out of the blue

I’m rewatching The Passenger.

Near the beginning of the film, Jack Nicholson is out in a desert. There is sand everywhere. Out of the blue, I wondered how many actual grains of sand were there. Then I got to thinking: How many atoms are there in a single grain of sand.

This many: thenakedscientists.com/foru … pic=6447.0

So: what the hell does that have to do with my reaction to the characters in this movie? The world of the very, very small embedded in the world of the very, very large somehow intertwined in the plot of this film.

Why this reality and not some other? And will it ever be possible to really understand the way in which it all fits together into one or another actual TOE?

And now, here, we don’t even have James around to explain it all.

Anyway, carry on.

Nice movie?

Because this is the best of all possible worlds.

If such a theory were to exist, logic commands that only the best among us would understand it.

The last man standing is the least placating.

I like Antonioni very much and I liked the passenger. I like being left with something to mull and not being force fed every answer, though I can also enjoy more traditional movie narratives.

He decides to take on the identity of someone else which turns out to be problematic. It’s more of a fuck it than a grass is greener.

But he was NOT this other guy, even if the other guy would not have been able to avoid the consequences, Nicholson’s character is in over his head with less tools that the other guy would have had.

I know the guys who wrote it, not personally that is, and their ideas. But it is not all just shifting signs.

Best not to steal and airplane if you can take off but have never landed.

The moral sequel could be Operation Dumbo Drop, where the lesson is you cannot take an elephant on an airplane.
Not an Antonioni flick, but cult nonetheless.