Have you seen Paprika from(I think) the same director?
Let’s just say this poster for it doesn’t even begin to capture the weirdness and confusion.
The Shining - why is Jack in the photo?
Bryan Singer and Christopher McQuarrie had a pretty big falling out over The Usual Suspects. I believe this difference of opinion over the plot was a big part of it:
Personally, I’m of the opinion that the story is mostly true with just a few flashes of false information. And I think because most of what Verbal tells Kujan can be crosschecked and confirmed as he’s telling the story, so it has to be true or else he might not make the escape he’s planning to.
He’s dead now and part of the “party” of ghosts.
Yes! Man, there were some cool visuals in that movie, and I love the detailed animation and the look of Satoshi Kon’s anime, but I couldn’t make goddamn head nor tails of Paprika.
I’m just not seeing the problem here.
Dreaming about the unicorn is supposed to mean something to Deckard; it serves as easy symbolism, as obvious conceptual shorthand, or whatever, right? It’s supposed to be so mind-bogglingly clear that we’ll have no trouble realizing what the unicorn stands for; the whole thing is achingly straightforward.
So naturally that’s the origami figure Gaff would use – dream or no – to express the same idea, right?
So you think that he made the unicorn with no knowledge whatsoever of Decker’s dream, and the explanation is that the unicorn symbolizes something that happens to be important to both Decker and Gaff (or obvious that it’s important to Decker in Gaff’s mind)? What do you think it symbolizes?
Well, yeah. I mean, in the version of the film I first saw, we don’t even get to see the dream; we just see Gaff leave a little origami unicorn for Deckard at the end, sure as he’s been whipping up meaningful origami figures throughout, and it’s supposed to make sense all by itself, and IMHO it does. I later discovered that Deckard is supposed to dream of a unicorn, and figured it could’ve been for the same reason: it symbolizes the same thing, so cause-and-effect can rather blandly work the same way both times.
(That said, I actually prefer the “He’s A Replicant” interpretation over the opposite; I just prefer “It’s Ambiguous” over either, and think no slam-dunk prevents it.)
Rachel.
**12 Monkeys **is pretty damn confusing in some aspects, such as what exactly is the lady scientist doing on the plane at the end? It seems pretty logical that she’s travelled back to get the pure virus sample. But we’re not sure what’s really going on with her and her companions. Someone on this board said about 12 Monkeys that no matter how you put the pieces together, there’s always one left over that doesn’t fit.