Movie 'Source Code' is 'intellectually gripping'

If Inception set me into a tizzy, Source Code had me gripped to my seat, unable to predict how the story would unfold and then it hits you in the face with its concluding climactic surprise. Duncan Jones nailed it, I say.

Let's take a step back and wonder how neatly can you use something as nebulous as Quantum Physics (QP) on  us commoners. A lot of contemporary reading about consciousness tells you that 'it' is all explainable, let me add, probably explainable. So, taming QP to make it do things for us is way way ahead of us. But what are the possibilities? That is what Source Code is all about. True, the concept of parallel universes, changing what could be by moving back in time and fixing it, turning the world back from the fork in time it took have been tested in several movies like the Terminator series etc. But, those were meant to shock and awe, at large. So, what did the director and producers do with Source Code? They decided that they would take a different route and leave out the robots and the cyborgs and instead elaborate upon something everyone understands - maybe a Simple Cat not the Schroedinger's Cat. Gripping?

Source Code offers a melange of romance, hope, suspense, thrill, action, a bit of shock as well (when they reveal what or who Colter really is). It's a compelling performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. Michelle Monaghan, as the gentle, kind, lost and want to be found Christina does a great job and lights up the screen for the romantic dimension of the story. Vera Farmiga treading the human and ethical dimension of the movie does a neat job.
Russel Peters chips in too to tell us that life doesn't have to be grim. One could end it with a smile or a laugh.

Source Code is not to be missed.

Man from Earth

I want to believe John. I am drawn to the the late writer Jerome Bixby's idea of truth. The movie itself, thanks to director Richard Schenkman, has a Knight Shyamlansque twist that has to be seen to be relished.

The movie starts with a coterie of colleagues pouring into the house of a professor who has unexpectedly decided to retire young. They try to understand where he is going, what he plans to do but cannot go far with it. Instead, based on what the professor first poses as a hypothetical questions- Would you believe if you met someone who has lived 14000 years?- the farewell party turns into a series of discussions that pick your brain. The professor tells them that he is a Cro-magnon cave man and had stopped aging when he reached 35 years of age. Since then, he has been trying to move around, learn and live with the fact. To cover his tracks and appear natural to those around him, he moves on every ten years.

While highly, and naturally so, sceptical about what the professor is saying- first that he is a cave man and then that he has had the opportunity to spend time with historical luminaries with omnipresent fame, the illustrious academicians play along and ask questions. They do this a half out of academic curiosity and a half out of trying to catch John's give away. That they do not succeed in the latter is predictable.

But, along the way in about 90 minutes of the movie very interesting possibilities open up and the fundamental questions get asked. While the movie set itself does not ,mostly, take you beyond the confines of the professor's living room, a part of your mind is racing at the intensity of what is being said. Issues around history, biology, psychology, arts, ethics, morality and faith get raised. A faith shattering revelation has the group divided over the rightness (not validity) of John's 'hypothetical' actions and a theological literist in tears. As he rolls on with his childhood memories, growth and eons of learning thereafter, your imagination runs amuck with scenes of how John's past could have been . The icing on the cake is a poetic end of the movie that works on the psychologist colleague who had lost his wife the previous night.

Like I said, I wanted to believe the story. I was trying to think if I have met someone that could fit into the profile of John Oldman. I think the script has that quality of playing on your innermost desire to know the truth and therefore to wish that John's is a real story. After all it could provide you with a part explanation of the world around you and before you.

Come to think of it, we never really notice much around us. Much less someone who only is trying to remain inconspicuous by purpose. Is John Oldman the quintessential cellophane man; who is our patch to the past yet trying to remain invisible. Moving on as the patch becomes a fix. It is easy to not know a cellphane man.

Is John Oldman representative of the generational cultures? Cultures, traditions and rituals have changed over the ages and they are doing so increasingly fast every few years, nowadays.

How many times has John told his story? Does it always end the same way? Does any one ever believe him? I want to but probably I wouldn't too; it is far too much unsettling to the rational basis of the systematic, yet incomplete, picture of the universe I have in me. But how much of anything do we really ever know?

Does John exist as a periodic reality check to see if faith, in the larger sense of the term, is sustaining? What would happen if he is able to convince everyone that he is indeed who is claims to be? Would the 'rational' among us cut him up to validate his claims? Would the 'faithful' among us test him by fire to see if he is pure and holy? After all in the largely faithless and cynical world of today, would even god not need to pass the test of fire, if he were to appear before us?

I filter movies from IMDB (www.imdb.com) and unless a movie has been recommended highly by someone, I wouldn't watch it if the score is less than 7.0. I noticed that as of this posting, the movie has an 8.2 from about 20000 people. Now, I know why.

Scores apart, this movie will stay with me for quite sometime.

Happy new year 2009!