Search Results
7/20/2025, 3:59:54 PM
>>212921704
>>212921806
>all the "conventionally magical" stuff in PT ... still ultimately remains a narrative thing
I don't see how, can you elaborate? Maybe my memory of the film is rusty, but I don't remember any hints of magic/supernatural presence, the narrative has a purely psychological explanation, and the head-mind-body analogy is just an abstract metaphor. Unlike for example in Vertigo where the presence of Carlotta Valdes is hinted at several times in the film, most explicitly in the picrelated famous shot.
>can you similarly to PT explain away the "magic" [in C&J]
No, you can't, the protagonists start seeing the film-within-the-film with the sweets' help only after several visits to the magical house, and the "spilling" of its characters into Paris happens without them.
>one understanding of this general characteristic seems to apply to C&J perfectly (though I'd add that that seamless integration is a somewhat paradoxical one by virtue of it destabilizing the narrative)
Again, I don't see how. Maybe you forgot that the entire narrative is conjured by a magic spell uttered in the very beginning.
>Do you mean something like the fictional space is a reality we're meant to take for granted as viewers which the supernatural tries to destabilize and draw something else from?
Not always. It's hidden in Peeping Tom, hinted at in Vertigo. But Last Year at Marienbad - another excellent example - is wholly and exclusively the supernatual destabilization of a completely static, inanimate fictional space.
>>212921806
>all the "conventionally magical" stuff in PT ... still ultimately remains a narrative thing
I don't see how, can you elaborate? Maybe my memory of the film is rusty, but I don't remember any hints of magic/supernatural presence, the narrative has a purely psychological explanation, and the head-mind-body analogy is just an abstract metaphor. Unlike for example in Vertigo where the presence of Carlotta Valdes is hinted at several times in the film, most explicitly in the picrelated famous shot.
>can you similarly to PT explain away the "magic" [in C&J]
No, you can't, the protagonists start seeing the film-within-the-film with the sweets' help only after several visits to the magical house, and the "spilling" of its characters into Paris happens without them.
>one understanding of this general characteristic seems to apply to C&J perfectly (though I'd add that that seamless integration is a somewhat paradoxical one by virtue of it destabilizing the narrative)
Again, I don't see how. Maybe you forgot that the entire narrative is conjured by a magic spell uttered in the very beginning.
>Do you mean something like the fictional space is a reality we're meant to take for granted as viewers which the supernatural tries to destabilize and draw something else from?
Not always. It's hidden in Peeping Tom, hinted at in Vertigo. But Last Year at Marienbad - another excellent example - is wholly and exclusively the supernatual destabilization of a completely static, inanimate fictional space.
Page 1