No it's not referencing the 2-part aspect, you're right, that's understandable.
But even within its multiple characters/storylines, the dynamic of a 'dramatic resolution' and the momentum of a 'through line' seems weak, compared with their just barraging you with constantly changing visual/auditory stimuli.
What I meant is that usually every sequence (even scenes) should have a sort of beginning, middle and ending mini-arc, with a protagonist vs. antagonist.
Characters can switch functions (protagonist, etc.) and do in this film, but their little dramas don't have much emotional release over time. The sequences just leave you kind of up-in-the-air, then they switch to something or someone else.
If this was a European film it could be more ambiguous and right-brained, but this one seems to raise and sustain tension vs. the rhythm of having a series of resolutions (even as the overall dramatic tension keeps rising).
So the texture of the film seems more sensorially rewarding, but not so much emotionally. It's like they substituted a large quantity of stimuli for a lesser quality of emotional reward (though it could have had both if they wanted).
And rising tension i.e. anxiety plays into the hypnosis thing, because covertly induced anxiety makes people much more vulnerable to suggestion and looking for a strong 'leader' who can tell them what to do.
Yeah i cant really get into anything with "multiversal" implications. Basically if there are infinite realities with infinite actions, there are infinite consequences and whatever we're watching is essentially meaningless. There can be no stakes. If something bad happens on screen, there is another universe (whether they show it or not) where it didnt happen.
It's too much to follow and too much to care about so I lose interest.
No it's not referencing the 2-part aspect, you're right, that's understandable.
But even within its multiple characters/storylines, the dynamic of a 'dramatic resolution' and the momentum of a 'through line' seems weak, compared with their just barraging you with constantly changing visual/auditory stimuli.
What I meant is that usually every sequence (even scenes) should have a sort of beginning, middle and ending mini-arc, with a protagonist vs. antagonist.
Characters can switch functions (protagonist, etc.) and do in this film, but their little dramas don't have much emotional release over time. The sequences just leave you kind of up-in-the-air, then they switch to something or someone else.
If this was a European film it could be more ambiguous and right-brained, but this one seems to raise and sustain tension vs. the rhythm of having a series of resolutions (even as the overall dramatic tension keeps rising).
So the texture of the film seems more sensorially rewarding, but not so much emotionally. It's like they substituted a large quantity of stimuli for a lesser quality of emotional reward (though it could have had both if they wanted).
And rising tension i.e. anxiety plays into the hypnosis thing, because covertly induced anxiety makes people much more vulnerable to suggestion and looking for a strong 'leader' who can tell them what to do.
Yeah i cant really get into anything with "multiversal" implications. Basically if there are infinite realities with infinite actions, there are infinite consequences and whatever we're watching is essentially meaningless. There can be no stakes. If something bad happens on screen, there is another universe (whether they show it or not) where it didnt happen.
It's too much to follow and too much to care about so I lose interest.