is what I'm usually drawn to about foreign film's cover boxes. They don't usually play by the same marketing rules, so what they put on the box doesn't turn me off to it.
if anyone is interested, the beginning of Richard LInklater's Slacker has a long diatribe about just this topic. in a nutshell, what if every decision we make impacts the universe by creating it's own version where you continue to live, and the decision you DID NOT make goes on in it's own universe. and what if dreams are a look into that alternate universe.....
mr. el moco, thanks for joining us. I haven't seen Slacker yet, but I've always wanted to. It's funny, b/c the first film we watched for this thing is called Tape, and it's directed by Richard Linklater as well. If you haven't already watched his movie Waking Life, you'd probably love it (I bet you've seen it).
Post a Comment