![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 10th, 2003 12:48 pmLast night I watched the film adaptation of Simone de Beauvoir's All Men Are Mortal, the story of Raymond Fosca, whose immortal perspective leaves him unable to find meaning in life. I fail to see why it's so widely considered to be a disaster. It was perhaps just because I found two of the female leads so adorable, but it seemed much more compelling than much arthouse cinema, much less prone to languor for languor's sake. Stephen Rea didn't quite pin down the role of Fosca, but then who could? Much of the point of the character resides in his total alienation from humanity, an alienation which is by definition going to be hard for any human to emulate. And given this, his performance was not bad at all.
Though I enjoyed it, it was very much an adaptation of the novel rather than a full reworking, and as such, my problems with the premise remain unanswered. Fosca's inertia comes because he knows that anything he accomplishes, will be transient. Don't we all? Perhaps not, I know how so many people lack any sense of history, but it certainly tends to stymie my ambition. Since I already have that perspective, for me the 'curse' of immortality would at least make for some compensation.
The second big problem reminds us that de Beauvoir was at heart an existentialist, not someone with much grounding in fantasy or SF; she hasn't properly considered the ramifications of her Macguffin. Fosca's immortality comes from a potion; the only reason for this in particular seems to be that he can then blame himself for his own condition, and particularly for that of the mice on whom he tested it. However, by doing things this way rather than having him a natural anomaly, a whole set of questions are raised but never answered. For all that he considers himself eternally alone, surely at least one other person must have brewed this potion? And what manner of friendship might be possible between two or more people who need never fear time running out? Such issues are never even glancingly addressed.
Though I enjoyed it, it was very much an adaptation of the novel rather than a full reworking, and as such, my problems with the premise remain unanswered. Fosca's inertia comes because he knows that anything he accomplishes, will be transient. Don't we all? Perhaps not, I know how so many people lack any sense of history, but it certainly tends to stymie my ambition. Since I already have that perspective, for me the 'curse' of immortality would at least make for some compensation.
The second big problem reminds us that de Beauvoir was at heart an existentialist, not someone with much grounding in fantasy or SF; she hasn't properly considered the ramifications of her Macguffin. Fosca's immortality comes from a potion; the only reason for this in particular seems to be that he can then blame himself for his own condition, and particularly for that of the mice on whom he tested it. However, by doing things this way rather than having him a natural anomaly, a whole set of questions are raised but never answered. For all that he considers himself eternally alone, surely at least one other person must have brewed this potion? And what manner of friendship might be possible between two or more people who need never fear time running out? Such issues are never even glancingly addressed.
