It was based on a Philip K Dick story. The mind-fuckery was kind of the point. “How do you know it’s real?!?” was a major theme of most of his works.
There’s also the fact that the “alien artifacts” to be part of Quaid’s recall experience are pictured on the preview screen at about 0:39 in your clip. The atmosphere generator he encounters later is identical to the picture.
Yes, thanks!
The comments talk of a deleted scene where she tells Quaid she used to model for Rekall, blurring the lines between “dream or reality”, but it was removed.
And the paranoia.
Oh, the paranoia.
Actually, although he’s famous for it, it’s less prominent in most of his work than you’d think. There’s not a ghost of a hint that Deckard is a replicant in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, for instance. Nor of the fan theory about Minority Report. And in We Can Remember it for you Wholesale, it’s pretty clear by the end that Quayle* clearly WAS a secret agent hiding under a mental imposition.
*They changed the name in the movie to Quaid because we already had a VP named Quayle at the time.
I do remember both of those, as well as the fact that the alleged psychiatrist who tries to convince him in the Mars hotel room that he’s having a schizo hallucination (or whatever) is the same actor who advertised for the commercial rocket ride to Mars. Of course, that scene also occurs after he’s been to Rekall.
I think my reticence to accept the dream scenario is the anxiety is sets up: If he’s in an extended dream, where is Quade in reality? Is he in a hospital in a catatonic state? Not exactly a dream scenario – pardon the expression. It really icks me out.
Hey, I got here late, but I’m going to settle the debate on Total Recall 
The whole point of the film is that it is supposed to be left ambiguous whether it is a dream or reality. Unlike something like Pan’s Labyrinth, there are no subtle hints that one interpretation is really the correct one, although the director (of TR), has stated that he thought most viewers would think it real on first watching, and later lean towards dream on later reflection and repeat viewing. But neither interpretation was meant to be “correct”.
So, yeah, it’s important to the set up that they state some facts at Rekall that later turn out to be true. But bear in mind that Quaid had been having recurring dreams about Mars and then chose the specifics of the scenario he was about to have.
So, under the interpretation that it is all real, it wasn’t a complete crapshoot that they got a lot right, because it was based on his real memories in the first place.
Meanwhile stuff like seeing his girlfriend on the monitor at Rekall, is just part of the “movie” aspect of the movie IMO. Just like seeing scenes that Quaid is not a part of. It’s more of an easter egg for repeat viewing that something we’re supposed to base our conclusion on.
Right. I know we’re all supposed to believe in the death of the author and all that, but if the guy who wrote and directed the movie expressly says that there’s no answer to a question, then we’ll never find an answer no matter how hard we look.
Whoops, typo. I meant there *are* subtle hints that one interpretation is the correct one in Pan’s Labyrinth, and there isn’t anything like that (or at least: there isn’t meant to be) in Total Recall.
This reminds me of a somewhat related issue that pops up in movie and stage productions of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.
In the original story, Scrooge is present as the observer/participant throughout. No actions are described that do not occur in his presence. Some may be inferred, but very few. When movies or stage productions show Bob sliding on an icy street or being greeted by his family as he arrives home, they are departing significantly from Dickens’ intent. He cleverly wrote it so it is absolutely plausible that Scrooge’s redemption, along with all the things he saw or heard, could have been a product of his own mind/imagination.
IMHO, it dilutes the impact of the story to have scenes and action occur outside of Scrooge’s presence, whether real or imagined by him.
Like Buffy, in Normal Again, Trapped in his/her own head, forever.
I have to disagree with you here. Dickens himself wrote the scene with Bob Cratchit celebrating Christmas my taking that icy slide on the street, with Scrooge nowhere in sight.
Your theory of “it’s all in Scrooge’s head” is appealing in many ways, and most of the story is told through his eyes, but it’s not exclusively so.
“A poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every twenty-fifth of
December!” said Scrooge, buttoning his great-coat to the chin. “But I suppose you must have the whole day. Be here all the earlier next morning.”
Actually, that is taken directly from the original story.
The clerk promised that he would; and Scrooge walked out with a growl. The office was closed in a twinkling, and the clerk, with the long ends of his white comforter dangling below his waist (for he boasted no great-coat), went down a slide on Cornhill, at the end of a lane of boys, twenty times, in honour of its being Christmas Eve, and then ran home to Camden Town as hard as he could pelt, to play at blindman’s-buff.
OK, I can see your point. In my reading, I’ve always taken this passage as more of a reflection of what Scrooge thinks happens after he leaves. Bob closes up as quickly as he can and then goes off to play. The narrator consistently describes Scrooge’s state of mind and opinions. It would be consistent with Scrooge’s opinion of Bob, though the provision of details regarding location would argue against it.
And, since I touched on it above, I’m always impressed with how little Scrooge is actually quoted in the story. Stave Two is a good example, especially his meeting with the first spirit. The spirit might be quoted asking a question and Scrooge’s response will be described, rather than quoted. Nothing wrong with this…it just seems a bit unusual. (Example: “Scrooge reverently disclaimed all intention to offend or any knowledge of having willfully bonneted the Spirit at any period of his life. He then made bold to inquire what business brought him there.”)
You know there was a sequel:
I did not.
And now I’m going to forget it.
Well, there are dozens of Oz books and several films. So yes, Oz is supposed to be a real fantasy land.
Right.
They just cheaped out with the “it was only a dream” thing in the film.
Right, and it gets away from the whole idea- the replicants were just as human as Deckard. If Deckard is a replicant, then the point is gone.
Not to mention saving the Earth from the aliens.
Johnny Carson Voice- “I did not know that!”.
I thought that Pan’s Labyrinth was delightfully ambiguous right up until the end, but the ambiguity was completely resolved when she used the magic chalk to actually escape from her locked room. Is that what you were referring to? Because I didn’t think that was all that subtle.
A fact that I’m well aware of, having played Scrooge in the play in middle school. I was off stage for all of about eight seconds (in which I had to do a quick costume change, I can’t remember if it was from bedrobe to street clothes or the other way).
Yes, that’s what I had in mind. I thought it was subtle.
I mean, not the event but because we have seen magical stuff with an alternative interpretation throughout the film. Certainly on my first watch it didn’t occur to me that that was one event which is really hard to explain if you go with the “it’s a dream” interpretation.
Which is why I don’t like that episode. I’ve got problems with Season 6 as a whole, but that episode is in its own category of Ick.