By Thomas H Cullen (UK)
“Hope” and “support”. Detached from the story, of The Thomas Crown Affair, what is it exactly that distinguishes these two terms from one another? First and foremost, it’s support which has the power to apply to the physical realm. Hope on the other hand is the term of the two which is restricted to the unreal.
With that in mind, it’s the general meaning of the glamorous 1999 remake – directed by John McTiernan – that it’s “because of” the lack of support that a force has the ability to be source of hope. It’s when a force, or it’s when a living being lacks a foundation of support that they have the power to inspire others: so, keeping the original issue that was raised in mind, it seems that what McTiernan’s remake is trying to express is that the unreal is something which is meant to be an outcome of something which can be real.
A force of nature has two options: either be physical or don’t be physical. The story of The Thomas Crown Affair is that when this precise force doesn’t exist – the ability to choose doesn’t exist – it means that the ability to inspire exists. To inspire is to influence, in effect enhancing the dynamic to that when the ability to be influenced is lacking, that means that the influencer also loses their power.
The original influencer needs to lose their power, and the way to do that is to fail to have a choice. Since hope is attributed to the original influenced, meaning that the original influencer never possessed hope, the failure of the original influenced has to become the hope. The exact nature of hope has to be the inability to create fairness.
The very truth to hope, in actual fact, is not being able to create fairness, or it’s not being able to create uniform responsibility. The very truth to hope is the frustration that’s created by being disappointed. Being let down, or being disappointed is the exact force of nature that has the power to instil not survival, but something more specific: realisation.
Realisation is a far more precious, and a far less boring trait than just the act of survival. Realisation is an evolution that’s distinct to the evolution of being alive. In the movie The Thomas Crown Affair – which is an incredibly classy and humane movie – the promotion from being alive is generated by the experience of failure. Failure is the experience which allows a life force to evolve from their state of being history.
History isn’t failure. History can’t be failure, because history is the constant. Constant can’t fail. Failure, being the privilege of perpetual change, is then what’s responsible for the meaning of progression being to reject the constant and to still possess the trait of wanting to avoid failure.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) is a brilliant film, as it’s about depicting humanity as the power to reject failure and to reject any constant at the same time. To the same force, freedom can be a strength which maintains onto its purity despite having the freedom to be a weakness. Freedom is real, but it doesn’t have to be real.
The source of inspiration can be the inspiration of being rejected. The thing which lets inspiration happen is also the thing which can play the part of the enemy. Inspiration is the act of hostility, and the act of hostility is what lets the act of hostility die. In The Thomas Crown Affair, its hostility which is the precise force which makes sure that hostility isn’t possible. It isn’t positive, but it’s negative that fights negative.
Negative fights negative, and it does so on the basis that it’s giving the opposite to negative the freedom to be positive as a freedom. Negative fights itself, because that means that happiness and peace can have the privilege of being their states as a choice. Negative sacrifices itself, so that positive can know that it’s chosen to be positive.
Ultimately, The Thomas Crown Affair is a dense intelligence. It’s the ideal as the means, but at the same time it isn’t an actual means to an ideal. The ideal doesn’t exist, and yet the accomplishment of The Thomas Crown Affair is to create the illusion that not only is an ideal real, but that the same ideal can fool itself into being its very own means to itself