Comments on: Alternate Sundays http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2008/02/26/alternate-sundays/ I never touched it, honest! Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:59:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jeremy http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2008/02/26/alternate-sundays/#comment-9393 Jeremy Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:59:58 +0000 http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2008/02/26/alternate-sundays/#comment-9393 I agree that Anderson is not just messing around. The simplest reading is that Paul and Eli are, indeed, twins. Next, they are similar looking brothers; my reading. There are a couple of tricky points and, like you, on a single viewing I couldn't go deeper, but ... Eli's rant about Paul being dead I took, simplistically again, to be in the nature of a "He's dead to me now" kind of thing. And Daniel's comments at the end could be taken in a messing with his head way. But I had not considered what the Sundays said about Daniel's own relationship with his missing brother and the imposter. Thanks for that. Nor, for that matter, do I understand how it was that the old man -- William Bandy -- when he wakes Daniel, hands him a gun and says something about his conscience, as if he knows all about the murder ... which took place miles away on the coast. All in all a fine, fine film. I'd like to read the book, now, and I predict a resurrection of Upton Sinclair. The Jungle is ripe for a re-read these days, that's for sure.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('9393','Jeremy'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('9393','Jeremy','I agree that Anderson is not just messing around. The simplest reading is that Paul and Eli are, indeed, twins. Next, they are similar looking brothers; my reading. There are a couple of tricky points and, like you, on a single viewing I couldn\'t go deeper, but ...\r\n\r\nEli\'s rant about Paul being dead I took, simplistically again, to be in the nature of a \"He\'s dead to me now\" kind of thing. And Daniel\'s comments at the end could be taken in a messing with his head way.\r\n\r\nBut I had not considered what the Sundays said about Daniel\'s own relationship with his missing brother and the imposter. Thanks for that.\r\n\r\nNor, for that matter, do I understand how it was that the old man -- William Bandy -- when he wakes Daniel, hands him a gun and says something about his conscience, as if he knows all about the murder ... which took place miles away on the coast.\r\n\r\nAll in all a fine, fine film. I\'d like to read the book, now, and I predict a resurrection of Upton Sinclair. The Jungle is ripe for a re-read these days, that\'s for sure.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I agree that Anderson is not just messing around. The simplest reading is that Paul and Eli are, indeed, twins. Next, they are similar looking brothers; my reading. There are a couple of tricky points and, like you, on a single viewing I couldn’t go deeper, but …

Eli’s rant about Paul being dead I took, simplistically again, to be in the nature of a “He’s dead to me now” kind of thing. And Daniel’s comments at the end could be taken in a messing with his head way.

But I had not considered what the Sundays said about Daniel’s own relationship with his missing brother and the imposter. Thanks for that.

Nor, for that matter, do I understand how it was that the old man — William Bandy — when he wakes Daniel, hands him a gun and says something about his conscience, as if he knows all about the murder … which took place miles away on the coast.

All in all a fine, fine film. I’d like to read the book, now, and I predict a resurrection of Upton Sinclair. The Jungle is ripe for a re-read these days, that’s for sure.

Reply - Quote
]]> By: Oliver http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2008/02/26/alternate-sundays/#comment-9392 Oliver Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:50:38 +0000 http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2008/02/26/alternate-sundays/#comment-9392 I think insisting that there is a satisfactory naturalistic response may miss the point. The casting of Dano is drawing attention to something -- anderson's not just messing around. The intention is probably to underscore the irreality of brotherhood, by making it in some (non-CGI) senses impossible for Paul and Eli to co-exist on screen -- they are defined by the other being absent. That plays into questions about the reality of brotherhood in Daniel's own life. FWIW I think the independent reality of Paul is underdetermined. If Paul is indeed an aspect of Eli, then Daniel would have a suspicion of that, and his riff on how Paul has made out OK would be a way of messing with Eli's head in a "path not taken" way. On only one viewing of the film I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that the amount Daniel tells Eli he gave Paul ($10K?) surely doesn't match the transaction we see at the beginning.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('9392','Oliver'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('9392','Oliver','I think insisting that there is a satisfactory naturalistic response may miss the point. The casting of Dano is drawing attention to something -- anderson\'s not just messing around. The intention is probably to underscore the irreality of brotherhood, by making it in some (non-CGI) senses impossible for Paul and Eli to co-exist on screen -- they are defined by the other being absent. That plays into questions about the reality of brotherhood in Daniel\'s own life. \r\nFWIW I think the independent reality of Paul is underdetermined. If Paul is indeed an aspect of Eli, then Daniel would have a suspicion of that, and his riff on how Paul has made out OK would be a way of messing with Eli\'s head in a \"path not taken\" way. On only one viewing of the film I can\'t say for sure, but it seems to me that the amount Daniel tells Eli he gave Paul ($10K?) surely doesn\'t match the transaction we see at the beginning.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I think insisting that there is a satisfactory naturalistic response may miss the point. The casting of Dano is drawing attention to something — anderson’s not just messing around. The intention is probably to underscore the irreality of brotherhood, by making it in some (non-CGI) senses impossible for Paul and Eli to co-exist on screen — they are defined by the other being absent. That plays into questions about the reality of brotherhood in Daniel’s own life.
FWIW I think the independent reality of Paul is underdetermined. If Paul is indeed an aspect of Eli, then Daniel would have a suspicion of that, and his riff on how Paul has made out OK would be a way of messing with Eli’s head in a “path not taken” way. On only one viewing of the film I can’t say for sure, but it seems to me that the amount Daniel tells Eli he gave Paul ($10K?) surely doesn’t match the transaction we see at the beginning.
Reply - Quote
]]>