Movies where they let the audience be confused

[Meatros]

@panamajack

Primer. There’s about one or two scenes of expository explanations, but there’s an awful lot that’s not explained (including a relatively important line that’s barely audible, and mostly known only from the DVD subtitles). And you can’t get much more confused than this movie.

Came here to say this.

I had to watch that movie a few times in order to get it.

[CalMeacham]

The movie MEMENTO (was that the name? about the guy who can’t remember anything, and the movie is told backwards?), IIRC, explained very little.

You should write it down someplace safe, so you can remember it.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=120190&highlight=Daffy+Memento

[Mahaloth]

@AlsoNamedBort

Dark City was almost like this, but the studio forced the director to include an opening narration to explain things.

Interesting to note that Nolan included Dark City in a list of movies that inspired Inception. Nolan’s movies are usually light on narration and throw you right into the action (especially The Prestige), so I’m interested in the direction that Inception takes.

Yeah, there is a director’s cut of Dark City that leaves you confused by not having the opening narration. I always muted the regular version anyway, so this is really convenient.

Funny you mention Inception. First thing I thought of when I saw buildings rising and falling was, “Hey, it looks like Dark City!”

[Ichbin_Dubist]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind mixes up what’s “really” happening with scenes taking place in Joel’s self-destructing memories, and the events in both threads are shown out of chronological order. For example, it’s not immediately apparent that the opening scene of the movie is one of the last things to happen chronologically (ie, Joel and Clementine are meeting again after already having had the relationship that that’s shown later in the film).

[Gatopescado]

Don’t get me started on the works of David Lynch.

[GrandWino]

Schenectady, NYwas confusing as hell.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Bob Ducca

Schenectady, NYwas confusing as hell.

It’s so confusing, you don’t even know what city you’re in!

[WordMan]

@Colophon

I’ll second this. I’ve only seen it once but I was intrigued and would love to see it again. (What’s that important line you mention, btw?)

Agreed - regarding **Primer **- what is the line you mention panamajack? I freakin’ lurve that movie.

[Contrapuntal]

@CalMeacham

**

6.) This may be opening a sore point, but when the film was released, Deckard wasn’t supposed to be a replicant. I dug out an interview with Ridley Scott from the time of the film’s release, and he explicitly says “We considered making Deckard a replicant…” which indicates to me that that isn’t the case. Reportedly, neither Ford nor Hauuer thought he was while they were filming, and hated the idea when it was later suggested. There was nothing suggesting it in contemporary reviews or writings. And it sure as hell isn’t the case in the novel.

So who says he was a replicant?

[dmatsch]

@panamajack

Primer. There’s about one or two scenes of expository explanations, but there’s an awful lot that’s not explained (including a relatively important line that’s barely audible, and mostly known only from the DVD subtitles). And you can’t get much more confused than this movie.

seconded. I’d add that there were ONLY one or two scenes in which you actually knew what was going on, and from which time line the characters were from (there were about 5 or 6 different timelines).

[panamajack]

@Colophon

I’ll second this. I’ve only seen it once but I was intrigued and would love to see it again. (What’s that important line you mention, btw?)

When they’re in the garage, and Abe says, “What did you call him?”. When the friends show up, the line is “Hey, hero!”. On top of that, it comes in the middle of a confusing reference to a birthday gift that you don’t find out about until later (the records).

[Peremensoe]

I much prefer films in which things must be figured out by watching them, and it doesn’t come all at once.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Contrapuntal

So who says he was a replicant?

Ridley Scott. Who is dead wrong. I don’t care if he was the director, Deckard WAS NOT a replicant. And I even like the original ending too.

[CalMeacham]

So who says he was a replicant?

Lots of people, many of them on this Board. Some of them defend this point of view with religious ferocity, which is why I worded it that way.

[Contrapuntal]

@Justin_Bailey

Ridley Scott. Who is dead wrong. I don’t care if he was the director, Deckard WAS NOT a replicant. And I even like the original ending too.

Oh. I understood **Cal **to say that Scott did *not *say so. Even if he has said it, I find it a bit hard to swallow. And somewhat pointless as a plot device.

