This thread is to discuss the new movie based on Philip K. Dick's novel, " A Scanner Darkly." The discussion got started on my fitness thread so I though I would move it here.

I saw it yesterday evening as, coincidently, so had MannishBoy. So we started a discussion which I am moving over here.

I am not sure how I feel about the film... it is pretty incredible to look at and the acting of Downey and Harrelson is pretty great... even Winona Ryder....

Just some trivia background: There have been 5 films made of Philip K. Dick's books: Blade Runner (based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"), Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck and now A Scanner Darkly. Only Blade Runner and A Scanner Darkly are based on novel of his... the rest are based on short stories.

A Scanner Darkly has a lot of autobiographical element in it.

Originally, in the '70's, Dick was an unknown except in the sci-fi world... He was "discovered" and became the darling of the literati, somewhere in the late 80's, I believe. He died in the early '80's. He turned extremely religious, sort of sci-fi religious. What a route... starting off as pure sci-fi and ending up in a extremely spiritual place.


SO people, as you see the film... feel free to post your thoughts on it here. Who were your favorite characters/actors? What themes seemed the most important or stirring to you, Same with scenes... and whatever else moved you about the film...

This thread will contain spoilers... so do not read if you are planning to see the film.... Go see it and come back to post your thoughts....

Here's my cut-n-paste as requested:

Just a bit of trivia... those three films are based on short stories of his... Blade Runner and A Scanner Darkly are based on his novels.

I've never read any of his full novels, however, in my voracious consumption of audiobooks lately with all the driving I've been doing, I did "read" a collection of his short stories that included the ones the movies were based on. Picked it up at Cracker Barrel of all places. Much different in many cases of course from the films. Not very surprising.

What did you think of Scanner, MannishBoy....? What or who did you like best? what theme was important to you?

The movie thematically seemed very much like the movie Traffic a few years ago in some ways. You had a drug war which was very ineffective at a macro level while also destroying people at a micro level. Both the war on the drug and the drug itself were shown as bad. Both sides sacrified pawns at will to try to get what they wanted. Of course, this showed both government and corporation as effectively "evil", with the government destroying it's own and the corporation as attempting to make money off of both ends of the problem.

I never did get what happened to the main character's family, btw. I didn't know if that might have been the genesis of his desire to throw away his life for the job. It kept talking about his daughters being "this big" or whatever, and he lived in the same house as was shown in the flashback I think. Obviously they wanted to show they were still important, although he does talk about hating his old life with them. I didn't know if the wife left him when he started his decent, or if his job ran her off, starting his trip into using.

I'm not that familiar with Dick's life, although I had heard it was autobiographical to some extent. If what you say about his sci-fi "religion" is right, was he kind of like the way L. Ron Hubbard ended up?

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/717/717774p1.html

If anyone is interested in this movie they can watch the first 24 minutes of it. I've watched this huge clip and have to say that I'm quite impressed at the style they went with. Looks like an interesting movie and I'm looking forward to watching the rest of it.

You should know that it is an R movie which contains nudity/language.

The movie hasn't come out here yet, but from what I've read, looks promising.

Made a great idea for a new avatar also. :D

If what you say about his sci-fi "religion" is right, was he kind of like the way L. Ron Hubbard ended up?

Of course I know of L. Ron Hubard... but frankly I have never read anything by him or about him... so I can;t comment....

I know that I started to get bored with DIck's final books... too much in the religious supernatural powers range... though I recal interesting theories about who was God...

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!:









I surmised about the family that it was real even though he was now losing his grip on reality.

I was puzzled by one thing.

There is a moment when he is goign through the tapes and he sees that one woman really changed into another and back as opposed to that he had hallucinated it... But I was unlear what htat was supposed to mean... deliberate external mind manipulation? or still the "D" somehow.

I was going to check out on IMDB to see what they say there...

Did that strike you at all...?

Of course I know of L. Ron Hubard... but frankly I have never read anything by him or about him... so I can;t comment....

I know that I started to get bored with DIck's final books... too much in the religious supernatural powers range... though I recal interesting theories about who was God...

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!:









I surmised about the family that it was real even though he was now losing his grip on reality.

I was puzzled by one thing.

There is a moment when he is goign through the tapes and he sees that one woman really changed into another and back as opposed to that he had hallucinated it... But I was unlear what htat was supposed to mean... deliberate external mind manipulation? or still the "D" somehow.

I was going to check out on IMDB to see what they say there...

Did that strike you at all...?

Actually, a lot of L. Ron Hubbard's stuff is interesting. He's very libertarian in views it seems, or he was before he started all the religous stuff. Of course, I read it all when I was a kid, so maybe my perspective on what's interesting would be different now.

As to the woman in the bed, I think could have really been Ryder's character, possibly using one of the suits to hide her identity while having compassion for Archtor like she showed after the reveal, but then we didn't see suits being used to mimic just one person, but instead shifting people constantly. I don't think it is likely, but it was vague as you said. Another interpretation I had is that that was who he wanted it to be popping through his drug damaged mind.

Wasn't it Ryder's character? Now that I think about it, I'm not sure. I was sure sitting in the theater. Could it have been his wife? You've got me second guessing it.

EDIT: Looking around the net, it was Donna/Ryder in bed when he saw the tape. The reason I know was the speculation of whether she was actually nude or not :D

Another interpretation I had is that that was who he wanted it to be popping through his drug damaged mind.

