Saturday, July 20, 2013

Strike the set

Ray Bradbury wrote a short piece about the fate of a movie set about to be destroyed in which the caretaker tries to show the company boss how much of their movies' wonderful illusion remains in the tools they used to make them.

Watching Pac-Man eat Mos Eisley brought that to mind.

The sense of loss isn't from remembering the money and effort that went into a one-time tool--we weren't involved in that. Is it because the illusion seems more full and real in the place it was made, and we want it to be as real as possible? Or because losing it means there's no new illusions to be made there? Or because it undermines the illusion? We've seen the place, is part of our world vanishing?

No, it isn't that big a deal to me--other people feel the loss much more strongly--but I do feel it a little, and wonder why. The Phantom Edit was competent. Lucas shouldn't direct his own movies.

In any event, something seems wrong when significant fractions of our shared experience are illusions.

1 comment:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

In researching our first trip to England, I discovered that Watership Down is a real place. I called my second son excitedly, as it was far and away his favorite book. We resolved that the trip would not be complete without going there.

The evening before, we arrived at a B&B that had rabbits in the driveway, and walked over to the "river," such as they are called in England where Bigwig led the does onto the boat.

We have looked at the photos online a few times as well. We also went to the Hundred-Acre Wood in Ashdown Forest that trip.

Both were disappointments, and I wish we had not gone. I had not know that the set was still standing in Tunisia, and don't think the knowledge that it had a terrestrial reality improves it for me. I liked thinking it was far, far, away better.

Of course, I built and struck many stage sets, which were always more of an annoyance than a magic to me.

I'll pass it on to my sons, though. They might be interested.