I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997): film review

Arts & EntertainmentTelevision / Movies

  • Author Thomas H Cullen
  • Published June 4, 2018
  • Word count 1,091

For the 1997 horror film, I Know What You Did Last Summer, it’s none other than through the following idea that I wish to talk of the film: a goal that gives its status to its means.

A means to a goal, and a goal itself are both parts of a sequence. Of the two parts, it’s the goal and not the means to the goal which has to be post, and therefore has to be time. By default, it’s the means to the goal which has the ability to choose to be pre.

Prior to a goal, the means to the goal gets to choose to be the origin, and therefore the leader: of the two parts of the sequence, the first half of the sequence consists of a leader who has chosen to exist, and the second half consists of an inferior who has no choice but to be inferior.

The free leader is inferior to the forced slave, and the forced slave is superior to the free leader; free hierarchy is weaker than forced slavery, and forced slavery is better than free hierarchy – free power is worse than forced weakness, and forced weakness is better than free power.

Oh yes: if it wasn’t before, it’s perfectly apparent now why I felt the need to go over this film.

A free power is the same as a forced weakness, and a forced weakness is the same as just plain and simple power; ergo, the actual sequence or the actual theme underneath I Know What You Did Last Summer is power that’s worse than power, and power that’s better than power.

A power which is worse than power, is a power which is better than; conversely, a power which is better than power is a power which is worse than.

Better than and worse than: what do they add up to?

To further simplify things (as if enough simplification hasn’t happened yet), better than is just worse, and worse than is just better.

In other words: the 1997 film I Know What You Did Last Summer is a metaphor for the basic problem of worse and better – namely, how is it possible for one style to derive from the previous?

How can better be better, if its basis is to come from worse? The problem makes perfect sense. On its own terms, better is logical, but it isn’t logical if its reality involves having been a successor state to the state of inferiority.

Better means comparison. Worse means comparison. Thus, the sequence is comparison and then comparison – comparison + comparison.

Since comparison means judgement, and authority, the sequence can be translated into authority + authority – authority and then authority.

End and then end makes no sense. For end to be true, there cannot be another end. The equivalent of end and then end is continue and continue which are uniform – neither of the continues follow the other.

Continue is middle. Middle is between. Between is interval; interval is pause, and thus, the metaphor of I Know What You Did Last Summer (I honestly don’t mind repeating the title) is a pause which doesn’t oppress any other pause – a relaxation which co-exists with all other relaxations.

And now for the reverse: a relaxation which co-exists with all other relaxations is a work which prevents other works – a goal which prevents other goals.

A goal that prevents other goals is a means to a goal which prevents itself: a means to a goal which prevents itself is a self which can only help the means to a goal.

A self which must help the means to a goal is a means to a goal which can choose to help the self. A means to a goal which can choose to help the self is a goal which can’t choose to help the self – a goal which can’t choose to help the self is a goal which can choose to help the means to a goal.

The self is forced to aid the means to the goal, which then means the means to the goal chooses to help the self; it’s once the means to the goal chooses to help the self that the goal decides to aid the means to the goal – the origin is the need to help the middle, which gives the middle the power to help the origin and which in turn gives the end the power to help the middle.

An origin is the need to help the middle, and the need to help the middle is the freedom from middle; the freedom from middle is the indifference of origin.

In essence, the nature of the problem is that the origin of reality is indifferent to the rest of reality, and the way to fix this problem is a sequence in which the endgame is beholden to the middle.

The intrigue doesn’t stop there though: for the middle to be the middle, the origin and the endgame can’t be the same force – so there’s an origin which is corrupt, and there’s a last point which isn’t corrupt.

An origin that’s bad. A middle that’s not bad. And a last point which isn’t bad either: ergo, the middle and the last point are the same force.

There is no middle. There are simply two sides – and one of those sides follows the other. The side which is meant to be followed is bad because it wants to be free, and the side which is meant to follow is good because it is free – a leader is bad for lacking freedom, and a servant is good for lacking judgement.

A leader is bad, because that leader is force. A servant is good, because that servant has no force.

A forced leader which is bad is a servant which is bad. A free servant which is good is a master which is good.

The metaphor, and the exact meaning of I Know What You Did Last Summer is that a master and a servant are a correct state as long as the servant can’t exist after the master.

And that’ll just about do it, when it comes to an actual analysis of I Know What You Did Last Summer; in closing, I’ll just say that the 1997 film I Know What You Did Last Summer makes Star Wars, Star Trek, the MCU and Lord of the Rings into absolute utter annoyances.

Am currently intrigued as to whether or not planets are only interesting if Daisy Ridley is allowed to be egotistical when having sex

Article source: http://articlebiz.com
This article has been viewed 505 times.

Rate article

This article has a 5 rating with 1 vote.

Article comments

There are no posted comments.

Related articles