My heavens.
One thing I like, absolutely find hypnotizing, is how the classic detective stories get munged around. Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie are the ones that I want to follow. Now that there is new twist — probably a whole rope walk — on Sherlock coming, I wanted to check this out.
It had a comparatively big budget, and some named actors, but not in their finer phases. It is roughly based on Christie in terms of the setup and mystery. But there is no real mystery. How it messes up in this department is uninteresting.
But it has a detective that is roughly placed between Poirot and Marple. This is the truly bizarre part. This detective is an MIT professor, presumably a genius, right? He follows the TeeVee version of mathematical logic, which is based on a simple notion of "calculating the probabilities." Its a bit of a hoot, because it takes the detecting, the narrative richness of projecting in the future, into other folks' minds, into a mechanical exercise.
It is precisely the opposite of what advanced mathematical logic is all about. In fact, I've been thinking about Terrence Malick recently. I encountered him as an MIT professor, wondering about what the relationship of future is to past. It is, in a way an extension of the concerns of a detective. It has nothing to do with probability, instead about understanding causality instead of measurement.
It means that for me this is a particularly disturbing version of the genre, a genre that has a particularly intelligent origin. I feel like I'm in bigfoot territory.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
One thing I like, absolutely find hypnotizing, is how the classic detective stories get munged around. Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie are the ones that I want to follow. Now that there is new twist — probably a whole rope walk — on Sherlock coming, I wanted to check this out.
It had a comparatively big budget, and some named actors, but not in their finer phases. It is roughly based on Christie in terms of the setup and mystery. But there is no real mystery. How it messes up in this department is uninteresting.
But it has a detective that is roughly placed between Poirot and Marple. This is the truly bizarre part. This detective is an MIT professor, presumably a genius, right? He follows the TeeVee version of mathematical logic, which is based on a simple notion of "calculating the probabilities." Its a bit of a hoot, because it takes the detecting, the narrative richness of projecting in the future, into other folks' minds, into a mechanical exercise.
It is precisely the opposite of what advanced mathematical logic is all about. In fact, I've been thinking about Terrence Malick recently. I encountered him as an MIT professor, wondering about what the relationship of future is to past. It is, in a way an extension of the concerns of a detective. It has nothing to do with probability, instead about understanding causality instead of measurement.
It means that for me this is a particularly disturbing version of the genre, a genre that has a particularly intelligent origin. I feel like I'm in bigfoot territory.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.