Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!thakur
From: latta%graft.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Craig R. Latta)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Total Recall: subtle blatancy (spoilers)
Keywords: blatant subtlety
Message-ID: <1990Sep25.024218.20650@eddie.mit.edu>
Date: 25 Sep 90 02:42:18 GMT
References: <1990Sep22.064744.12151@eddie.mit.edu>
Sender: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Reply-To: latta%graft.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Craig R. Latta)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: The Dangerous Studio, Berkeley
Lines: 86
Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu


	Recently, in article <1990Sep22.064744.12151@eddie.mit.edu>,
att.com!ncsc6!dgp (Dennis Pelton) wrote:

> I'm a science fiction fan (a "serious" one, whatever that means), and
> would like a deeper discussion of Total Recall than has occured in the
> other newsgroups.  Particularly, the "was it real or was it a dream"
> question interests me.

	The following is an article I posted to rec.arts.movies and
rec.sf.something or other, which was almost completely ignored:


***

	I think the violence and inconsistencies (technical,
plotwise, and otherwise) in "Total Recall" all contribute to 
the subtle comic-book, dreamy nature of the film. They 
IMPROVE the film, in that they make it impossible to place any 
part of the film on any particular level of reality or dream/memory, 
even relative to other parts.

	The scene at Rekall where Arnie is getting the sales 
pitch is central. "Be daring and covert! Get the girl! Save the 
planet!" he is told (roughly).

	There is incredible violence in this film, so much as to
be preposterous. We know that Arnie is expected to smash heads at
will in his action movies. But most of Arnie's feats take on
superhuman proportions. The vividness of the violence (bones 
crunching, in particular), may be taken as typical contemporary
Hollywood schlock, or part of the larger-than-life quality that
dreams/memories often possess.

	The same goes for the technical and plot "weaknesses".
Since when do we expect complete reality in action/adventure films?
And if the film (or any convenient part) is a dream/memory, than 
why are we to expect that Doug knows (or doesn't know) ANYTHING 
about (for example):

		The color of the sky on Mars
		What happens to people in vacuums
		What goes on when he's not around
		
or any of the details which people are (amusingly) debating now.
It's Doug's imagination, isn't it? For all we know, Doug is actually 
some guy named Phil in 1953, musing about what the future could be
like, and wishing his own life were more exciting. Maybe one where
he had incredible strength and courage, and always got the girl,
and violent things happened, because frankly, Phil is bored...

	"For all we know..." We don't really know ANYTHING; and this,
to me, is the beauty of the film. The ending does a quite poetic 
job of leaving the audience totally confused. AND you get a smooch
in the sunset. How dreamy, but not necessarily a dream... (obligatory
ellipses...) Attempting to decide "is this a dream or reality" seems
to be missing the point of the film.

	And just what IS the point of the film? Don't ask me. I
thought it was a fun adventure flick. I agree that some of the 
violence could have been left out, not detracting from the film.
This film probably shouldn't be advertised as graphically in 
theaters as it is. The MARKETING is the most exploitive or
manipulative thing about it, as with most commercial products.
A more enigmatic marketing campaign would probably add to the 
mystique and give it a bigger initial draw (witness the first 
sales week of "Howard The Duck"). But this film hardly needs that.
This movie will make plenty of money: it sates the current 
American appetite for violence, but none of it is truly "excessive". 
It all adds to the blurring of reality and fantasy (and to that 
of what is acceptable and what is shocking in a movie).

	I applaud Verhoeven. He has created a thought-provoking
movie rich in physical and plot detail, the nature of which
freed him to be as violent and as inconsistent as he pleased.

	And I enjoyed it.


-C


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Latta                  "There are two types of people: those who divide
latta@scam.Berkeley.EDU            people into types, and those who don't."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------