I would like to take this opportunity to begin talking about the movie.
First off, Scarlett Johansson = MEGA HOTTIE. Just don't let my girlfriend know that.
But seriously, this movie has a lot of interesting factors. In the debate of place versus non-place, the movie raises some cool scenes. Is a bar a non-place? To some people it is, while for some it isn't. Just passing through, havin a beer. Seems inconsequential to me. Would this be a non-place to this person? I guess so. But of the person who frequents the bar, goes out with his buddies every friday night, plays poor, camaraderie abounds? Sure seems like a place to me.
I still am pondering the whole karaoke and tokyo rush scene. IT all seems a little out there for me. I understand it was supposed to raise the relationship of murray and Johansson, but other than that, it really didn't raise that much in the theory of place for me.
I plan on expounding after movie has finished. Until then, adieu.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First of all, nice use of the word expound, I know you are proud of that.
Secondly, and more importantly, with regards to the bar being a non place...or place...
I think non-place. Granted, should someone come with friends, it becomes a highly social gathering. But again, like the gym, like the transit stops, this is an area of transit, if one is alone.
Get in, get your beer and wine, get your drunk on, and get out.
I think that a bar is a place. Most bars have some good history and people probably have a lot of connections...thats the table I danced on and whatnot...and I think many people go to the same bars over and over because they have formed relationships with the bartenders and other regulars.
I think it it is hard to distinguish between a place and non-place. If you go to a non-place frequently does it ever become a place? You do have history there so I would think it would eventually become a place. Maybe its the same thing as riding the bus is a non-place but working there is a place.
Post a Comment