13 conversations with myself

Thirteen Conversations About One Thing (2002) is one of those films that makes the obvious seem profound. No, I didn’t mean that the last couple hours would’ve been better spent doing nothing, but by my choice of words and its arrangement, you probably read my first sentence to mean that I viewed the film as an imposture when I actually thought it quite, uh, what’s the word I’m lacking, clever? Which I gather is the central theme of the movie: phenomenological ontology. The metaphors used (e.g., winning lottery ticket, the purchase of a sports car signifying midlife crisis, guilt in its varied forms, Newtonian physics–including the fourth law relating to entropy, social settings such as a pub) are rather predictable, but how the story’s told makes the movie worth the [deleted funny, yet implicating phrase]. So everyone is connected in some way–at least more than we realize. Would it be an oversimplification of our 13 conversations by saying that the infinite possibilities of outcomes is the summation of all the different people and things in the world and the element of time (what if everyone was thinking the same thing at the same time?). From a scene in the movie, I wondered what’s the significance of two people being at the same physical location but have different reasons for being there (for example, a bar patron may be there to drown his sorrows, whereas another may be there to celebrate)? A couple lines resonate from the move: “Faith is the antithesis of proof”, and “May you get what you want.” So Mr. Sartre, is Nothingness really not the antithesis of Being? Fuck guilt, I’m just too tired rigth nwo.