^^^I don’t think the implication is (could be) that the entire movie is a dream, just the portion after Cruise is immersed in “prison.”
Sir Rhosis
So what is the point if it the last reel is ‘just a dream’?
I don’t think there is a great point, if it is a dream. As I said, I can easily see either interpretation. I prefer to think that it is NOT a dream, but on the other hand I can easily see it as simply a big stupid “HA HA, GOTCHA!!!” from the filmmakers for no reason other than that.
Sir Rhosis.
I read the short story on which Minority Report is based and, although it’s a cliche and a half, it was a lot more interesting than the movie (which I haven’t seen, but did read a summary of) appears to be.
In it,
The Pre-Crime program is in danger of being discredited and shut down because it wasn’t accurate, so Anderton commits murder and gets sent away for the rest of his life in order to cause events to occur as was foreseen. THAT’S dedication!
It’s about the horrors of fascism – Anderton’s a (roughly) good man who is destroyed by this ostensibly all-seeing all-knowing government system, which is actually all-corrupt.
A.I. spoilers to follow:
That would have been all right, but it would have left the viewer’s empathy with David. In the actual ending, David is revealed as the monster he’s always been and, IME, empathy evaporates and you can look back and see that through the whole movie David is nothing but a merciless id, dressed up in an Osment costume.
–Cliffy
I think an important theme in Speilberg has in many of his movies is the importance of the individual. Certainly the ‘special’ individual. Roy in CE3K, Elliot in ET, Sherriff In Jaws, the Captain in Pvt Ryan. All of these characters saw something in a different way than the others around them. The Captain in PVT Ryan has been denying his individuality but he becomes himself again in time to die.
In Minority Report, the short story, the basic theme is that sometimes, the society is more important than the individual. PreCrime is working fine and dandy and some political group, that just wants power, designs a way to take down PreCrime.
But the movie turns that on it’s head. Who cares if thousands of murders have been prevented? The three precogs don’t have a great life. The draconian punishment in the film is not in the short story. (nor is the dramatic race to catch the killer) The movie is also anti-tech. At least it shows a dark side to tech when it is invasive to our lives. The talking advertisments that call your name were frightening at how this seemed to be something some people would want. So everyone in that society is loosing individuality and the three that have lost the most? The precogs. The wear matching plain jumpsuits and float in a milk bath 24/7.
Someone else pointed out that it is really the female precog that drives the action. It is her story. Look at the woman who was one of the founders of PreCrime but she is no longer part of it. She lives away from the massive town and is surrounded by nature. Nature that will defend her. Where do the precogs end up? Do they live in a 300 story highrise? No, the leave the city, leave the tech, and go live on the beach where they play chess and read a book.
The film has a theme of trusting too much to tech. It’s like a classic Star Trek episode. Do we let the computer run everything. No we don’t because we need human judgement. PreCrime eliminated human judgement. That’s bad. That is too much to give up. Those that would give up a little liberty for security get neither.
If the last reel is just a dream? Then what is it about? Nothing but a cleaver, I GOT YOU, IT WAS A DREAM.
I think the idea *that it was all a dream * is just from people who got burned by The Sixth Sense and now they look so hard at every movie that they can’t see the forrest for the trees.
Exactly! Like I said, Agatha is the one who sets the events of the film in motion, and Agatha can see the future. Why would she bother if, at the end of if all, her mother’s murderer *still * gets away with it? With, in fact, more power over her and the other pre-cogs?
Either it all happened, or it - the entire movie - is Agatha’s dream.
At the time I saw it, I hadn’t thought that the ending was “all a dream,” but the more I think of it, the more I think it’s possible. It was a bit *too * rosy, given all the grim stuff that came before.
Although I liked the movie a lot (for the drama of Anderton trying to hunt down his son’s kidnapper, for the twists and turns in the plot, for the social satire of personalized ads, etc.), the plot hole I could never get over was that PreCrime, having done so well in Washington DC, was going to be expanded nationwide. But… they only have three precogs. How could they possibly extend their consciousnesses to the entire country? How could they see and warn of simultaneous murders-to-be in Anchorage, LA, Boise and Blawnox? It would be simply overwhelming.
Spielberg’s biggest weakness as a director is his fondness of too-rosy endings. And as **Sir Rhosis ** and **Bryan Ekers ** pointed out, the “ending is a dream” interpretation would be a cheat; whatever else his shortcomings as a director, Spielberg doesn’t do “Gotchas!”
Like I asked before, is there anything in the movie besides the line of dialogue and the happiness of the ending to support the idea that it’s a dream? Something established in the real world and then contradicted in the dream sequence, maybe?
If Anderton is haloed and not rescued, doesn’t Von Sydow win? Why would Agatha set up a chain of events in which the murder of her mother wins?
I think the plan was to create more pre-cogs; each city would have its own set.
You’re assuming what you want to prove.
