Wasnt he still furious at her at that point? Thought she had betrayed him?
I never got the impression that Westley was genuinely angry at Buttercup. She pushes him down a ravine, and his response is, essentially, “I love you.”
Yeah… because she proved herself.
Maybe he wasnt mad, and was playing some kind of long game…but it seems a cruel and dangerous lie. Funny enough, we’ve stumbled back into the OP.
I lean towards him mostly believing she was faithless because it makes him more human, young and a tad petulant. Despite him coming off as Batman for the preceding 16 minutes…when he berates her, he looks like a broken-hearted farm boy.
Like the urban legend that one of the Little People committed suicide in The Wizard of Oz.
The amusing thing is - with a low-res source, like broadcast TV, it really does look like someone being hung. But, when viewed on a modern TV, with a nice, remastered source, it’s obvious that it’s just a big bird bowing its head.
Oh wow. I’ll need to re-watch the scene. Thanks
I think he did believe that she’d betrayed him and wanted to hear her story. When she tumbled down after him he knew she still loved him, and that’s why he said what he did whilst rolling.
Except your timing is backwards. She throws herself down the hill after he says “As you wish”.
Yes, that’s right.
1)j’accuse! That she doesn’t love him!
2) she retorts and shoves him, and he know she does love him
3) Aaaasss yooouuu wiiiisshh!
4) She tumbles down after.
On a completely different note (and I’m not sure if this fits in with the OP’s premise):
Total Recall (1990) attempts to the make the case that the story, from the time that Quade goes to Rekall to get a vacation on Mars implanted into his memory, is indeed an implanted memory – it’s all happening in his head. I don’t buy it. There are too many scenes that happen outside of Quade’s frame of reference (e.g. Ricter’s conversations with Cohagen, Ricter finding Lori in the apartment after Quade punches her out) – if this is an implanted memory, how can he remember things he did not see and hear? The only way We The Audience should be able to see these scenes is if they are actually happening.
Okay. Change my mind. (Just don’t use the chair, please. It frizzes my hair.)
Were the in-full-color scenes in Oz a dream that Dorothy was having, including the ones where she wasn’t around to see and hear what was going on?
Well, again, are we sure the Land of Oz was a dream? Even if it was populated with characters who looked startlingly like friends and enemies of Dorothy?
I’ve always heard we don’t dream in color. So, logically, Oz is real and Kansas is a dream.
I dream in color. According to the books, Oz is real and every one of Dorothy’s adventures really happened.
The original Michael Myers in the 1978 film isn’t superhuman. He gets injured and incapacitated several times by a teenage girl. Getting shot six times and running away after a one story fall isn’t a superhuman feat since countless real life people have been shot multiple times (or worse) and remained conscious enough to flee. As an example Roy Benavidez sustained dozens of wounds in a firefight in Vietnam but only went unconscious after several hours of fighting and managed to live after medical treatment.
I don’t recall any dreams that weren’t from my literal point of view, but I don’t recall many dreams. Is that something people never do? That is, do people never dream events they are not physically present for, not in their field of vision or other senses?
Every dream I remember has me as the central character. Not necessarily me as myself, but me as the central consciousness. I’ve also always dreamed in color, as far as I can remember, but never, ever in Technicolor!
(Total Recall 1990, on poster not believing it’s all in his head).
In which case explain the single sentence which was said by the tech just before he was plugged in:
That’s a new one, Blue Sky on Mars.
This describes exactly the rest of the movie. The scenes in his imagination are whatever, artistic license. Perhaps he’s aware of them. Perhaps helps with the ambiguity.
Or do you believe it is just a coincidence that the end of the movie just happens to be exactly the same as the implant which triggers his memory returning?
I personally find it pretty conclusive, and enjoy the ambiguity of the tale even after that simple conclusion, that it was all a dream.
I can’t find the scene in youtube, but isn’t there also a brief flash of the Rachel Ticotin character, who Quaid doesn’t meet until he is has his ass on Mars, on the same screen with the “blue skies on Mars” memory program?
Me, I think the movie works either way.
Are you thinking of this?
I don’t think it works either way. The point was to make it ambiguous enough to make it play either way short of a silver bullet to explain it. And it had that silver bullet. Along with the video of a character which will appear (I’d forgotten about that). Sure, you can ignore that silver bullet and go that way, but it is there, and the film is explained by it.
So then the paranoia and weird shit is to be seen as it is.
It’s a bit like someone arguing that the red pill in the Matrix didn’t do what it was said to do. Sure, you can watch it that way, but you’re kind of watching a different movie from the creators intention…
But to just say, that people think it is the other way doesn’t drive me crazy. Not even that when it’s explained. It’s more like the ones who walked out the Matrix confused, or the ones who thought Fight club was about cancer or fighting.