MovieChat Forums > Scenic Route (2013) Discussion > Whose argument would you agree with?

Whose argument would you agree with?

posted 11 years ago by josephson
15 replies | jump to latest

Mitchell vs Carter?

They both presented compelling arguments.
On the one hand, we all want to break free from the constraints of the "system" that tells us to just keep our heads down, live a comfortable life, get married, and have kids and live out the rest of your life serving that purpose.
We want to pursue our dreams, break the mold, and do what people say we can't do. We do not want to be boxed in and controlled and be just another lemming and slave who keeps the well oiled machine running for the elitists/corps. But this is also a life of great risk.

On the other hand, sometimes we have to give up on dreams, and surrender to the predominant lifestyle around us. We should just play it safe, be a yes ma'am, yes sir person, have a wife/husband and kids, house and car, and not cause any trouble by being obedient and subservient to the powers already in place. It's much more comfortable to just be orderly and do as they say rather than to be a nail that sticks out to only get hammered.

Which do you believe in?

[–] DarknLovely 11 years ago

I enjoyed this film very much. I thought the 2 leads were incredibly irresponsible driving through a desert without food or water, but I still felt for them as things quickly unravelled.

Their opposing points of view were reasoned and eloquently stated. It was very easy to see both sides.

I will ALWAYS advocate striving for your dream though. It's understandable if you don't have the means or opportunity to give it 100%, you may need to balance your day job with following your dream. But not working towards YOUR own goal is the reason so many people are envious, bitter, miserable and hateful in this world.
There is no honour in working to make someone else rich at the expense of your own aspirations.
Time is precious, we're not here long enough to justify wasting it.

Have a roof over your head, yes. Buy if you can afford to, rent if you can't. There is no need to have the latest clothing, jewellery, accessories etc, that's a fool's game that leads you to debt,
There is certainly no need to have a husband or a wife or children if that is not what you desire. People who bow to THAT pressure are weak-willed. There has never been an easier and more accepted time in history to be a single person.

If a person is so intimidated by society that they are afraid to make a leap for their dream, perhaps they don't deserve it. You deserve your dream if you work towards it, not expect it to be handed to you.

[–] Uberlim 11 years ago

If one feels the need to break free from the system, it's still thanks/because to it, by doing this, i think one is still part of the system, the best imho then is to try & change the system & the peoples, making it more comfortable for all, less oppressive, offering more choices, guidance, chances & opportunities to the people so every1 can b happy & fulfilled .

Both arguments are presented as flawed in the movie i think, the dreamer poorly living in his car possess the creativity the realist with material comfort needs to inspire him in his unfulfilled life... the 2 are imho less opposite than complementary.

[–] Readnought 11 years ago

I agree.

They both seemed to have lost their way (also fueling their rage at getting criticized by the other, who had something that they in turn envied.)

The dreamer probably aimed too far and too straight at living his own wildest dream, making his efforts at actually getting there somewhat futile, and more or less doomed from the start. That was my impression at least. He seemed to be insisting/buying heavily into the idea that his dream: to live off his writing, was the only acceptable path for him, and that it needed to be a success, or nothing would do. Thereby also setting up a depressive mood theme to his writing, reflecting the unrewarding situation he had put himself in, for years. But, for example, he might in stead from the get go have accepted a intermediate personal life quest to find a reasonably comfy career that allowed him to enjoy his life while pursuing his real dream, without depending on it to become a commercial success. (To the extent that it wasn't just that: to be a commercial success, in which case writing might just not really be his thing.) It would possibly also lighten the supposedly dark and depressing tone of his writing, to have a secure base to work on it from.

The businessman seemed to have aimed too straight for a secure life, seemingly skipping all the chancy edges that made it possible for him to enjoy and have fun with his life, in his everyday setup.

Simply put, they both seemed to be 'all or nothing', while mixing it up a little would probably have made them both less embittered about the course they were on.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fimb 11 years ago

Mitchell's life is more reality based. The fact is that we have bills; we need food and shelter and a steady, reliable income.

Carter's philosophy is inspirational and carefree, but it's completely fictionalized.

On both extremes, if everyone lived like Mitchell then we wouldn't have much art, music, progress. If everyone lived like Carter then the world would fall apart quickly because no one would dream of being janitors or trash collectors.

[–] Uberlim 11 years ago

The old "no one would dream of being janitors or trash collectors" cliche lol.
No offense but these aren't heavy duty jobs to say the least, as a youggn' i would have been glad to assure these services to the community efficiently & for low wages bruv.
& i'm no conserva(u)tist.
If i had a dad doing it & feeling unhappy, i'd have gone Oedipus on his living mean u get me ? Haha. i'm crazy tho, so.

