I have to say, I agree with the philosophy you’re expressing, but strongly disagree with your reading of the film. I think the film very explicitly portrays the “bagel” as a mistake, an erroneous and dangerous interpretation of reality. Therefore, it is specifically making the same critique you are. I don’t know how you could come away from the film with the reading that the “bagel” represents the film’s worldview itself. I would have enjoyed more textual evidence for your interpretation, I think you walked right past arguing for the correctness of your own reading and straight into arguing over the philosophy, but I wasn’t convinced that that was even the philosophy on offer from the text. For the record, I had mixed feelings about the film myself (I would have also cut some of the fight scenes), but like I said, I just disagree with your reading of it. I think it was intended (maybe it didn’t succeed) to be a direct refutation of exactly the perspective you ascribe to it.
Thanks for reading this piece and sharing your thoughts.
Given your statement that "the film very explicitly portrays the 'bagel' as a mistake, an erroneous and dangerous interpretation of reality", I think it's worth reiterating that this is precisely my critique! -- that the film mistakes symptom for problematic. As I wrote: "...the movie critiques Tupaki’s interpretation when the critical focus should rather be on her ideology-methodology."
Said somewhat differently, I think that EEAAO is fairly unambiguous in presenting the Everything Bagel as the totality of existence, and in making a distinction between this "fact" and the choice of "love", as against an unfeeling and meaningless universe. Every review/analysis of the movie I've read so far seems to agree with this characterization, meaning -- at least as far as I can tell -- that the disagreement lies in sympathy or antipathy with this existential description.
If what I've written still doesn't make sense to you, I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at differing conclusions about the internal narrative and, as you put it, "the film's worldview itself."
I have to say, I agree with the philosophy you’re expressing, but strongly disagree with your reading of the film. I think the film very explicitly portrays the “bagel” as a mistake, an erroneous and dangerous interpretation of reality. Therefore, it is specifically making the same critique you are. I don’t know how you could come away from the film with the reading that the “bagel” represents the film’s worldview itself. I would have enjoyed more textual evidence for your interpretation, I think you walked right past arguing for the correctness of your own reading and straight into arguing over the philosophy, but I wasn’t convinced that that was even the philosophy on offer from the text. For the record, I had mixed feelings about the film myself (I would have also cut some of the fight scenes), but like I said, I just disagree with your reading of it. I think it was intended (maybe it didn’t succeed) to be a direct refutation of exactly the perspective you ascribe to it.
Hi, Enki.
Thanks for reading this piece and sharing your thoughts.
Given your statement that "the film very explicitly portrays the 'bagel' as a mistake, an erroneous and dangerous interpretation of reality", I think it's worth reiterating that this is precisely my critique! -- that the film mistakes symptom for problematic. As I wrote: "...the movie critiques Tupaki’s interpretation when the critical focus should rather be on her ideology-methodology."
Said somewhat differently, I think that EEAAO is fairly unambiguous in presenting the Everything Bagel as the totality of existence, and in making a distinction between this "fact" and the choice of "love", as against an unfeeling and meaningless universe. Every review/analysis of the movie I've read so far seems to agree with this characterization, meaning -- at least as far as I can tell -- that the disagreement lies in sympathy or antipathy with this existential description.
If what I've written still doesn't make sense to you, I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at differing conclusions about the internal narrative and, as you put it, "the film's worldview itself."
While I do enjoy E.E.A.A.O. from a storytelling and moviemaking perspective this a very cogent critique of its themes. Very nice.