X-Message-Number: 18195
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:05:10 -0800
From: Kennita Watson <>
Subject: Re: Vanilla Sky -- annoyance rebuttal
References: <>

> Message #18190
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:05:09 -0500 (EST)
> From: Charles Platt <>
> Subject: that rather annoying movie
> 
> Those who have not yet seen Vanilla Sky may wish to skip this post.

This one too.  I probably even spoil the spoilers :-) ....
> 
> ------
> 
> I live 50 miles from the nearest movie theater. This helps to put movies
> in perspective. You really expect a substantial reward for driving 50
> miles. In this case, all I got was another embarrassing attempt by
> Hollywood to be Significant.

For the record, I liked Vanilla Sky a lot.  So sue me.  I found it 
thought-provoking, maybe even Significant (whatever that means), 
and I plan to see it again to catch things I missed the first 
time around.
> 
> Like anyone else who has tried to present cryonics to the public in
> general and journalists in particular, I have listened to my share of
> rather unintelligent questions. One of those recurring questions has been,
> "Could your brain keep working while you're frozen? Could you have
> dreams?"

No question from an questing mind is unintelligent, and if you
answer it as though it were, you cut off inquiry (good teachers 
know this) and further an image of cryonicists as unfriendly 
intellectual elitists.  
> 
> So here is the entire basis for this very silly movie.

When you call it embarrassing, unintelligent, silly, I take
it personally as an attempt to invalidate my experience.  To
which, as I well know, the appropriate response is "Get over 
it!".  Don't worry; I will.

> It is one
> unintelligent question, writ large, for 2 hours 20 minutes.

So are most fantasy stories.  They (Harry Potter and Lord of 
the Rings come to mind right off) ask the question "What if 
magic works?".  They still have valuable lessons to teach.
> 
> But let us consider how the movie may affect cryonics. My answer is: It
> will have only two effects, neither of them helpful.
> 
> 1. Many people will believe that a dog really has been frozen and revived.
> This will significantly devalue the news value in the future when a mammal
> really is resuscitated.

Devalue?  I don't think so.  As a matter of fact, marketers 
will tell you that it's hard to sell to a customer base that 
has no conception of your product -- thus "test balloons".  
Also, mark my words, reviving a real animal from liquid 
nitrogen temperature will be big news, no matter how many
fictional animals have been so revived.

From another angle, news can be a bad thing; look what a 
controversy has arisen over cloning, for example.  We 
might be best off to keep it quiet (not secret) and at
some point when someone asks say "Oh yes, we've been 
doing that for years now.".  Until it works on humans, 
though -- after that, silence would be tantamount to
murder.
> 
> 2. Many people will believe that you can, in fact, dream during a long
> period of cryopreservation. This will result in a lot of wasted time for
> those of us who have to explain cryonics to the general public. Moreover,
> people will be reluctant to believe us when we say, "It's impossible."

Oh, come on.  I think most people will get that nothing,
including dreams, happens in a brain that close to 
absolute zero, because chemical reactions don't occur.  
The people who believe in paranormal phenomena like the
afterlife and communication with the dead through 
seances, channeling, etc. will not be convinced; the 
real waste of time would be arguing with them.  Don't.
> 
> In addition, potential clients will be quite disappointed when they find
> that the offices of cryonics organizations do not live up to the sumptuous
> Hollywood version.
> 
> As for the possible effect on membership growth: The protagonist in the
> movie is extremely wealthy, and he is cryopreserved after he sustains
> severe injuries in a car accident and kills himself. This is of course
> inaccurate (what about the autopsy?) but more to the point, it perpetuates
> (in fact, hardens) the misconception that cryonics is "for them, not me."

Just remind them that Apple and Microsoft started in
garages, and that we might have sumptuous digs, too, if
we catered only to the rich and famous, but we want
everybody to be able to do it. 

> I have always seen this as the primary barrier to selling cryonics. Many
> people are willing to believe that it may work, but they don't see
> _themselves_ doing it. What we need is a movie that shows an "ordinary"
> person doing it. But that would not be a Hollywood vehicle.

