Try this one on for size: An MIT professor (Nicholas Cage) is convinced that an elementary student’s page of seemingly random numbers enclosed in a time capsule from the 1950s has accurately predicted tragic events from the past 50 years and will predict tragic events in the future. Which seems more far-fetched: the numerological prophetic premise or the fact that Nicholas Cage could seem credible as an MIT professor?
One simply discards all sense of logic when dealing with a cinematic scenario as wild as I just described. Director Alex Proya’s Knowing is both a sci-fi thriller and a philosophical meditation on determinism vs. randomness. I am honestly not sure if it succeeds on either level. I am still trying to process the film’s bizarre quasi-Biblical premise and tripper-than-thou ending. I do know that I was never bored during the movie and it has stimulated my thinking in unexpected ways.
I should begin by noting that I am not a particular fan of the science-fiction genre. I have enough trouble figuring out things that actually exist in the world without trying to also contemplate fantastic galaxies and strange creatures with funny-looking faces. When I do find sci-fi films stimulating it is usually because they lead me to think about the real world in interesting and unusual ways.
On this level, I found Looking successful. Proya, of I, Robot and Dark City fame, sets up a scenario in which the characters (and the audience) are forced to come to terms with one of life’s fundamental questions: do we have any control over what happens to us, or are we merely pawns in the game of life? The film sets itself up as a kind of allegorical consideration of this basic philosophical quandary.
As for Nicholas Cage’s acting, I feel like he delivered what was necessary most of the time. He seemed to lack credibility for the first half of the movie. I had a hard time believing he could be an MIT professor, much less possess the intelligence to put the numerological puzzle pieces into place. But, by the end of the film I found myself sympathizing with him and, in fact, forgetting that he is Nicholas Cage. I’m still not sure exactly how or why this happened, but I don’t feel I can say that Cage was ineffective in his role.
Many critics have found the ending befuddling and I have to say that understand where they are coming from. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe the ending’s ambiguity was intentional on the part of the filmmaker. We understand on a literal level the images we see before us but do not necessarily comprehend their significance. I was reminded of the notoriously poetic ending to Kubrick’s masterwork 2001: A Space Odyssey. Who’s to say that movies must always be wrapped up in a neat package with a pretty bow at the end? Why shouldn’t audience members suffer and be forced to grapple a bit with what they see on the screen? Life isn’t free of ambiguity, so why should the movies always provide easy answers?
Overall, I would say that Knowing is definitely worth seeing, especially in the late winter cinematic void in which we currently find ourselves. It is rare that a filmmaker can thrill and provoke thought simultaneously, so I recognize Knowing as no small feat.
One simply discards all sense of logic when dealing with a cinematic scenario as wild as I just described. Director Alex Proya’s Knowing is both a sci-fi thriller and a philosophical meditation on determinism vs. randomness. I am honestly not sure if it succeeds on either level. I am still trying to process the film’s bizarre quasi-Biblical premise and tripper-than-thou ending. I do know that I was never bored during the movie and it has stimulated my thinking in unexpected ways.
I should begin by noting that I am not a particular fan of the science-fiction genre. I have enough trouble figuring out things that actually exist in the world without trying to also contemplate fantastic galaxies and strange creatures with funny-looking faces. When I do find sci-fi films stimulating it is usually because they lead me to think about the real world in interesting and unusual ways.
On this level, I found Looking successful. Proya, of I, Robot and Dark City fame, sets up a scenario in which the characters (and the audience) are forced to come to terms with one of life’s fundamental questions: do we have any control over what happens to us, or are we merely pawns in the game of life? The film sets itself up as a kind of allegorical consideration of this basic philosophical quandary.
As for Nicholas Cage’s acting, I feel like he delivered what was necessary most of the time. He seemed to lack credibility for the first half of the movie. I had a hard time believing he could be an MIT professor, much less possess the intelligence to put the numerological puzzle pieces into place. But, by the end of the film I found myself sympathizing with him and, in fact, forgetting that he is Nicholas Cage. I’m still not sure exactly how or why this happened, but I don’t feel I can say that Cage was ineffective in his role.
Many critics have found the ending befuddling and I have to say that understand where they are coming from. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe the ending’s ambiguity was intentional on the part of the filmmaker. We understand on a literal level the images we see before us but do not necessarily comprehend their significance. I was reminded of the notoriously poetic ending to Kubrick’s masterwork 2001: A Space Odyssey. Who’s to say that movies must always be wrapped up in a neat package with a pretty bow at the end? Why shouldn’t audience members suffer and be forced to grapple a bit with what they see on the screen? Life isn’t free of ambiguity, so why should the movies always provide easy answers?
Overall, I would say that Knowing is definitely worth seeing, especially in the late winter cinematic void in which we currently find ourselves. It is rare that a filmmaker can thrill and provoke thought simultaneously, so I recognize Knowing as no small feat.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment