The doctor is “mad or genius” but which way he is depends if he succeeds on getting through to the other side of the black hole.
Who knows, until the scientist tries, but branded of dubious stability when he wants to drive right into the dreaded deep, dark, black hole and find what lies behind there, even ultimate knowledge. Of sound mind?
The crew of the spacecraft the USS Palomino – featuring actors Robert Forster (Captain Dan Holland), Joseph Bottoms (Lieutenant Charles Pizer), Anthony Perkins (Dr Alex Durant), Yvette Mimieux (Dr Kate McCrae) and Ernest Borgnine (journo Harry Booth) – parks by the Cygnus to repair their ship and find Dr Hans Reinhardt (Maximillian Schell) about to unleash his quest.
Director Gary Nelson and writers Jeb Rosebrook and Jerry Day may not have known or may have known they were carrying a theme of temptation and desire.
I thought Reinhardt was being tempted by foolish pride…the same temptation that is described at the beginning of the Bible. Playing on the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, his downfall may be assured. Pride before a fall. But this theme does not entirely follow through.
The real theme here is in taking the next step in the progress of humanity, which may turn out as real progress or a fool’s game. An outrageous turn of events may make sure the scientist’s assumptions, that one can drive through a black hole and come out the other side. In that, the doctor may not be so “mad” after all.
The viewer is offered robots, humanoids, Vincent – a knowledgeable assistant for the Palomino and the action is heating up when Reinhardt begins to summon his ship into the black hole. However, with some religious profanities (some would say understandable since they come from the mouth of a journalist) the theme of progress, from a Christian perspective, is nullified. God, in Genesis, made human endeavor to be done in reference to him, not without him as a curse word.
I’ve been working on a book of reflections based on my readings of the Gospel of Mark. The gospel is from the Bible and I am aware of being accurate to the text and not saying something myself in my writings that was not intended by the writer of the gospel. But I am writing reflections and this genre is not explaining or expounding a text academically as one would when deeply examining what the author was saying. Reflections are simply hopefully effectively relaying my thoughts about what I read…meaning it is not a thesis on the text or a critique but a reflection on the text itself. I reflect from a devotional basis so it is not a reflective critique which has a soft edge.
I don’t know if one can do reflections from any kind of text, but I think copyright issues are the barrier to a writer taking any printed text and writing a book of reflections on it, although I don’t know. I know that there is a whole genre of devotional writing that uses the Bible but does not copy it. I know I am not doing anything wrong in using the Bible as a basis for a book of reflections, unless everyone who was writing devotions from the Bible has got it wrong. It is only wrong if copying the Bible exactly as it is for a profit, without permission; and copying it even without wanting to make a profit or commercial gain.
Copying 1000 Bible verses as they are written is okay with some Bible publishers, without seeking permission. It just depends on each Bible publication policy which is at the front of each Bible. Always check copyright notices at the front of each book you may want to copy in some way. There it will explain what one can legally do or not do with that particular book. And get a grasp of copyright law. Books are legally well protected from people trying to illegally copy them, but the copyright notice at the front of the book will inform of any leniencies, if any, and what you can do if you want to use a portion of the book in some capacity.
So far, my reflections have taken up one small exercise book, which I completed this week. For the rest of the week in terms of reflective writing, I just felt to blob, as if I have done enough for a little while in that genre or until I get my reflective writing mojo back.
More interesting articles this time around. There is a very stimulating article about Third World cinema, an absorbing read is the story of sound, and another two good ones, on silent cinema stars and how the advent of sound either done the stars in or enhanced their careers, and the advent of the video cassette tape, along with the regular columns, obituaries, and promising faces.
The films on review are releases of the year are for the 1981-1982 year in Great Britain, from July 1 to June 30. Many of these films were first released in the United States or Europe and come later to Great Britain. So, many of the films on review in this annual had an original release date of 1981.
Still, outrageously raucous in places, the censors were busy placing ratings, but quite a few more decent films. And Quiet Rolls the Dawn, The Antagonists, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, The Boat, The Chosen, Clarence and the Angel, Clash of the Titans, Condorman, Escape to Victory, Evil Under the Sun, The Fox and the Hound, The Great Muppet Caper, Herbie Goes Bananas, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, Manganinnie, The Mouse and His Child, My Dinner with Andre, Oblomov, The Proud Ones, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Roar, Spirit of the Wild, Supersnooper, Three Brothers, and Voices.
That is quite a lengthier list than the previous two years, perhaps the filmmakers saw the box office sense of the clean films of the later part of the 1970’s, which did well.
Some fascinating films as well, such as Mephisto, which kind of straddled the line, occasionally crossing it. What a story.
Less nudity this time, and a more interesting read than the 1981-1982 annual.