Friday - January 05, 2007
The Cube
I've found some good "explanations" and some that leave me feeling a little flat. The
Wikipedia entries are pretty good, but there
are some that are
better.
Whatever the case....do NOT watch the sequel . It is ridiculously disappointing compared to the original. If you're a conspiracy theory nut, you might like it. But *I* am a conspiracy theory nut and it left me flat. I haven't seen the prequel, so I can't speak to how that one is....but suffice it to say, after seeing the sequel, I probably won't bother with the prequel. The first Cube, however is just stupendous!
There are better explanations/synopsises of the movie elsewhere (see the Wiki entry above), but none of the "explanations" seem to hit it just right for me. Granted, I am no movie reviewer....and I'm not all that intelligent....but having said that, I'd like to explain what *I* think the movie is about.
It appears to me that each of the characters, rather than being an archetype of an example of the "human condition", are in actuality actually archetypes *inside* the human condition. There are TONS of holes in my theory, I know....but that never stopped me from blabbing away!
On the Wiki entry, the character Alderson is depicted as perhaps being a Buddhist monk. That's closer to how I see the film that the other explanations. Let me see if I can make sense of it for you (take this for what it's worth!)....Alderson is the spiritual guide in one's psyche. He's offed pretty early in the film (I should have warned you about the plot spoiler, I guess)....so the group has no spiritual center or direction.
Rennes is the "escape artist". As another character that is nastily killed off early-ish in the film, he's not as important as the others (well, he sort of is, he just doesn't last long in the film....they almost all die eventually (spoiler alert!)). I haven't put my theory together completely enough to say that the order of their deaths is important in the film. I tend to think it's not. Nonetheless, the Rennes character's purpose is to posit the philosophy of "looking at what is in front of you". Unfortunately for his character (and for us, perhaps), this doesn't always work. Having his face eaten away by acid sort of proves this to Rennes.
The Holloway character (while annoying as hell, to be fair) represents the "liberal" in each of us. (This is "liberal" in a good sense, mind you.) The part of each of us that *cares* about other humans....the "duty" or "obligation" to care for others (she's a doctor, right?). She also exhibits the part of our psyche that wants a reward for her behavior. Now, mind you, *that* is a little deep & I'm not going to go into it here, but suffice it to say - she has major flaws (as do all the characters, I suppose). So Holloway's role in the "outside world" is one of healing .... but with attachment to actions.
Quentin, on the other hand, is the "law & order" type. He, of course, goes mad at the end of the film (warning: spoiler alert!) and tries to kill everyone. On the one hand, he can't control the situation. As a cop, this is the hardest thing for him to deal with. But on the other hand, the "law & order" archetype (perhaps you could consider it the "rules" kind of guy) is necessary for survival (or as a mediator) within a human psyche. He is the part of the psyche that tries to control the world. The type that grabs life by the horns and molds it to his vision. This is compared to Holloway who takes the world as it is and complains about it (though, to be fair, still tries to "make a difference"). Quentin starts off as a character that one can very much like, but it goes south....trust me, it goes south. The tension between Holloway and Quentin, in particular, is the best inter-character tension in the film for me.
Worth is the existential part of the psyche. The part that answers the question "why I am a here?" by complaining that it never asked to be alive, it doesn't want to be here, the world sucks, etc., but doesn't go so far as to actually end itself. Interestingly, Worth is one of the better developed characters in the film. He's less archetypical and perhaps a bit more real. Nonetheless, in the end, he does end up caring. Again interestingly, he cares not so much about himself but more about another character. His performance is one of the best in the film, too. My problem as a "movie reviewer" is that I end up buying into some performances more than characters. Since I am not trained in movie criticism, it's hard for me to separate the two at times. The Worth character is the one character that, in the end, is redeemed. In the film, there is much conversation about Worth having worked on the construction of the cube. Now, to be fair, that can be taken at face value...but it's much more interesting for me to take my theory into account during this conversation. Worth's character is the existentialist who ends up blaming himself for his own existence. Why am I here? It must be my fault. I know I'm not explaining that very well....but there you go.
The Leaven character (get it, Leavenworth? - Rennes, Holloway, Alderson, and Kazan are all prisons, too....) is the reason part of our psyche. Her character's purpose in the film is to use mathematics (what's more reasonable that that, right?) to help the group escape from the cube. It turns out that each room has a series of numbers on their doors. If the number is prime, the room is safe (although it turns out to be more complicated than this). The reason character is the part of our psyche that believes we can make sense of the world using our intellect. It almost works, too! but not quite....
Since the prime number idea isn't right, they discover that the trick is that the number is a power of a prime number. Only Kazan (the idiot retard savant) can "magically" know if the number is the power of a prime number. Kazan is a terribly interesting character. Even though most of the film is spent portraying him as the idiot, it turns out he has the key to their escape. Once they figure out the trick of the "moving rooms", they discover how to escape. Unfortunately for Worth and Leaven, Quentin shows up just as they find the exit and tries to kill them (why he doesn't just jump out of the cube to ostensible safety isn't explained - I guess the implication is that he's just gone completely nuts). He manages to basically kill Worth, then moves on to Leaven as Worth and Leaven scream for Kazan to escape to "safety". I'll skip over a few things (since I've already set that precedent!) and just say that I think the "escape" to the outside world is a metaphor for actually having to deal with "external reality". Each character has it's own idea of how to "get back to the real world", but none of them ultimately succeeds except for the idiot. That might be completely by chance. But it might be by design. For me, it's humbling. The only part of our "internal" world that can actually escape into the "external" world is an idiot. We know things. We have things figured out...but we have to exist in an external world....and we're humbled by our idiocy.