[CalMeacham]

Ridley Scott.

Ridley Scott is saying it now. I’m pointing out that in an interview from 1983 in Omni he seems to be saying that he did not – then. In fact, I don’t recall anyone saying that Deckard was a replicant until the past ten years or so. Certainly no review or magazine article was making that claim when the film came out (I was there, and read them all). If Scott thought that was the case back in 1982, you’d think he’d have mentioned it as some point.

[BrainGlutton]

@CalMeacham

Bladerunner is definitely a case of this. They leave out key information, much of which you can eventually figure out,and some of which is a stretch for the audience to get, but it all would’ve helped enormously to let tyhe audience in on earlier in the film. Some of these facts:

1.) we’ve had a big war, and the effect has been to make life on earth worse. I believe in the novel, Earth is more radioactive; in the movie, it might be environmental – they don’t make it clear.

2.) One result has been to kill off lots of animal species. This is why the Voight-Kompff test makes such a big deal about killing animals or saving them, or possessing things made of leather – it’s a major crime to kill them, and probably not to sabve them if you can. It’s also why it’s assumed that the snake and the owl are animal replicants – artificial animals are more likely than real ones. And why the snake has serial numbers on its scales that can be traced.

3.) The environmental effects have screwed up California’s weather, which is why it always seems to be raining.

4.) California culture has turned even more polyglot, with a lot of Asian (the noodle bars, Geisha advertising imagery, street argor), although with other stuff (the street argot has German mixed in.)

5.) Because of the war, Earth is no longer the best environment for people either. In the novel, they wear protective clothing. In both novel and movie, people are encouraged to go to the offworld colonies , but the movie never makes this clear why. William Sanderson’s character failed the physical, which is why a talented guy is still on Earth.

6.) This may be opening a sore point, but when the film was released, Deckard wasn’t supposed to be a replicant. I dug out an interview with Ridley Scott from the time of the film’s release, and he explicitly says “We considered making Deckard a replicant…” which indicates to me that that isn’t the case. Reportedly, neither Ford nor Hauuer thought he was while they were filming, and hated the idea when it was later suggested. There was nothing suggesting it in contemporary reviews or writings. And it sure as hell isn’t the case in the novel.

7.) It really bugs me that Scott, in an interview, complained that “American audiences hate having introductory crawls” giving information. Not onlyt isn’t it true (What the hell starts every Star Wars movie?), but Scott even starts Bladerunner off with such a crawl. Which contains vital information (like what a replicant is), but leaves out pretty damned vital stuff (all of the above.)

And at that, the version originally released has all that expository voice-over, which is distinctly lacking in the director’s cut.

(Without the voice-over, the audience would assume Rachel has a four-year lifespan just like every other replicant, adding tragic-romantic pathos to the ending where she goes away with Deckard. Gorram Executive Meddling, I calls it! :mad:)

[Rrose_Selavy]

There are movies like The Usual Suspects where after some deception there is a kind of reveal at the end.

Then also the often deliberately disorientating surrealism of Luis Bunuel such Un Chien Andalou (with Dali) and his later works.

[CalMeacham]

Without the voice-over, the audience would assume Rachel has a four-year lifespan just like every other replicant, adding tragic-romantic pathos to the ending where she goes away with Deckard.

And how do you know that it was intended for her to have a longer than four year span?

It seems to me that saying that she might live longer, like the getaway into the sunny mountains, was another tacked-on “happy” ending. More than likely Rachel wasn’t intended to have a longer life. Deal with it.

[WordMan]

@panamajack

When they’re in the garage, and Abe says, “What did you call him?”. When the friends show up, the line is “Hey, hero!”. On top of that, it comes in the middle of a confusing reference to a birthday gift that you don’t find out about until later (the records).

Interesting; I may have to go re-watch it again. But ultimately, you are saying that

Abe is wondering why Aaron is being referred to as a hero, because he doesn’t realize that Aaron has been re-doing the party scene until he can get it right and save the day from the whackjob who shows up with the gun…