Click: A Personal Resonance

A Moment In Click (2006)

The movie felt like a satire of my life. The main character was a work machine. He never stopped for anything, even things more important than work. Family was harmed because of his actions and he realized this when the remote gave him the power to view himself from another, universal, perspective. American's work 40 hours a week and many remain low in economic status. Despite working longer than this, it remains difficult to get higher in life without sacrificing family time. Newman symbolizes the person constantly working at the cost of everything else because he believe it will improve his life. These are the feelings I have with my work. However, I am also the shadow side of Newman. I neglected my family and ignored them.

Michael Newman (Adam Sandler), freezes the moment in time when he realizes he has been neglectful of his family while living with nothing but work, and that the last thing he said to his father was hurtful because of his prior preferences.

I took the scene and applied it to myself. I became very uncomfortable and depressed. In depression, I began thinking about the value of everything. "What is this worth to me?" became an important question. At the time, I valued work more than family. The scene changed my perspective completely. I felt like a narcissist and began to look at myself from different angles. The alternate perspectives began to reveal that many things I do are hurtful or ridiculous. In an argument, I attempted to shift my perspective to another angle and concluded that the conversation was useless and only served to expel things from our system and share our beliefs and values.

I cried during the scene. I saw a son shouting for his father to leave and it was implied this was the last thing Michael did.  My father is 71 years old and even though death can come at any age, I fear my father's death is nearer than many others and I have not told him enough times how much he matters to me. I do not know the last time I will see him. I used to ignore the stories my father told and think about other things when he spoke. Now, I cannot help but fear losing time with him. Every time my father speaks, I make the greatest effort to fully listen. Before, I had homework interfering with my family and my thoughts and attention. The film altered my perception of how my life was going and why the direction I was going was horrible.


Michael missed many moments because he was unaware and comfortable with his behaviors and the effects he had on those around him. Only from an objective perspective did he see how his life was effecting, and going to effect, the people around him.

The film was not well received with critics. SOURCE: Rotten Tomatoes

The film received some support from the general audience. SOURCE: Metacritic

The film did not receive great reviews from critics but it did receive relatively median views from the general audience. On Metacritic, many comments below 40 focused on Sandler and the 'unoriginal' story. Sandler has been a comedian for many years and to see him in a non-typecast role is unbearable for many, even though he still does some comical things it is not enough. The expectations of the critics is what leads to their negative reviews. The hope that an actor will do one thing and then the hope being crushed leads to a negative criticism. It is not even a critical review.


Another focus was the story's resemblance to "It's a Wonderful Life," which shows what life would be like if the main character did not exist. Click may seem like It's a Wonderful Life, but the stories are different. Click does not focus on what life would be like without him, it focuses on what life would be like with him maintaining his personality from a certain point in time. The main character still exists to people, but he is there in a certain guise. An annoying fact is this, plots are recycled in every movie. A critic searching for an original plot is a critic who will never enjoy a movie because the plots are all the same. Many models have been suggested for the number of plots that exist, but there seem to be fewer than 20. Even the book 20 Master Plots and How to Write Them was being generous in the number. I suggest that fewer than 20 exist, so a critic searching for a new plot will be disappointed at every film.

Only a few plots exist. It is the stories that are different.

Regardless of critic views, the movie altered my perception of life and family. It contains the concept that we have one life and we need to focus on it. If life was infinite, then perhaps we would regard our interactions with others differently. Michael was our guide through experience and consequence. It is perhaps a film that uses logic as much as it uses emotion, making its impact really powerful.

American Cinema

In American Cinema an analysis can be made regarding the main character's goal. In American Cinema, it seems like the hero always succeeds. However, is this a detrimental ending? We learn more from failure than from success (or at least this is what we believe), so the constant successes of the heroes is teaching us very little.

Films do not show what does not work. Instead, films seem to attempt to show the viewer what does work and the hero succeeds because of the beliefs presented, or hidden, in the film. It is the film's point of view regarding a topic. The point of view of films can change the viewer's behavior to act like the characters in movies. The truth is it might not allow us to succeed. Films are like an argument hidden within the artform. Is our cinema due for alteration to allow for more open arguments? What form (genre) is the best for arguments?

Everyone loves a good ending, but does the ending always have to be good and predictable? Film should not contain a predictable ending but this is what has happened for America's Cinema. In film plot, we generally establish a "Major Dramatic Question" and the film ends with the resolution of the question.

Examples of Major Dramatic Questions in Films

Will Batman stop the Joker?

Will Shrek get his swamp back?

Will Frodo destroy the ring?

The answer to any dramatic question is either a yes or a no. In American Cinema, or Hollywood Cinema (Is there a distinction. Probably), it seems the answer is always yes.

This is perhaps the most important parody of our time in film. If you agree with the "Trailer for Every Oscar Winning Film," then perhaps movies have become too predictable. While this can be viewed as an assault on trailers, a trailer is made from a movie's parts. Also, while this trailer does not highlight every film, films tend to have one or many of the elements.

Perhaps the recycled distractions have something new within all of their frames, but a change in form does not guarantee a change in content. The content is what the film is arguing. Brecht said "Art is inevitably political." Politics is simply a viewpoint and is really argument, for or against a belief.

The Legend of Bagger Vance

"Inside each and every one of us is one, true, authentic swing. Something that ours and ours alone. Something that can't be taught to you or learned, something that's got to be remembered."

The statement resonates with the abstract concept of the self and individuality. We are born different and we conform to a standard that disallows uniqueness and greatness. The authentic swing is comparative to the authentic self - who we are.


The Legend of Bagger Vance contains philosophy referenced to the Tao Te Ching it seems. The concept present in the clip is that of doing by not doing. We forget ourselves the more we gather information from everything around us as these create a noise telling us what to do when we simply need to remember what to do. Are we born with a genuine self or is this made? Bagger Vance argues that "each of us is born with it." While in the movie, he is referring to the fictional character Ranalph Junah's swing; however, the swing might be more representative of action and the body - something we were born with.

Are we learning too much or too little from the world around us?

I believe we are learning too much. Reflecting on Fight Club and The Legend of Bagger Vance, both films seem to argue that much of what we learn is irrelevant to our survival and disrupting our genuine self.
The mind collects information as it grows. The amount of information, it seems, has been increasing for some time. With television, radio, and print, we have grown up filled with trivia and noise. We carry visual and aural memories that constantly are competing to be remembered and sometimes we remember the wrong thing at the wrong time. Everything we look at is, in a sense, contains a lesson we are trying to learn that we have already learned. We are just trying to remember these lessons. Films are sometimes reminders of what is important, when it is clear what the film wants you to think is important. When it is ambiguous, the film is just another film. It does not resonate and does not make the viewer remember.

Why are critics generally more negative than the general audience? SOURCE: Metacritic

Bad Movie?
Critics considered the movie was bad. However, the topic of a movie's quality needs to be addressed. What makes a movie bad? The ratings are a measurement of how people received the movie. However, imagine a child who sees a movie, their first movie. Will the child think the movie is bad? I do not think so. The child has no prior conception of what makes a good movie or a bad movie. The child may comment on certain parts or ask questions about the movie, but they will not say a movie was bad.

Think about this, is a movie bad if it contains a message intended to be good? Perhaps the image quality or aesthetics were terrible, but the movie was not bad. This is, of course, considering morals.

The Moving Medium's Mission

I believe video's ability to show an illusion and be accepted as reality is the greatest magic trick. We fail to see the sleights. It reminds me of politics and religion more than magic. You get people to believe something. In film, you get people to believe they are seeing motion. In a sense they are but the motion is relative. It is the movement of the frames in the projector that is reflected onto the surface.

I believe every movie's theme or philosophy needs to be viewable to the public and debatable. Without discourse, a film is only entertainment. Film can be more if looked at closely, but few have the time to consider the philosophies of films. I want to do this.

Tyler Durden: Do you know what a duvee is?

Narrator: Comforter.

Durden: It's just a blanket. Why do we know what a duvee is?

I like this video because it compresses some of Fight Club's philosophy into a chunk that is more easily processed and easier for the masses to question. I suppose its simplicity leads to thousands of questions but that reflects the amount we think we know (its an illusion).

Besides the concept of consumerism running through the statements it also raises another question. Why do we have thousands of words, things that are invented, in order to get on with life? We only use a small number of words a day and the extra words are distractions to the point.

Complex Statements for the Simple Minded
"The world's filled with apathy, but I don't care."

The two things are the same yet we have hundreds of words to say the same thing. The lessons get hidden within the new forms (the new way of saying something). Film is similar, and it seems like the statements made in Fight Club are showing this complexity. Should I put it in Layman's terms or Keep it simple?