I realize that the filmmaker probably did not have this in mind when they made this fabulous film. But that's how I see it. And I'm sticking to it!
Whatever the case....do NOT watch the sequel . It is ridiculously disappointing compared to the original. If you're a conspiracy theory nut, you might like it. But *I* am a conspiracy theory nut and it left me flat. I haven't seen the prequel, so I can't speak to how that one is....but suffice it to say, after seeing the sequel, I probably won't bother with the prequel. The first Cube, however is just stupendous!
There are better explanations/synopsises of the movie elsewhere (see the Wiki entry above), but none of the "explanations" seem to hit it just right for me. Granted, I am no movie reviewer....and I'm not all that intelligent....but having said that, I'd like to explain what *I* think the movie is about.
It appears to me that each of the characters, rather than being an archetype of an example of the "human condition", are in actuality actually archetypes *inside* the human condition. There are TONS of holes in my theory, I know....but that never stopped me from blabbing away!
On the Wiki entry, the character Alderson is depicted as perhaps being a Buddhist monk. That's closer to how I see the film that the other explanations. Let me see if I can make sense of it for you (take this for what it's worth!)....Alderson is the spiritual guide in one's psyche. He's offed pretty early in the film (I should have warned you about the plot spoiler, I guess)....so the group has no spiritual center or direction.
Rennes is the "escape artist". As another character that is nastily killed off early-ish in the film, he's not as important as the others (well, he sort of is, he just doesn't last long in the film....they almost all die eventually (spoiler alert!)). I haven't put my theory together completely enough to say that the order of their deaths is important in the film. I tend to think it's not. Nonetheless, the Rennes character's purpose is to posit the philosophy of "looking at what is in front of you". Unfortunately for his character (and for us, perhaps), this doesn't always work. Having his face eaten away by acid sort of proves this to Rennes.
The Holloway character (while annoying as hell, to be fair) represents the "liberal" in each of us. (This is "liberal" in a good sense, mind you.) The part of each of us that *cares* about other humans....the "duty" or "obligation" to care for others (she's a doctor, right?). She also exhibits the part of our psyche that wants a reward for her behavior. Now, mind you, *that* is a little deep & I'm not going to go into it here, but suffice it to say - she has major flaws (as do all the characters, I suppose). So Holloway's role in the "outside world" is one of healing .... but with attachment to actions.
Quentin, on the other hand, is the "law & order" type. He, of course, goes mad at the end of the film (warning: spoiler alert!) and tries to kill everyone. On the one hand, he can't control the situation. As a cop, this is the hardest thing for him to deal with. But on the other hand, the "law & order" archetype (perhaps you could consider it the "rules" kind of guy) is necessary for survival (or as a mediator) within a human psyche. He is the part of the psyche that tries to control the world. The type that grabs life by the horns and molds it to his vision. This is compared to Holloway who takes the world as it is and complains about it (though, to be fair, still tries to "make a difference"). Quentin starts off as a character that one can very much like, but it goes south....trust me, it goes south. The tension between Holloway and Quentin, in particular, is the best inter-character tension in the film for me.
Worth is the existential part of the psyche. The part that answers the question "why I am a here?" by complaining that it never asked to be alive, it doesn't want to be here, the world sucks, etc., but doesn't go so far as to actually end itself. Interestingly, Worth is one of the better developed characters in the film. He's less archetypical and perhaps a bit more real. Nonetheless, in the end, he does end up caring. Again interestingly, he cares not so much about himself but more about another character. His performance is one of the best in the film, too. My problem as a "movie reviewer" is that I end up buying into some performances more than characters. Since I am not trained in movie criticism, it's hard for me to separate the two at times. The Worth character is the one character that, in the end, is redeemed. In the film, there is much conversation about Worth having worked on the construction of the cube. Now, to be fair, that can be taken at face value...but it's much more interesting for me to take my theory into account during this conversation. Worth's character is the existentialist who ends up blaming himself for his own existence. Why am I here? It must be my fault. I know I'm not explaining that very well....but there you go.
The Leaven character (get it, Leavenworth? - Rennes, Holloway, Alderson, and Kazan are all prisons, too....) is the reason part of our psyche. Her character's purpose in the film is to use mathematics (what's more reasonable that that, right?) to help the group escape from the cube. It turns out that each room has a series of numbers on their doors. If the number is prime, the room is safe (although it turns out to be more complicated than this). The reason character is the part of our psyche that believes we can make sense of the world using our intellect. It almost works, too! but not quite....
Since the prime number idea isn't right, they discover that the trick is that the number is a power of a prime number. Only Kazan (the idiot retard savant) can "magically" know if the number is the power of a prime number. Kazan is a terribly interesting character. Even though most of the film is spent portraying him as the idiot, it turns out he has the key to their escape. Once they figure out the trick of the "moving rooms", they discover how to escape. Unfortunately for Worth and Leaven, Quentin shows up just as they find the exit and tries to kill them (why he doesn't just jump out of the cube to ostensible safety isn't explained - I guess the implication is that he's just gone completely nuts). He manages to basically kill Worth, then moves on to Leaven as Worth and Leaven scream for Kazan to escape to "safety". I'll skip over a few things (since I've already set that precedent!) and just say that I think the "escape" to the outside world is a metaphor for actually having to deal with "external reality". Each character has it's own idea of how to "get back to the real world", but none of them ultimately succeeds except for the idiot. That might be completely by chance. But it might be by design. For me, it's humbling. The only part of our "internal" world that can actually escape into the "external" world is an idiot. We know things. We have things figured out...but we have to exist in an external world....and we're humbled by our idiocy.
I realize that the filmmaker probably did not have this in mind when they made this fabulous film. But that's how I see it. And I'm sticking to it!