The eyes, it has been said, are the windows to the
soul. We create a world based on our
perception; what we see is what we think, or so we say. Through film humans have the capability to
explore different aspects our very existence.
Searching for the essence of our being through the eyes – more
specifically the patterns of the iris – the film I Origins attempts to
question, without naming it, the notion of reincarnation.
Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a scientist trying to disprove the concept of god by using science to recreate the eye. My scientific understanding is limited, but the theory seems to be should man be able to construct sight for an organism (worms in the case of this film) that cannot see then evolution is more than just a theory.
The film neither accepts nor discredits the idea of evolution or creationism, but simply suggests that the spirit which makes a person unique – their soul – does not entirely die with the body but is born again in a different form. When Ian meets Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) with a set of distinct iris’ he asks if he may take photos of them (a habit he has taken up for scientific research). Soon the two make a connection and fall in love. Filmmaking is a particular form of voyeuristic art that looks behind the hidden door of everyday routine. For this reason the way their romance was shot became endearing; given this sense of authenticity and realism, you fall in love with them too.
But, however great their romance is – and it is – they both realize how different they are, too. Ian has science based logic whereas Sofi maintains faith in a god she cannot see. On their would-be wedding day the two argue about faith and science, and Sofi says “it’s dangerous to play god.” Light exists but the worms cannot see it, and manipulating their genetic makeup to give them the ability to see would turn their whole world upside down. Similarly, Sofi explains, are humans. Just because you cannot see god does not mean god does not exist.
Ian’s conviction in his science would be immediately tested on that would-be wedding day when their elevator would become stuck. In this scene, Sofi suffers a horrific death. It creates the film’s most impressive shot for its false sense of security and aesthetic noiseless void of Ian’s fading screams. It will no doubt leave you without breath. But despite how effective the shot was I consider it a toneless plot device that demands the death of a female before the male protagonist – Ian – can spring into life.
Upon Sofi’s death, Ian’s lab partner, Karen (Brit Marling) becomes his crutch who then becomes his lover and later his pregnant wife. And though it has been seven years since Sofi has died the filmmakers of I origin attempt to remind the audience that Ian is still affected. How? In poor taste; Ian begins to masturbate to old videos of him and Sofi. When Karen walks in she believes she stumbled upon her husband viewing regular porn. The situation is worse because of Karen’s naiveté, but also it’s a painful reminder that Ian has always loved Sofi more. Even when he tells Karen that the reason behind his action was because he never had closure it’s still just in poor taste.
Are we to feel sympathy for Ian because his would-be wife from seven years ago died rather than leave him? Would this scene with his wife Karen be creepier if Sofi was still alive? I had a lot of feels that were not good feels about the construction of Ian’s character at that moment. He certainly did not help himself by saying he just never got closure. So what, dude? Lots of us don’t get closure with our ex’s who are no longer in our lives it doesn’t mean we masturbate to their videos. I felt secondhand hurt for Karen, but she too did not help herself.
The matter of reincarnation is not introduced until after Karen gives birth to their son, and long after that masturbation scene. Retinal scanning has become the norm in society and everyone whose eyes are scanned is placed in a database. When their son Tobias is scanned the computer recognizes his iris’ as black farmer from Idaho. Of course, the nurse dismisses this as a simple glitch in the system. After some time passes Ian and Karen get a phone call from a Dr. Simmons (Cara Seymour) who claims she needs to run tests on Tobias on the suspicion of having autism. Once the couple puts two and two together they conclude that Dr. Simmons’ theory might be plausible, but only after they run their own experiment with the help of their former lab partner and creator of the retinal scanning, Kenny (Steven Yeun). It turns out that Sofi’s exact iris patters exist in an Indian girl named Salomina.
Karen incredulously insists Ian to pursue this matter further by going to India to meet with this young girl. What I wondered is how much of Karen’s persistence was driven by scientific desire versus her desire of giving her husband the “closure” he said he never had. I believe she was sending him off to get closure so that once and for all she could have her husband to herself and not half her husband still in love with Sofi.
