Thanks for all the amazing responses to See You Yesterday!
I know voting is on everyone’s mind this week (with the looming Presidential election!), and it’s time for one more vote …
Now’s the time to choose for your People’s Choice post, so get your votes in (complete with your chosen post–author/title/link, an excerpt from it + rationale for choosing it). This time around, comments are due by Sun 11/1. As always, looking forward to seeing your choices 🙂
10 thoughts on “People’s Choice Posts #7: ‘See You Yesterday’”
I like Itmam’s reading response “grief and unfairness” because throughout his paragraphs he describes the theme of grief and unfairness using events that happen and analyze to explain his thoughts. For example, “The grief of her brother’s death took CJ to the path of Time traveling multiple times, and each time doesn’t seem to end well.” I also like the point about recording racial profiling. “ In today’s world, we see people pulling out their phones or cameras to record an event like this happening and it’s crazy to me how someone’s phones and cameras are something that can protect them from racial profiling or use it to seek justice. Often we see no action taken instead people’s first reaction is to take out their phone to record.
Overall the blogs for this film were really good and it was really hard to just pick one. I really enjoyed reading Ronald’s in that he gave a good base plot overview that was easy to understand and grasp. I also really enjoyed his analysis of the various important scenes of the movie. He said “Watching See You Yesterday made me question the possibility of what Science could and couldn’t fix” and I have to agree with that because although science has done incredible things for the world, there are still many negative consequences that outweigh those positive things. It is clear at least in this movie that even with a technology as powerful as time travel, there are still things that even humans can’t account for or be prepared for. Overall, I really enjoyed Ronald’s descriptions of the film and how he connected it to a larger question.
Derik’s blog was very touching and intriguing, due to how the final part of the blog he talks about the ending of the film and his thoughts on it. This final part is like an eye opening portion, and so it really gives thought as to what can be influenced by the authors final of the movie. Derik’s constant detailing of how the movie was based on a 10 minute interval, this detailing of how the time needed to save someone, influences CJ’s decision to try to make a longer duration in the time machine. She still feels hopeful for the major part of the movie, and in the end as Derik stated she seems to not want to give no matter what.
I find Ronald’s blog to be pretty good out of the batch for this weeks submissions. Ronald goes into very good detail about the film and even gives his on take on the movie, such as “Science is a dangerous concept that all of humanity has explored one way or another.” This is pretty true as science in the wrong hands can lead to very dangerous things to come that very likely not a lot of people even know about as most of it is kept under wraps from the normal human eye. It is something to keep in mind whenever the topic or even the word science is brought up anywhere. It almost does not matter where it may happen either.
I chose Ronald’s post because I like his main idea that Science can’t fix everything. I agree with this statement as there are many things in this world that cannot be solved just by advancement of technology. While we could maybe temporarily patch problems, there will always be more problems that can’t be solved yet. There is also an ethical problem created by the story when Claudette goes back in time. Even if Claudette saves Calvin completely, we don’t know what unforeseen consequences that may occur because of Claudette’s use of the time machine. We can see an example of this in the death of Sebastian instead of Calvin. So even with all this technology, is Claudette’s actions actually helping or will it hurt other people too?
I found Ronald’s post interesting the most as he goes on great and clear detail/analysis of how science is used in See You Yesterday. I like how he mentioned the idea of “Person vs Fate” as we see CJ not accepting the idea that she cannot bring her brother back with the use of time traveling but as we see with CJ going back to time multiple times, Calvin’s fate has been placed upon him as he is still dead in the end. I also like how Ronald stated about science; “It has cured things, and it has helped plan for things, but there is always the question of how far Science can go in terms of otherworldly things like Time Travel or interfering with time.” I feel like this an important thing to look back when talking about this film as we see science to fix in real problems in the extent that we wouldn’t even imagine, but as we see in the film, time travel does interfere with time and doesn’t go the way CJ wanted it to go.
I enjoyed reading Ronald’s blog on “See You Yesterday” by Spike Lee. I like his title “What if Science can’t fix everything”. He describes Person vs Fate of Claudette constantly kept going back in time to prevent her brother’s death but in the end someone dies. Can science solve everything? As Ronalds said, “there is always the question of how far Science can go in terms of otherworldly things like Time Travel or interfering with time.” I agree with his statement. It’s something to think about if science can solve everything and when has science gone too far.
Derick is right. This isn’t Back to the Future. Putting See You Yesterday in a category with a sci-fi comedy is, as he said, entirely tone deaf. Derick’s personal experiences in his analysis of the film are profound and important — profound in their emotional impact, and important because it shows a situation some people just don’t have to deal with. I’m one of those people.
I live in East Flatbush, near where much of the movie takes place. But I’m in a bubble. I don’t find myself grieving over friends and family who have experienced violence. I don’t have to consider the effects of drugs and alcohol on people around me who try anything to escape omnipresent pain. And the police? The worst thing that happens to me as far as the police is when they don’t say “good morning” to me when I walk by. This is my privilege, and it’s bullshit.
Derick’s analysis is so important because it shows the reality of what he has to experience. It’s undeniable and raw and frightening and maddening. His reality mimics that of the film — not the science fiction angle, but the very existence in which that plot is able to manifest.
Ronald has gone into in-depth detail about the film, and gives his own take on the movie. “Science is a dangerous concept…” Science in itself is exhilarating. Ask a question then figure it out, learning what the end result is. That’s the basic foundation of science discovery. Some discoveries can be phenomenal and life changing. However in the wrong hands anything really could be weaponized and do harm. Take nuclear energy for instance. It can create significantly more energy then fossil fuel ever will, but it can also be weaponized as in the instance with the nuclear bombs we have stock piled. Keep that in mind whenever the topic “science” comes up, that no mater how good something can be there is always a silver lining.
Thanks for all for your thoughts on your classmates’ responses, and congrats to Ronald for winning this week’s “People’s Choice”!