We seem to differ, at a fundamental level, in the way how we perceive or choose to perceive movies and in the way how we use words to describe them.
So we will never agree on any of what you just said.
Both movies are very different and, although I understand your judgements of The Ascent, I would never make similar conjectures towards any of them.
Not because I can't. I choose not to when a movie doesn't force me to do it.
Neither movie came across to me as particularly declarative and both have some degree of latitude for interpretation, specially ZDT, even accounting the historical inaccuracies.
I could just as easilly define ZDT with the inverse judgement, Maya being the foolish and in the end humiliated character, because she invests so much of her energy and time into the destruction of one man, that ultimatelly she ends with the only thing that gave any purpose or meaning to her life.
She suddenly finds herself without place or purpose in the world and she is devastated, this is the culmination of the movie. (sorry for spoiler)
What drove her to invest so much into it? Why did she care so much? Why?
These are the sort of questions that this movie raises in my head and doesn't apply necessarilly only to the main character, it eventually leads to a more philosophical debate that goes beyond the subject of the work.
And yet I choose not to define and limit the movie to such single judgement because there's more to it than this.
If I had to, I'd prefer to say that the director intent is to raise philosophical questions/debate rather than say that she wanted to declare this or that.
Things are not so black and white, both movies have a rather suggestive and even ambiguous nature to me.
Different perspectives, nothing to be done.
I've heard about Come and See, I might try to find it and see it.
Thx for suggestions.
Edited by kkl10 - 1/5/14 at 8:09am