Once in India it takes a few weeks before Ian finds Salomina, who is established as an orphan living on the streets. When he does finally find her he takes her to his hotel room (already strange that no one questions this even though we know his motives are more innocent) and does a quick experiment with Karen on skype. To test this theory of reincarnation Ian asks Salomina to pick between items on a photo. The items include things that related to Sofi such as favorite food, animal, relatives, and finally a picture of Sofi herself. The scene upset me because it was not an experiment in a controlled environment like Dr. Simmons had done to Tobias, but rather every time Salomina selected an item Ian would say out loud “correct” or “incorrect.”
It was very obvious that Salomina, a poor girl who probably hadn’t had a decent meal for some time, was straining to get the answers correct. At the conclusion of the experiment when Salomina asks in her broken English, “I made bad test?” It becomes clear that the theory of reincarnation is inconclusive. However, towards the end when Ian and Salomina prepare to leave rather take the stairs as they had done coming up, Ian decides to take the elevators. It is at this moment that Salomina cries and screams in fear of it. The filmmakers are trying to suggest that by the simple act of trepidation in Salomina of an elevator that Sofi’s spirit does reside inside the little girl.
Though I disliked the way Ian ran his experiment, I do like that the film did not try to give an answer to either side of the argument. Rather, the film simply offers the chance for the audience to have faith like Ian in something unexplainable. Is there such a thing like reincarnation? We will never know. There is no concrete answer, but faith for those who believe. The film poses deep, existential questions to life, but it is still ascribes to the same kinds of narratives we have seen. There was nothing that inspired me to recommend this film to others, but I do not discourage people from seeing it.
I will say that in post credits there was an alluring scene in which Dr. Simmons is running the retinal scans of most prominent people of history and finding potential matches. I would like to see a film based off Dr. Simmons and her team finding these people. Imagine what would you do if you believe in reincarnation and met someone with the exact iris patters of John F. Kennedy or Sylvia Plath? What is the next step after finding these people? How would you try to encourage remembering a past life? How do you even measure it? Can you? It’s a bushel full of question I would love to see in the next film I would like to call “The Secret I (eye) Spy sequel.”
Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a scientist trying to disprove the concept of god by using science to recreate the eye. My scientific understanding is limited, but the theory seems to be should man be able to construct sight for an organism (worms in the case of this film) that cannot see then evolution is more than just a theory.
The film neither accepts nor discredits the idea of evolution or creationism, but simply suggests that the spirit which makes a person unique – their soul – does not entirely die with the body but is born again in a different form. When Ian meets Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) with a set of distinct iris’ he asks if he may take photos of them (a habit he has taken up for scientific research). Soon the two make a connection and fall in love. Filmmaking is a particular form of voyeuristic art that looks behind the hidden door of everyday routine. For this reason the way their romance was shot became endearing; given this sense of authenticity and realism, you fall in love with them too.
But, however great their romance is – and it is – they both realize how different they are, too. Ian has science based logic whereas Sofi maintains faith in a god she cannot see. On their would-be wedding day the two argue about faith and science, and Sofi says “it’s dangerous to play god.” Light exists but the worms cannot see it, and manipulating their genetic makeup to give them the ability to see would turn their whole world upside down. Similarly, Sofi explains, are humans. Just because you cannot see god does not mean god does not exist.
Ian’s conviction in his science would be immediately tested on that would-be wedding day when their elevator would become stuck. In this scene, Sofi suffers a horrific death. It creates the film’s most impressive shot for its false sense of security and aesthetic noiseless void of Ian’s fading screams. It will no doubt leave you without breath. But despite how effective the shot was I consider it a toneless plot device that demands the death of a female before the male protagonist – Ian – can spring into life.
Upon Sofi’s death, Ian’s lab partner, Karen (Brit Marling) becomes his crutch who then becomes his lover and later his pregnant wife. And though it has been seven years since Sofi has died the filmmakers of I origin attempt to remind the audience that Ian is still affected. How? In poor taste; Ian begins to masturbate to old videos of him and Sofi. When Karen walks in she believes she stumbled upon her husband viewing regular porn. The situation is worse because of Karen’s naiveté, but also it’s a painful reminder that Ian has always loved Sofi more. Even when he tells Karen that the reason behind his action was because he never had closure it’s still just in poor taste.
Are we to feel sympathy for Ian because his would-be wife from seven years ago died rather than leave him? Would this scene with his wife Karen be creepier if Sofi was still alive? I had a lot of feels that were not good feels about the construction of Ian’s character at that moment. He certainly did not help himself by saying he just never got closure. So what, dude? Lots of us don’t get closure with our ex’s who are no longer in our lives it doesn’t mean we masturbate to their videos. I felt secondhand hurt for Karen, but she too did not help herself.
The matter of reincarnation is not introduced until after Karen gives birth to their son, and long after that masturbation scene. Retinal scanning has become the norm in society and everyone whose eyes are scanned is placed in a database. When their son Tobias is scanned the computer recognizes his iris’ as black farmer from Idaho. Of course, the nurse dismisses this as a simple glitch in the system. After some time passes Ian and Karen get a phone call from a Dr. Simmons (Cara Seymour) who claims she needs to run tests on Tobias on the suspicion of having autism. Once the couple puts two and two together they conclude that Dr. Simmons’ theory might be plausible, but only after they run their own experiment with the help of their former lab partner and creator of the retinal scanning, Kenny (Steven Yeun). It turns out that Sofi’s exact iris patters exist in an Indian girl named Salomina.
Karen incredulously insists Ian to pursue this matter further by going to India to meet with this young girl. What I wondered is how much of Karen’s persistence was driven by scientific desire versus her desire of giving her husband the “closure” he said he never had. I believe she was sending him off to get closure so that once and for all she could have her husband to herself and not half her husband still in love with Sofi.
Once in India it takes a few weeks before Ian finds Salomina, who is established as an orphan living on the streets. When he does finally find her he takes her to his hotel room (already strange that no one questions this even though we know his motives are more innocent) and does a quick experiment with Karen on skype. To test this theory of reincarnation Ian asks Salomina to pick between items on a photo. The items include things that related to Sofi such as favorite food, animal, relatives, and finally a picture of Sofi herself. The scene upset me because it was not an experiment in a controlled environment like Dr. Simmons had done to Tobias, but rather every time Salomina selected an item Ian would say out loud “correct” or “incorrect.”
It was very obvious that Salomina, a poor girl who probably hadn’t had a decent meal for some time, was straining to get the answers correct. At the conclusion of the experiment when Salomina asks in her broken English, “I made bad test?” It becomes clear that the theory of reincarnation is inconclusive. However, towards the end when Ian and Salomina prepare to leave rather take the stairs as they had done coming up, Ian decides to take the elevators. It is at this moment that Salomina cries and screams in fear of it. The filmmakers are trying to suggest that by the simple act of trepidation in Salomina of an elevator that Sofi’s spirit does reside inside the little girl.
Though I disliked the way Ian ran his experiment, I do like that the film did not try to give an answer to either side of the argument. Rather, the film simply offers the chance for the audience to have faith like Ian in something unexplainable. Is there such a thing like reincarnation? We will never know. There is no concrete answer, but faith for those who believe. The film poses deep, existential questions to life, but it is still ascribes to the same kinds of narratives we have seen. There was nothing that inspired me to recommend this film to others, but I do not discourage people from seeing it.
I will say that in post credits there was an alluring scene in which Dr. Simmons is running the retinal scans of most prominent people of history and finding potential matches. I would like to see a film based off Dr. Simmons and her team finding these people. Imagine what would you do if you believe in reincarnation and met someone with the exact iris patters of John F. Kennedy or Sylvia Plath? What is the next step after finding these people? How would you try to encourage remembering a past life? How do you even measure it? Can you? It’s a bushel full of question I would love to see in the next film I would like to call “The Secret I (eye) Spy sequel.”
No comments:
Post a Comment