Hi everyone,
just a quick note. I went to see 'Breach' and immediately afterward 'The Bourne Ultimatum', the former a chamber piece the latter
an orchestral explosion. Both films have there merits, 'Breach' produces a sense of the invisible republic as one that generally
looks inwards whereas the Bourne film offers a sense of looking outward. Both films deliver a vision of the U.S. Government as a
secretive, entirely undemocratic regime, hell bent on retaining power for a particular class. In both these films then, we might
argue, we find the articulation of what Jameson once referred to as the political unconscious. I think both films intend a
critique of power and at the same time seem to justify it, but that any work would not also have at its kernel a contradiction is
unthinkable to me. Both films urge us to enjoy in some regard. 'Breach' by the way had about 10 people in the audience 'Bourne'
was full! Does the fact that a lot of Spy movies have proper names in the titles mean anything?
peace
alan
A. Fair
IDS
Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you
should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email
disclaimer available on its website
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|