Wasn't it Ryder's character? Now that I think about it, I'm not sure. I was sure sitting in the theater. Could it have been his wife? You've got me second guessing it.

EDIT: Looking around the net, it was Donna/Ryder in bed when he saw the tape. The reason I know was the speculation of whether she was actually nude or not :D

Yeah, that latter interpretation was what I thought one possibility was..


I can't believe that there is idle speculation as to whether she was actually nude since the rotoscoping was so distorting anyway, and could be easily manipulated...

But I guess Winona is in the sweet dreams of many a young men...;)

There is a moment when he is goign through the tapes and he sees that one woman really changed into another and back as opposed to that he had hallucinated it... But I was unlear what htat was supposed to mean... deliberate external mind manipulation? or still the "D" somehow.

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while... I think that it has to do with showing that he became completely unable to distinguish hallucination from reality - to the point that he rehallucinated while watching the tapes. (Which he was previously using as a check on reality.) Just a theory.

Also, if you compare the movie to Wikipedia's summary of the book, it seems that A LOT of subplots were cut in order to make for a manageable movie (possibly explaining why his "previous life" was shown, but just barely and without detail).

(Oh, and part of one of my favorite parts of the movie is quoted below.) ;)

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while... I think that it has to do with showing that he became completely unable to distinguish hallucination from reality - to the point that he rehallucinated while watching the tapes. (Which he was previously using as a check on reality.) Just a theory.

That was what I was concluding as well.... But remember ... Donna turned out to be a high level DEA person... certainly not the cokehead she portrayed herself to be.


(Oh, and part of one of my favorite parts of the movie is quoted below.) ;)

Now I am not a bike person... but if there were 9 gears does that mean its really an 18 speed bike ( ie, 2 x 9) or is it 3 x 6?

And how did one of the gears suddenly disappear? (They talked about 8 suddenly.)

My favorite line in the movie was one that was said by each one of them... "How much ___ do you do?" "Hard to say...(ponders s few secs)... not that much...." No matter how much anyone was doing, whatever it was, "it was not that much" :p

It reminds me of Kinsey's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey) first studies into Human Sexuality. I only know this about the males.. but it may be true about females. You have to keep in mind that his interviews took place in a period when discussions about sex and acknowledgment about sexuality were pretty much repressed... in the late 40's - early 50's.

He interviewed males about their sex lives, and after asking them if they masturbated and how often (which varied considerably among the interviewees), he then asked them if they thought there was such a thing as masturbating too much. They pretty much all said yes that they thought there was such a thing as masturbating too much. When he asked them how often was that, they all picked different frequencies but they each picked a frequency that was a little bit more than what they did themselves... :lol:

That was what I was concluding as well.... But remember ... Donna turned out to be a high level DEA person... certainly not the cokehead she portrayed herself to be.

Oh, I wasn't quite clear. My theory involves him sleeping NOT with Winona/Donna, but with the blonde. He then hallucinated Winona/Donna possibly because that's what he really wanted. (Sometimes mild hallucinations are good and work that way... or, so I've heard. :whistle: ) Then, while watching the tapes, his left/right brain is so screwed up from long-term SD (substance D) usage that it fills in details/hallucinates again.

Now I am not a bike person... but if there were 9 gears does that mean its really an 18 speed bike ( ie, 2 x 9) or is it 3 x 6?

And how did one of the gears suddenly disappear? (They talked about 8 suddenly.)

The gears are actually the number of possible combinations of cogs/chainrings. So, if you have three front chainrings and six rear, like the one in the movie, you have 18 possible gears (3x6). (And yes, some bikes have 2 in front and 9 in back, still making 18 possible gears.) Of course, if you ever become a "bike person", you'll learn that even though the make bikes with more and more gears, many of them are unusable and/or very similar, so a 27-gear bike (what I have) really is much less.

Oh, and I have NO idea where the one disappeared to... Maybe Woody/Luckman stopped counting the one hidden by the chain?

Interestingly, or perhaps not so, Wikipedia mentions that the book involved a ten speed with "missing gears" and had a young boy explaining to the dopeheads how the gears work. The fact that it was never quite spelled out in the movie probably explains why there were only about six of us totally laughing out loud while the rest of the theater puzzled on. :lol:

It reminds me of Kinsey's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey) first studies into Human Sexuality.

Oh, and I forgot to ask - did you watch the movie? Absolutely fabulous. One of the few movies I plan to watch a second time.

Oh, and I forgot to ask - did you watch the movie? Absolutely fabulous. One of the few movies I plan to watch a second time.


Oh, yes!!! I forgot to mention the movie... it was incredible.

I was born the year of his first study and 5 when his 2nd study came out. Growing up I heard lots about it... my parents talked a lot about it... and it was referred to in all kinds of contexts. There even was a novel then made into a film, called the Chapman Report, a fictionalized version of the Kinsey Studies. If I remember correctly, almost everyone interviewed by "Chapman" either divorced, died or committed suicide. The movie implied that looking into these questions stirred up stuff that only caused trouble...:lol:

Of course, being so young, I couldn't really grasp what all the fuss was about.

But the movie "Kinsey" made it all make sense. They must have been dead on accurate with what happened because absolutely nothing rang false in the movie with what childhood remembrances I had about the energy and emotions swirling about everywhere wrt the Kinsey Reports. I think Wikipedia says they are still the best selling scientific works of all time.