Colin Harris (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} palatinate) wrote,@ 2007-04-10 22:37:00 |
|
Life on Mars (with Spoilers)
Hmmm ... perhaps I should have seen that coming, at least in a broad sense ...
The option that was missing from the previous previous speculations is of course that there is no rational resolution. And I do not mean that in a bad way.
It has of course always been the case that some types of fiction are ultimately logical and rational (not the same as scientific: fantasy can be perfectly logical) whilst others have no ultimate "explanation" but exist for instance to be meditative or to explore the nature of reality. Surrealism etc fits here but of course one can also look at films like Pan's Labyrinth, fictions with unreliable narrators and so on.
Some people find such things difficult because at the end of the day they like fictions which can be rationalised to a specific interpretation or they feel a lack of closure. Generally I am in this camp unless the fiction is REALLY persuasive - which was the case here (as in Pan).
And this is where I disagree for instance withmajor_clanger's suggestion. As I observed in the earlier posts, such a direct sfnal interpretation doesn't work for me. For me this was therefore a fiction in a true sense, about choice and being. Because at the end of the day, I think any fully rational explanation either breaks down (with one possible exception - see below) or relies on an interpretation which has only very circumstantial evidence to support it. Unfortunately I think major_clanger's idea fits in this category. It works, but it relies on a deus ex machina that we have no evidence for. (We've seen no leakage from the "true" origin of the character to evidence the 3rd viewpoint implies by this proposal).
Given tonight's outcome, the previous suggestions break down ... if Sam is really in 2006 and really woke up, then he died jumping off HQ. If he was really in 1973 all along (and Frank was telling the truth), then how did he know so much about future policing (unless we assume that this 1973 person really dreamed the future accurately in his delusions?).
I think in fact there is just one option left that possibly works if we really want a rational explanation. Sam was in 2006 in a coma; he really woke up; he really died. But we take the metaphysical option and his return to 1973 is now an afterlife or other place - the same place his spirit went to whilst he was in the coma.
Interestingly this interpretation seems VERY close to Pan's Labyrinth. After all in that film the narrative moves continuously between Ofelia's perceived reality and the real reality - such that you can never be sure what you are seeing. (Consider the finding of the mandrake root. We can imagine that Ofelia only fantasises the root is living, but it seems that the Captain really finds it under the bed in real reality. How did it get there and who gave it to Ofelia if the fantasy isn't real?).
Hmmm ... perhaps I should have seen that coming, at least in a broad sense ...
The option that was missing from the previous previous speculations is of course that there is no rational resolution. And I do not mean that in a bad way.
It has of course always been the case that some types of fiction are ultimately logical and rational (not the same as scientific: fantasy can be perfectly logical) whilst others have no ultimate "explanation" but exist for instance to be meditative or to explore the nature of reality. Surrealism etc fits here but of course one can also look at films like Pan's Labyrinth, fictions with unreliable narrators and so on.
Some people find such things difficult because at the end of the day they like fictions which can be rationalised to a specific interpretation or they feel a lack of closure. Generally I am in this camp unless the fiction is REALLY persuasive - which was the case here (as in Pan).
And this is where I disagree for instance with
major_clanger's suggestion. As I observed in the earlier posts, such a direct sfnal interpretation doesn't work for me. For me this was therefore a fiction in a true sense, about choice and being. Because at the end of the day, I think any fully rational explanation either breaks down (with one possible exception - see below) or relies on an interpretation which has only very circumstantial evidence to support it. Unfortunately I think major_clanger's idea fits in this category. It works, but it relies on a deus ex machina that we have no evidence for. (We've seen no leakage from the "true" origin of the character to evidence the 3rd viewpoint implies by this proposal).Given tonight's outcome, the previous suggestions break down ... if Sam is really in 2006 and really woke up, then he died jumping off HQ. If he was really in 1973 all along (and Frank was telling the truth), then how did he know so much about future policing (unless we assume that this 1973 person really dreamed the future accurately in his delusions?).
I think in fact there is just one option left that possibly works if we really want a rational explanation. Sam was in 2006 in a coma; he really woke up; he really died. But we take the metaphysical option and his return to 1973 is now an afterlife or other place - the same place his spirit went to whilst he was in the coma.
Interestingly this interpretation seems VERY close to Pan's Labyrinth. After all in that film the narrative moves continuously between Ofelia's perceived reality and the real reality - such that you can never be sure what you are seeing. (Consider the finding of the mandrake root. We can imagine that Ofelia only fantasises the root is living, but it seems that the Captain really finds it under the bed in real reality. How did it get there and who gave it to Ofelia if the fantasy isn't real?).