–Cliffy
I wouldn’t figure the inidivudals were dreaming about nice things, honestly. Their (non?) crimes were being played endlesly over and over. Of course, after you go stark-raving mad it might have been quite nice.
I don’t see how. IIRC, they made a big deal of how special, irreplaceable and unique the precogs were - when Agatha was kidnapped by Anderton, the whole PreCrime program ground to a halt. They needed three, and they ONLY had those three.
Agatha’s abilities are clearly limited, at least in part by physical distance. When she puts on an impressive display of precognition in the shopping mall she’s predicting events that take place within fifty or sixty yards of her. Even with the other precogs she can predict murders only wihin twenty or thirty miles or so, and they can’t seem to predict other crimes at all.
There’s nothing in the film that clearly demostrates Agatha’s capable of predicting Von Sydow’s eventual “victory” as a result of the events she puts into motion - and in any event, she never TRIED to put that chain of events into motion. It was Anderton’s decision to yank her out of the tank. And there was no minority report, anyway.
Oh, they could have made more. They just needed to expose hundreds of babies to prenatal drugs.
I would have thought that the fact that Spielberg likes happy endings was common knowledge and didn’t require proving. Nonetheless, I withdraw the statement.
Would you accept, for the sake of argument, that Spielberg makes movies with happy endings?
Would you agree that, in considering his body of work, this penchant for having a happy ending sometimes reduces the artistic quality of the film?
Anyway this is beside the point. Some people feel the ending is a dream; was that Spielberg’s intention, or is it their own personal interpretation? That’s the point I would like to establish.
Here are the points in favor of it’s-a-dream, and my rebuttals:
1. There was no waking up scene.
OTOH. neither was there a scene showing Anderton still in a halo at the end. And even if there had been, couldn’t it have been the old I-dreamed-I-woke-up-from-a-dream-but-it-turned-out-I-was-still-dreaming bit?
*2. The conversation about dreams in the dentention center, and the other examples *Larry Mudd ** mentions.
I agree that fantasy and wish fulfillment are themes in this movie; they’re themes in a lot of Spielberg’s films: Besides this film, there’s Close Encounters, Jurassic Park, Catch Me If You Can, A.I., and so on. So the question is, why do these people say these things in Minority Report? Is it because how dreams influence reality is a question that deeply interests Spielberg, or are they a set-up for the dream ending? If it’s a setup, where’s the payoff? Spielberg is not an ambiguous director; even if he decided not to spell it out with an explicit IT WAS ALL A DREAM scene, I think he would have done more than hint. Is there anything in the movie besides the dialog that would indicate it was a dream? For example, Anderton’s wife is right-handed in real life, but left-handed in the dream. Did anyone see anything like that?
And Larry, I don’t remember the quote “The more you want to believe something, the easier it is to be fooled” at all. When was it said?
3. The ending was too good to be true.
Agreed. But I think it’s more likely that Spielberg likes happy endings and so stacked the deck (too much so, IMHO) in favor of happy-ever-after. I think it’s less likely that he would make the entire film a giant “Gotcha”
And that’s my biggest problem with the it-was-all-a-dream approach. As Anderton’s dream, the movie doesn’t make sense. For those of you who believe it-was-a-dream, please answer this question: Why did Agatha grab Anderton and show him Ann Lively’s murder? What was she hoping to accomplish?
The only way I can reconcile Agatha’s actions with the idea that it was a dream is either:
A: Everything that happens is Agatha’s dream, not Anderton’s dream.
B: Agatha knew Anderton would end up imprisoned; it was worth it to her because Von Sydow’s character was punished and she was freed.
Of course, nothing in the movie supports either of these interpretations. The most straightforward explaination, based on what we see, is that Von Sydow (what *was * his character’s name?!) wins. If anyone can explain why Agatha would do what she did and still have the ending be a dream, I would really like to hear it.
Max von Sydow’s character is PreCrime Director Lamar Burgess.
Thank you! That was driving me crazy. Now if I could just get some responses to my other questions…
Present tense? No, I wouldn’t. I don’t think Spielberg makes movies with happy endings very much anymore.
You keep saying this. I don’t think it’s true, but more importantly, you’ve offered no support for your claim except to repeat it. Just because Spielberg wasn’t an ambiguous director 20 years ago when he made E.T., it doesn’t mean he hasn’t changed as a filmmaker today. I think the evidence is clear that he has. You declare that he hasn’t. I’ve explained why I think so. Accept it or not; I’m tired of the merry-go-round.
–Cliffy
Spielberg’s last 3 movies as Director:
War of the Worlds – Happy ending? Oh, god yes.
The Terminal – Didn’t see it. What say ye? Happy ending?
Catch Me If You Can – Certainly happy ending.
I checked the boards at IMDB and found that this has been discussed several times. I found this tidbit in one of the forums, and it’s a fairly concise dissection of the dream theory: