- Time
- Post link
This bullet is an old one.
In 1897, it was fired at the president of Uruguay by a young man from Montevideo, Arredondo, who had spent long weeks without seeing anyone so that the world might know that he acted alone. Thirty years earlier, Lincoln had been murdered by that same ball, by the criminal or magical hand of an actor transformed by the words of Shakespeare into Marcus Brutus, Caesar’s murderer. In the mid-seventeenth century, vengeance had employed it for the assassination of Sweden’s Gustavus Adolphus in the midst of the public hecatomb of battle.
In earlier times, the bullet had been other things, because Pythagorean metempsychosis is not reserved for humankind alone. It was the silken cord given to viziers in the East, the rifles and bayonets that cut down the defenders of the Alamo, the triangular blade that slit a queen’s throat, the wood of the Cross and the dark nails that pierced the flesh of the Redeemer, the poison kept by the Carthaginian chief in an iron ring on his finger, the serene goblet that Socarates drank down one evening.
In the dawn of time it was the stone that Cain hurled at Abel, and in the future it shall be many things that we cannot even imagine today, but that will be able to put an end to men and their wondrous, fragile life.
*J L Borges (1899-1986) In Memoriam J.F.K. *Just found this eloquent.
Provided that what happens in both scenes is essentially the same plot device, and very similar in its features, all you can have to be different, in order not to upset most of people is location, illumination, characters… perhaps even motivations. Summing up details. Both scenes are different in only in details, at least to me.
What feels somewhat wrong is that having those characters and their motivations be different (these are details, because the main thing is that the character’s roles are exactly the same), the dialogue remains way too similar, and the thing that changes, which is the location, does so in an diametrically opposite way to what I would have expected. A patricide, if anything, is too much of an intimate crime, more akin to a small-scale set than to a monumental location (which would have fit better ObiWan vs Vader, had I to choose).
That’s where it began, before I just deviated from topic.
EDIT: The interrogation scene didn’t bother me much. While obviously these are personal impressions, had I to give one not-so-subjective justification, I’d say that Rey’s role in TFA is SW’s Luke, not Leia.
I suppose if what you’re looking for in film is just the “what,” and the overarching plot, that’s fine. But to me that’s only a fraction of what’s there. You’re overlooking so much of importance when you say it’s only details. Think that way if you please, but I frankly feel that outlook is monumentally misguided.
