Seeing as how it is, once again, a whole week since I last posted, and, although an awful lot of fun and wonderful things have happened during that week, I don’t have the inclination to post much else, here are another couple of quotes from Orthodoxy.
“… Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness. A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties…”
“… some people fall back on sheer submission and sitting still. Nature is going to do something someday; nobody knows what, and nobody knows when. We have no reason for acting, and no reason for not acting. If anything happens it is right: if anything is prevented it was wrong. Again, some people try to anticipate nature by doing something, by doing anything. Because we may possibly grow wings they cut off their legs [though I find it more likely that they'd try cutting someone else's legs off first. Just sayin'.]. Yet nature may be trying to make them centipedes for all they know.”
So, I got to watch “Source Code” with a bunch of friends the other night. My opinion was that it was weird, but not un-enjoyable.
I give fair warning now! What follows MAY contain spoilers.
First, the overall feeling of the movie. I watched it with ClearPlay, of course. I’m no critic, nowhere close. I like cheesy movies. This one seemed a little like it was trying to be something it wasn’t quite. There were, what? 3 sets? 4 maybe. They got to reuse shots; some of the script was repetitive, there were strange flashbacks or glimpses of possibilities. I don’t know. Something about it seemed a little cheap. That’s probably just me though. Also, there was one particular, potentially disturbing scene that seemed unnecessary.
I was constantly thinking of That Hideous Strength during the movie. The book and the movie have some interesting parallels, but there were also quite a few differences that were possibly even more interesting to think about. In the book (from what I can remember, and it’s been a couple years or more since I read it), the brain is being used for evil. In the movie, it was supposedly being used for good. We could go into the ethics of the thing, but I’ll refrain at this point. The question that the book-to-movie parallels raised for me was, would the creepy doctor always be altruistic in his use of the dead man’s memory? (Yes, I over analyze things. Whatcha gonna do about it?) What if circumstances arose where it would be potentially profitable for him to sell the information on the black market (is that supposed to be capitalized?) or something? Would he sell? I mean, the movie didn’t even go into who all might be trying to obtain the Source Code!
I had a few other gripes with the movie as well. I think it possibly would have been interesting if Shawn Fentress had looked like Shawn Fentress during those scenes instead of looking like Colter Stevens. Again, however, I’m probably the only one who thinks that. Also, if, in the last Source Code (for Stevens, anyway), Colter Stevens’ consciousness takes over Shawn Fentress’ identity and body, where did Shawn Fentress’ consciousness go? The train didn’t blow up, no one died, what happened to Shawn Fentress??? That aside however, how on earth is the new Shawn Fentress, formerly Colter Stevens, going to teach history?! I won’t even go into the ending…
Okay, analyzing aside, it’s sci-fi. You’re not really supposed to understand it or make sense of it, I guess. Still, as far as an action thriller (which is what it was classified as at IMDB) goes, I’d say it was pretty good.