Summer Time Machine Blues

roon wrote:

That's what I was thinking, too. It is ambiguous enough that anything is possible, but who knows.

Personally, I want to make my own comic based on it for the events after the movie. ;) *adds to extremely long "to do" list*

I guess this is actually more for thtl, but you too :)

While, if the evidence supports your conclusion it is persuasive, I suspect that this was not the intention of the writers.

phlargo wrote:

I guess this is actually more for thtl, but you too :)

While, if the evidence supports your conclusion it is persuasive, I suspect that this was not the intention of the writers.

As in all literature, of which cinematography is one form, the readers (audience) tend to read more into the contents than was intended.

^ True. It's not that I don't think he ends up with her; I just considered the possibility that maybe he doesn't.

Spoiler — click to reveal

Upon thinking even more about it, with the whole line at the end talking about fate/God's will and whatnot, I think he really does end up with her. Just as Komoto is fated to meet Tamura, it's fated that he probably decides to change his family name to Tamura.

...and you know, you'd think Tamura would know his mother's maiden name. I guess they never really introduced themselves, though, huh?

thtl wrote:

As in all literature, of which cinematography is one form, the readers (audience) tend to read more into the contents than was intended.

And, as an "art purist" (laughing at myself for saying that) - I would never argue that any one interpretation is controlling, even that of the creator. It's entirely dependent on what the viewer wants to see.

roon wrote:^ True. It's not that I don't think he ends up with her; I just considered the possibility that maybe he doesn't.

Spoiler — click to reveal

Upon thinking even more about it, with the whole line at the end talking about fate/God's will and whatnot, I think he really does end up with her. Just as Komoto is fated to meet Tamura, it's fated that he probably decides to change his family name to Tamura.

...and you know, you'd think Tamura would know his mother's maiden name. I guess they never really introduced themselves, though, huh?

If memory serves:

Spoiler — click to reveal

Tamura is/was/will be a member of the Sci-Fi club in future and he is just taking a joy-ride on the time machine and to take pictures of the 'old' town. His focus was on the school and the town and the Sci-Fi Club - I don't think proper introductions were made, especially when Haruka isn't even a club member.

It also seems like Haruka never did tell her son much about her school days - otherwise Tamura would have immediately realized that Haruka (present) was his mom, since he knows the current time (year). This is another reason why I don't think Haruka ended up with Komoto - a lot more about their past would come out in conversations at home if they were from the same college and were so close together.

BTW I think the 'name changing' bit was a red herring of sorts - Komoto's parents would be dead against the idea.

phlargo wrote:

And, as an "art purist" (laughing at myself for saying that) - I would never argue that any one interpretation is controlling, even that of the creator. It's entirely dependent on what the viewer wants to see.

You know, as an artist, I can never understand what "art purist" means.

phlargo wrote:And, as an "art purist"

AKA "Art Snob." :beaten: :hehe:

bmwracer wrote:
AKA "Art Snob." :beaten: :hehe:

See.. i knew I was going to be in trouble for that one. I didn't really mean it in terms of being snobby.. it was more that I accept art for art's sake.. and that I wouldn't let a single viewpoint or determination of what it should be affect my personal consumption of it.

phlargo wrote:See.. i knew I was going to be in trouble for that one. I didn't really mean it in terms of being snobby.. it was more that I accept art for art's sake.. and that I wouldn't let a single viewpoint or determination of what it should be affect my personal consumption of it.

I gotcha... But I think the term "purist" sounds too much like "elitist."

bmwracer wrote:
I gotcha... But I think the term "purist" sounds too much like "elitist."

And I suppose I am at duty to admit that I have been called this too..

I dunno - I'm just a discerning critic. But I am my own critic and I don't necessarily follow any given framework of criticism - which I think protects me from being classified as 'elitist' - As my friends say.. I'm just selective :)

phlargo wrote:

And I suppose I am at duty to admit that I have been called this too..

