tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-718363357363343340.post5972112108189667741..comments2022-05-09T09:20:48.004-07:00Comments on Film of the Month Club: DoppelgangerChris Caglehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11896423565458620046noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-718363357363343340.post-20022085815937392802009-01-11T17:35:00.000-08:002009-01-11T17:35:00.000-08:00No, I'm not really saying that either - what I fin...No, I'm not really saying that either - what I find fascinating is the way the film raises the issue (the possibility that Alex is Michael, basically), and then never really resolves it. That ambiguity, the manipulation of information is what I am interested in. I put up a new post to that effect - again - not to argue that Alex isn't real, but to look at how the film handles information about him....weepingsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11885871104310819374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-718363357363343340.post-59521956032739233262009-01-11T09:05:00.000-08:002009-01-11T09:05:00.000-08:00I think it is silly to discuss these character's l...I think it is silly to discuss these character's literal existence in the reality of the film. I didn't mean to imply that I think this is a ghost film. I was speaking on an allegorical level; that Alex is a demonic manifestation steaming from Michael's inner struggles, and Claire is the "devil's tool". On this allegorical level, they perhaps exist differently than Michael,Pismo, Patterson, etc.Peter Rinaldihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08665020900615475757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-718363357363343340.post-27433519119661598852009-01-11T08:12:00.000-08:002009-01-11T08:12:00.000-08:00Claire exists, because she appears on videotape, a...Claire exists, because she appears on videotape, and someone other than Michael (or one of his potential doppelgangers) sees her - that's how we know that Michael exists, too! I think the film's manipulation of evidence for what exists and doesn't, what happens and doesn't, is quite fascinating - and quite canny. I want to make the argument with more care - but I think the film does quite a few things to explore the nature of reality, and evidence for reality. As a few people have mentioned - its treatment of on and off screen space is very interesting; and, given the importance of video and photographs in the film - specifically, on and off <I>screen</I>....weepingsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11885871104310819374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-718363357363343340.post-48560812928757477662009-01-10T20:34:00.000-08:002009-01-10T20:34:00.000-08:00Wow Chris. There is a bunch of interesting points ...Wow Chris. There is a bunch of interesting points here. I am most fascinated by your points on the female pawns. What does it say about me that this didn't even cross my mind?!?!<BR/><BR/>It got me thinking about the Claire character. Initially she starts out as a "test" for Michael -can he land her with a line? That scene in the club is presented with only ambient sound. We don't know what is said. This would normally signify that the woman in this scene is insignificant; that she will not be seen again. <BR/><BR/>But she is. She is used as a test again, in her next scene - Can Michael lie for Alex? <BR/><BR/>Then she is given as a sexual gift to Michael, which results in her use as a tool to break up Michael's unwanted engagement. And then finally she is taken away by Alex, almost as punishment for Michael's reaction to Alex's "help". <BR/><BR/>When thought of in this way, it could almost be said that she too "doesn't exist"; she almost seems like an illusion steaming from the greater illusion that is Alex; quite literally existing simply as a tool, a gift or a punishment.Peter Rinaldihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08665020900615475757noreply@blogger.com