Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong versus Water for Elephants, Letters for Juliet, and Serendipity
Homework for last class consisted of watching Water for Elephants and Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong. These films were selected to be watched in combination to provoke critical thought that will lead us into the final film for the course. But since most students did not complete the task of watching the films, class discussion was sort of derailed as a result.
Since we are finishing the Letters for Juliet today, let us revisit this task of critical thinking in another form. Each of these films present two individuals who are either both in a “committed elsewhere” relationship or just one of them is in a committed relationship. Through the course of the films, these two are brought together by circumstances of the plot.
Where Letters for Juliet, and Water for Elephants justify this new unity between protagonists as the end result of the climax for each film, Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong ends the film before this already formulaic climax, thus leaving the audience suspended on what the ending could or should be.
The ultimate discussion is then, what should be the ending in Already Tomorrow in Hong Kong? This is a film without an ending. What are the implications for this? Why are Josh and Ruby drawn to each other? Is what they are doing morally acceptable and appropriate? Why or why not? What actions should Josh and Ruby commit to in the ending of the film? Be sure to pay close attention to the details of the film as the majority of the film is literally two separate conversations between two individuals with no other main characters and significant side characters. These details should be cited as a way to justify your claim on the “missing” ending. And also take consideration of the other films we have watched, specifically Water for Elephants, Letters for Juliet, and Serendipity. Oh, and do not forget another film that would be helpful, Before We Go.
When discussing your thoughts, be sure to treat this as an academic essay where one must define one’s terms, like “cheating”, “scoundrel”, or “fate”, and so on. This discussion prompt will be worth 30 points because of its complexity