I dunno - I'm just a discerning critic. But I am my own critic and I don't necessarily follow any given framework of criticism - which I think protects me from being classified as 'elitist' - As my friends say.. I'm just selective :)

You still haven't explained what Art Purist means.

phlargo wrote:

See.. i knew I was going to be in trouble for that one. I didn't really mean it in terms of being snobby.. it was more that I accept art for art's sake.. and that I wouldn't let a single viewpoint or determination of what it should be affect my personal consumption of it.

I thought this was my explanation. I was indicating that I do my best to view any form of art without using my cultural bias. It means that I like some very traditional things and other very untraditional things :) My interests don't fall into categories, so it's kind of pure - no preconception. Maybe virginal is a better word :twisted:

phlargo wrote:

I thought this was my explanation. I was indicating that I do my best to view any form of art without using my cultural bias. It means that I like some very traditional things and other very untraditional things :) My interests don't fall into categories, so it's kind of pure - no preconception. Maybe virginal is a better word :twisted:

NO!!!!!! That's the WORST way to look at art! The purpose of art is to bring to it your personal experiences and cultural biases, as you say. Otherwise the art will never impact you. Artists, both old and contemporary, rely on your viewing in order to manipulate your reaction. If you're looking at art without any of that, you're looking at mere decoration. Not a piece of communication.

Wynter wrote:

NO!!!!!! That's the WORST way to look at art! The purpose of art is to bring to it your personal experiences and cultural biases, as you say. Otherwise the art will never impact you. Artists, both old and contemporary, rely on your viewing in order to manipulate your reaction. If you're looking at art without any of that, you're looking at mere decoration. Not a piece of communication.

No no, I don't mean I don't bring mine - I mean I try to buy out of frames of mind that are expected in consuming art. I use my own unconscious evaluation rather than a formal framework - perhaps I phrased it wrong - I'm engaged in a lot of activities concurrently, this afternoon. And two of them are working and drinking sake ;-)

phlargo wrote:

No no, I don't mean I don't bring mine - I mean I try to buy out of frames of mind that are expected in consuming art. I use my own unconscious evaluation rather than a formal framework - perhaps I phrased it wrong - I'm engaged in a lot of activities concurrently, this afternoon. And two of them are working and drinking sake ;-)

lol! No worries, I shouldn't be telling you now to look at art anyways. We barely know each other. ;) Gomennasai! :bow:

phlargo wrote:

No no, I don't mean I don't bring mine - I mean I try to buy out of frames of mind that are expected in consuming art. I use my own unconscious evaluation rather than a formal framework - perhaps I phrased it wrong - I'm engaged in a lot of activities concurrently, this afternoon. And two of them are working and drinking sake ;-)

Incidentally, while this may be a pertinent discussion to Summer Time Machine Blues (as we are talking about artistic perception) we've hijacked this poor thread ;-)

Wynter wrote:

lol! No worries, I shouldn't be telling you now to look at art anyways. We barely know each other. ;) Gomennasai! :bow:

\

But you were exactly right and I fully agree with your comment. I'm an anthropologist, for crying out loud - it's core to what makes part of our culture: our interpretation

phlargo wrote:\

But you were exactly right and I fully agree with your comment. I'm an anthropologist, for crying out loud - it's core to what makes part of our culture: our interpretation

Yup! There where anthropology is concerned, that interpretation should be based in fact, eh? Wait... I thought you were a lawyer?

Let's continue this convo in another thread. I'm being a very bad mod here.

Wynter wrote:

Yup! There where anthropology is concerned, that interpretation should be based in fact, eh? Wait... I thought you were a lawyer?

Let's continue this convo in another thread. I'm being a very bad mod here.

I am both! I was an anthro undergrad who went to law school, but now I'm a practicing attorney (or nearly so).

I would argue good anthropology tries to base things in fact, but admits that it never can. It's like Plato's perfect concept - we can never create a perfect circle, but we can think about one - so it exists in our head alone :bonk:

You use baselines and frameworks, but you can very rarely come to actual conclusions. Scientific method: you can't prove anything right, all you can do is narrow down the possibilities... until new ones come up.

Uh, yeah, back to the movie. :shakehead:

Maki Yoko mans the camera.
[image] [image]

[image] [image]