Hmm... a movie about a life insurance salesman who offers 
every client a cryonics option, ends up in court on fraud 
charges, and is vindicated when the first successful 
revival is done.  The "I sold and defended the product
because I believed in it" angle could make for pretty 
good courtroom drama cum human interest story.  Scenes of 
scientists working around the clock brainstorming new
techniques, money being lost as policies are cancelled due
to negative publicity (and a poignant moment when one of 
the cancellers dies on the eve of the breakthrough)... 
The right director definitely could do it for Hollywood.
> 
> I was pleased to see the "look and feel" of cryonics presented in the
> movie, in the brief clips of a wrapped body being lowered into a steaming
> box. Of course clips of this type have already appeared in TV
> documentaries.

Is that a bad thing?  I'd love to hear someone say they saw 
it in the movie "just like on that Scientific American special".
> 
> Now a few questions for those who have seen the movie:
> 
> 1. Does anyone understand the title? What does Monet have to do with
> anything in the film?

Monet painted a "vanilla sky" in a painting that he found 
significant, so a sky like it appeared in his dream.

> 2. Why does Tom Cruise stop shaving half way through?

I didn't notice.  Maybe it was a metaphor for his internal
chaos.  Maybe he didn't want to look himself in the face 
to shave.  

> 3. How does the initial sequence relate to anything? Supposedly at this
> point he has not entered his Lucid Dreaming cycle. 

How do you know?  Maybe he was lucidly dreaming about 
that time in his past :-) .

> So why is this initial
> dream relevant? Why does he drive a Ferrari in the dream? Because Ferrari
> paid for product placement?

Of course.  Is that a bad thing?  Insanely rich guys drive 
insanely expensive cars, and Ferrari would have been stupid 
not to pay any exorbitant fee the studio wanted, to be 
featured in a Tom Cruise movie.  If they hadn't, Porsche or
BMW or Mercedes would have leapt at it (reminds me of the
M&M/Reeses Pieces flub around E.T.)

> 4. Is the resemblance of the older male cryonicist Fred Chamberlain purely
> coincidental?
> 5. Is the resemblance of the red-haired female cryonicist in the New York
> headquarters to Linda Chamberlain purely coincidental?

If it's not, cool.  "Imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery.", as the saying goes.
> 
> Finally, memo to Tom Cruise:
> 
> One embarrassing episode of similated sex,

...which some of us enjoyed without feeling any embarrassment,
either on my own behalf or that of the filmmakers...

endless closeups of your face,

...which some of us enjoyed for the makeup job when not for
the beauty of it (I admit it -- I find Tom Cruise gorgeous)...

> and a woman who says "I swallowed your come, that means something to me!"

...which isn't fair to take out of its context as part of a cry 
of despair from an obsessed andsuicidally depressed woman...

> can't distract from the fact that in this remarkably verbose 2-hour
> 20-minute film, almost nothing happens.

Wow -- we saw the same film, but we didn't see the same 
film.  As a psychodrama, and as a study of relationships and
self-discovery and growing maturity and loyalty, I saw a *lot*
happening.

... Plus, personally, I really hate
> movies where you know, halfway through, that a large part of the action is
> "just a dream."

Suit yourself.  It took you till halfway through?  I suspected 
from very early on that there was a whole lotta dreamin' goin'
on -- I just didn't know why.

> The writer needs a very rich imagination to make that work
> (as in Lewis Carroll). Unfortunately, imagination has never been plentiful
> among Hollywood script writers.

Geez -- 50-mile drives *do* make you a mite testy.   I won't 
start reeling off imaginative movies that came out of 
Hollywood; I'd fill many lines with ones you'll think of
yourself when you're in a better mood.

Maybe you'd like the original movie (Abre Los Ojos) better;
maybe it at least would be original enough for you.

I must admit that I spent an embarrassingly long time
wondering "Who's Elly?".  If you got it right off, my 
hat's off to you even if you *are* testy :-) .
-- 
May you live long and prosper,
Kennita
--
Kennita Watson          | Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
     |   None but ourselves can free our minds.
http://www.kennita.com  |           -- Bob Marley, "Redemption Song"

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18195