Alan’s review of Altered States > Likes and Comments
12 likes · Like
Why do you say that Eddie Jessup's inner universe is void of meaning? I mean, yes, he admits as much as I suppose but I think there was meaning to be had but with the caveat that it was incomprehensible.
Jessup, as do most of us, find meaning only in the outer, sensory world. When he ventures inward, he is overwhelmed by the pandemonium of repressed contents is his (Jungian) shadow. Psychologically, he never realizes his inner potential. Chayefsky derails to Jessup's being reclaimed and resurrected by his wife's love. This concept is hard to grasp. I struggled with it in my The SHIVA Syndrome Trilogy: (The Mind of Stefan Dürr, The Cosmic Ape, The Interdimensional Nexus)--Amazon.
Good response, Alan. Yes, Chayefsky derails Jessup's exploration into this repressed conscious and finds himself being reclaimed by love. It is simplistic. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, I'm not what kind of more satisfying ending could he have concocted? Maybe Jessup just "disappearing" into the void?
Byron wrote: "Good response, Alan. Yes, Chayefsky derails Jessup's exploration into this repressed conscious and finds himself being reclaimed by love. It is simplistic. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, I..."
Byron,
Sorry this is a very, very late reply, It is due to my having watched the film again. This time I found it as repulsive as Chayefsky must have after Russell mutilated the film.
Flashes and jump cuts Russell used are virtual steals from 2010: A Space Odyssey.
The oversimplistic "love conquers all" ending takes all the storybuilding of the novel and empties it into a singularity of nothingness.
It is the admixture of a brilliant writer and a quasi-creative mind forming that which coagulates rather than emulsifies.
In answer to your question, "I'm not what kind of more satisfying ending could he have concocted?" My The SHIVA Syndrome Trilogy, while far from being the ideal ending, offers two endings for characters, each quite different from one another.
Best,
Alan
Keep in mind, the ending of the movie pretty much mirrors the ending of the novel. I have the novel and returning to love as the way forward makes sense to me
Byron wrote: "Why do you say that Eddie Jessup's inner universe is void of meaning? I mean, yes, he admits as much as I suppose but I think there was meaning to be had but with the caveat that it was incomprehen..."
It was incomprehsible because of his brain physiology. He was acting at a Neolithic level: primitive concenpts and mythology, limited ability to use his linear, rational thinking and their chaotic character due to being driven by instincts, overwhelmed by the psychedelic.
BTW, did you read any of my books?
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Byron
(new)
Mar 13, 2019 03:16PM
Why do you say that Eddie Jessup's inner universe is void of meaning? I mean, yes, he admits as much as I suppose but I think there was meaning to be had but with the caveat that it was incomprehensible.
reply
|
flag
Jessup, as do most of us, find meaning only in the outer, sensory world. When he ventures inward, he is overwhelmed by the pandemonium of repressed contents is his (Jungian) shadow. Psychologically, he never realizes his inner potential. Chayefsky derails to Jessup's being reclaimed and resurrected by his wife's love. This concept is hard to grasp. I struggled with it in my The SHIVA Syndrome Trilogy: (The Mind of Stefan Dürr, The Cosmic Ape, The Interdimensional Nexus)--Amazon.
Good response, Alan. Yes, Chayefsky derails Jessup's exploration into this repressed conscious and finds himself being reclaimed by love. It is simplistic. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, I'm not what kind of more satisfying ending could he have concocted? Maybe Jessup just "disappearing" into the void?
Byron wrote: "Good response, Alan. Yes, Chayefsky derails Jessup's exploration into this repressed conscious and finds himself being reclaimed by love. It is simplistic. I'll grant you that. On the other hand, I..."Byron,
Sorry this is a very, very late reply, It is due to my having watched the film again. This time I found it as repulsive as Chayefsky must have after Russell mutilated the film.
Flashes and jump cuts Russell used are virtual steals from 2010: A Space Odyssey.
The oversimplistic "love conquers all" ending takes all the storybuilding of the novel and empties it into a singularity of nothingness.
It is the admixture of a brilliant writer and a quasi-creative mind forming that which coagulates rather than emulsifies.
In answer to your question, "I'm not what kind of more satisfying ending could he have concocted?" My The SHIVA Syndrome Trilogy, while far from being the ideal ending, offers two endings for characters, each quite different from one another.
Best,
Alan
Keep in mind, the ending of the movie pretty much mirrors the ending of the novel. I have the novel and returning to love as the way forward makes sense to me
Byron wrote: "Why do you say that Eddie Jessup's inner universe is void of meaning? I mean, yes, he admits as much as I suppose but I think there was meaning to be had but with the caveat that it was incomprehen..."It was incomprehsible because of his brain physiology. He was acting at a Neolithic level: primitive concenpts and mythology, limited ability to use his linear, rational thinking and their chaotic character due to being driven by instincts, overwhelmed by the psychedelic.
BTW, did you read any of my books?
