Opera Ghost Page2
Another point that nsouthern51 made was that David Fowler 'drowns in isolation.' This in fact a bit of a complex statement and somewhat contradictory from the films point of view. This statement seems to suggest, or hint at, that David is either cutoff from the world or is completely unknown to the world or both. Perhaps, both statements are true. Perhaps, both statements are false. Or perhaps, one is true and the other false, or vise versa.
Let's return to the film for a minute. David Fowler has known hundreds and HUNDREDS of women and is always looking for more. How can he be so lonely? If he was in-between women, he had the semilive-in girlfriend Courtney Wade. So he always, or almost always, had someone around him at home. If he was lonely, by knowing hundreds and HUNDREDS of women, he surely had telephone numbers to call and surely one would respond. Or reverse it, they could be calling him. With all thoughs women around, he would have to fight them off with a fly swatter or girl swatter. In the work place, we see that he had several assistants. So how can he be so lonely and cutoff? David Fowler wasn't a hermit like Howard Hughes nor an oddity like Glen Gould. From the film, we see that his work was well-known. He lived in L.A. but has a commission in Houston, Tx. So we see that he wasn't just a local artist, but someone who is well-respected on a national level.(This might be debatable.) From Sue the baby sitter, we learn that he is known in academia circles, 'Lipschitz, Henry Moore, and me.' We also see from the film that he wrote a book. I'm sure the book was meant for a national audience and not just one or two copies made for a private edition nor several hundred printed for a local audience. This again proves or demonstrates that he was well-known or was wanting more name recognition and wasn't trying to cut himself off from the world.
In summary, do these contradictory statements mean anything? There might be something more going on at a much, much deeper level.
When we get into the actual review, we will have to return to these statements. There is a lot to these statements. Like I said folks, this is one of most complex motion pictures ever filmed. This complexity that I speak of is not the complexity of cameras, film, lights, etc., of a "Lord of The Rings" type epic but of an quiet inner complexity ideas the likes of which this film "The Man Who Loved Women" has no equal. There are things going on in this movie that have never been done before and will never be done again. Ever.
O.G.
Another point that nsouthern51 made was that David Fowler 'drowns in isolation.' This in fact a bit of a complex statement and somewhat contradictory from the films point of view. This statement seems to suggest, or hint at, that David is either cutoff from the world or is completely unknown to the world or both. Perhaps, both statements are true. Perhaps, both statements are false. Or perhaps, one is true and the other false, or vise versa.
Let's return to the film for a minute. David Fowler has known hundreds and HUNDREDS of women and is always looking for more. How can he be so lonely? If he was in-between women, he had the semilive-in girlfriend Courtney Wade. So he always, or almost always, had someone around him at home. If he was lonely, by knowing hundreds and HUNDREDS of women, he surely had telephone numbers to call and surely one would respond. Or reverse it, they could be calling him. With all thoughs women around, he would have to fight them off with a fly swatter or girl swatter. In the work place, we see that he had several assistants. So how can he be so lonely and cutoff? David Fowler wasn't a hermit like Howard Hughes nor an oddity like Glen Gould. From the film, we see that his work was well-known. He lived in L.A. but has a commission in Houston, Tx. So we see that he wasn't just a local artist, but someone who is well-respected on a national level.(This might be debatable.) From Sue the baby sitter, we learn that he is known in academia circles, 'Lipschitz, Henry Moore, and me.' We also see from the film that he wrote a book. I'm sure the book was meant for a national audience and not just one or two copies made for a private edition nor several hundred printed for a local audience. This again proves or demonstrates that he was well-known or was wanting more name recognition and wasn't trying to cut himself off from the world.
In summary, do these contradictory statements mean anything? There might be something more going on at a much, much deeper level.
When we get into the actual review, we will have to return to these statements. There is a lot to these statements. Like I said folks, this is one of most complex motion pictures ever filmed. This complexity that I speak of is not the complexity of cameras, film, lights, etc., of a "Lord of The Rings" type epic but of an quiet inner complexity ideas the likes of which this film "The Man Who Loved Women" has no equal. There are things going on in this movie that have never been done before and will never be done again. Ever.
O.G.