''As Imbecile examines finger, Wise man sees who's watching Imbecile, & Moon gets intimacy.'' H.E

[–] Theotisnixon 10 years ago

God..... Really? The fat dude was so full of *beep* ....or won't handle the real world... So he tries to talk someone ELSE into making the hard decisions..........life....FOR MOST PEOPLE, not all, but for most is simply a series of making deals.....I give a little here and a GET a little there.....ANYONE , besides a few.....VERY few EXCEPTIONAL people, who disagrees with this is under the age of 30...,,,,

[–] Uberlim 10 years ago

Well i get your point, i' d say the two were just both simply a bit jealous of one another, thus the fights.
But still the fact that in society people mostly either are forced to or conveniently do lock themselves in a "routinesque" existence is what this movie was about imho.
So i don't fully agree with your giving "a little here and a GET a little there" theory, but that's just me, regards.
Also both protagonists were around their 30's i'd say & i know many older people for whom life isn't satisfying, regardless of their age, marital status, income level etc... If you made your peace with it, cheers, you certainly aren't the only one either. I'm not sure the "majority" of the people's opinions on the subject on earth is defined by their age or your personal experience of life, nor would i want it to be defined by mine, respect.

''As Imbecile examines finger, Wise man sees who's watching Imbecile, & Moon gets intimacy.'' H.E

[–] Theotisnixon 10 years ago

Wow......makes u realize how lucky those few people are that aim for the stars AND actually reach them...........great post, man....

[–] Uberlim 10 years ago

u from the naza or somtgN?
anyway thx for ur appreciation, that's what i'm aiming for, being a better man, u helped me, i'm grateful alright:]

''As Imbecile examines finger, Wise man sees who's watching Imbecile, & Moon gets intimacy.'' H.E

[–] nastasya_filippovna 10 years ago

I'm total Team Carter! The one stipulation I will add, however, is that he should have gotten some kind of job just to pay the bills while pursuing his dream IF he had to rely on other people to pay them in the meantime (although that was no mentioned in the dialogue to the best of my memory). If, however, you are the "poor artist" and paying your bills, and simply annoying people by not following social propriety, or it simply annoys others that you CHOOSE to live in your car and not have 2 kids and a white picket fence, well then, I feel sorry for those who are slaves to convention and capitalism. To each his own- pursue what you define as your life's passion. To be imprisoned, however, by a society's standards- to live by that- I think that would be as demeaning and pernicious as any addiction. Nostrovia to the Carters of the world.

The vitality of a cat.

[–] hecantune 10 years ago

Neither of them was wrong. Nor were they exactly right. The way I see it, if you're really at peace with your own life you don't have time to dwell on what (you think) others are doing wrong. It just goes to show that neither of them were happy with their lives and they took it out on each other. Just reading this thread I see so many who are obviously fooling themselves into believe they somehow have it more figured out than every one else. It doesn't get more arrogant and self-serving than pretending to "feel sorry" for others just because they chose a different path.

Back off! ... Way off!

[–] nastasya_filippovna 10 years ago

perhaps I should put the words "feeling sorry" in a context for you- first of all, is not because they choose a different path than me- it is precisely the opposite- I advocate choosing the path of your passion and calling as opposed to what tradition purports to be appropriate. The entire message is that one should employ their own wishes when it comes choosing what path to pursue and not be swayed by the opinion of others. Furthermore, don't be confused by the catch-phrase- it's a choice and in truth the wrong expression- if they make themselves miserable by choosing a job they hate because they seek financial gain, I think it's truly pathetic. People only do, in truth, what results in a net benefit for them. These people would rather be miserable and complain and be stressed, but rich, and until that equation changes, they will remain in that situation- if the net benefit for them becomes happiness instead of financial profit, they will change careers. But no, just because money means more to them than reaping the joy of pursuing their passion does not mean they are at peace with their lives. Addicts, before overcoming an addiction, receive more of a net reward from being actively addicted and perhaps homeless and sick than free of addiction and functioning with a roof over their heads- until they decide the inverse is more of a net reward, they will not change the behavior, but that does not mean the lifestyle they currently live results in inner peace or contentment. Not by any stretch of the imagination do all who pursue their passions in life have inner peace, but many, MANY do.
The vitality of a cat.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

I think it's possible for most people to find a happy medium. I think these two could have, and might have if they'd lived.

"I gave you a haircut, not a lobotomy!"