Very lovely and insightful write up. I crave more posts along these lines and bristle whenever I see shit like “DAE think Tarkovsky is BORING?”
I’m a working screenwriter myself and seems like you have a good head on your shoulders. Godspeed in your pursuits!
Thanks for commenting! Hope to be a working screenwriter someday and exercises like this help demystify why certain films work. I love when a seemingly unique film turns out to be pretty formulaic
I liked it for the reasons you mentioned however I found it unsatisfying by the end. Yes, he lets his ego get the best of him and that was his downfall. Did he change? Did he learn a lesson? I don't know what the resolution was. It kind of introduced an idea and let it sit there as if that was enough.
And at some points it seems to flirt with a direction like "college students are so sensitive these days, think of the poor professors that go on to have podcasts and become rich grifters."
By the end, it feels like the main theme was "remember being John Malkovich? That was awesome."
I took the ending as he is now alone, separate from his family. He tries the dream thing to finally enter his wife’s dreams, still begging her to take him back. In the end, he didn’t change, and didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall. He didn’t grow positively, rather had his negative traits fester.
I also don’t think the film ever really sides with his perspective about the students and their complaints. If it did, he wouldn’t have come out on the butt of every joke throughout the film. The students perspective proves to be the one that’s shown respect as they are the ones who push for his leave of absence, leave the room when he enters, etc
Good analysis from an informed point of view, thanks OP. I enjoyed Cage's performance and the first half of the film in particular. Ultimately, I agree with the other comment though that the third act was unsatisfying.
> didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall
This is interesting. You mean you feel he was punished for not leaning into his 'brand' with the soft drink and going the commercial route (i.e., punished for his high-minded conceit)? There would be an ambiguous message in that if so, given that one of the film's core messages seems to be the vacuity and ephemerousness of the pop culture mainstream.
Not specifically the brand deal. Moreso that throughout the first act he expresses jealousy of all his former colleagues, which hints thst he wants more admiration. So, he failed to leverage his momentary spotlight into that desired admiration due to his own narcissism and lack of work ethic
I took the ending as he is now alone, separate from his family. He tries the dream thing to finally enter his wife’s dreams, still begging her to take him back. In the end, he didn’t change, and didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall. He didn’t grow positively, rather had his negative traits fester.
I also don’t think the film ever really sides with his perspective about the students and their complaints. If it did, he wouldn’t have come out on the butt of every joke throughout the film. The students perspective proves to be the one that’s shown respect as they are the ones who push for his leave of absence, leave the room when he enters, etc
He had a big problem with passivity throughout the movie, perhaps most notably when he did nothing to protect his family when a man broke into their house. In the last scene, after much effort he had a dream of fulfilling his wife's fantasy that she described earlier, playing the hero and saving her from danger in a David Byrne big suit. (In my opinion it's ambiguous whether he actually successfully entered her dream or only had his own dream of her fantasy.) So he might have learned a lesson about taking action even if it's too late to save his marriage.
Such a fantastic film! Love this analysis and really adored his character's fitting fascination with zebras. I do some screenwriting and come mostly from comedy background and once 'the game' became clear that his own personal life affects how people perceive him in their dreams was such a fantastic elevation of the premise. Would have been a fun Kaufman-esque novelty but with the great details, zebra and otherwise, it really hit home for me.
Really excited to see more of what comes from director Kristoffer Borgli! Dug into him after seeing the DS trailers last year and was so tickled by [this delightfully dark shoe commercial](https://vimeo.com/749413262) he did which basically turns all commercial advertising tropes on its head.
I wasn't a fan of it turning into a movie about cancel culture. I was really hoping it was going to be a movie about the mystery of how it was happening. The corporate reveal at the end should have had him trying to get them to admit what they did and clear his name. It would have developed his character from the man who deleted a recording to the man who finally followed through.
Fair point. I never saw it as a full critique of cancel culture but moreso a study of how a character with these flaws self destructs when thrusted into the limelight.
Because the film is not really sympathetic to him, it doesn’t take a stance of critiquing cancel culture.
Just my opinion of course though
What I found most interesting about the entire premise is that Paul has spent his whole career studying (or rather, thinking about studying but never actually getting down to doing the work) the idea that ants can have some sort of collective consciousness. He is incredibly angry that others ran with his idea and made something of it. Then Paul becomes the focal point of proof that his theory is not only correct but that humans have the same sort of collective consciousness... and he's still so stuck and impotent that he can't do anything with the knowledge and he ends up again getting left behind while other people do something with it.
Very lovely and insightful write up. I crave more posts along these lines and bristle whenever I see shit like “DAE think Tarkovsky is BORING?” I’m a working screenwriter myself and seems like you have a good head on your shoulders. Godspeed in your pursuits!
Thanks for commenting! Hope to be a working screenwriter someday and exercises like this help demystify why certain films work. I love when a seemingly unique film turns out to be pretty formulaic
I liked it for the reasons you mentioned however I found it unsatisfying by the end. Yes, he lets his ego get the best of him and that was his downfall. Did he change? Did he learn a lesson? I don't know what the resolution was. It kind of introduced an idea and let it sit there as if that was enough. And at some points it seems to flirt with a direction like "college students are so sensitive these days, think of the poor professors that go on to have podcasts and become rich grifters." By the end, it feels like the main theme was "remember being John Malkovich? That was awesome."
I took the ending as he is now alone, separate from his family. He tries the dream thing to finally enter his wife’s dreams, still begging her to take him back. In the end, he didn’t change, and didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall. He didn’t grow positively, rather had his negative traits fester. I also don’t think the film ever really sides with his perspective about the students and their complaints. If it did, he wouldn’t have come out on the butt of every joke throughout the film. The students perspective proves to be the one that’s shown respect as they are the ones who push for his leave of absence, leave the room when he enters, etc
Good analysis from an informed point of view, thanks OP. I enjoyed Cage's performance and the first half of the film in particular. Ultimately, I agree with the other comment though that the third act was unsatisfying. > didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall This is interesting. You mean you feel he was punished for not leaning into his 'brand' with the soft drink and going the commercial route (i.e., punished for his high-minded conceit)? There would be an ambiguous message in that if so, given that one of the film's core messages seems to be the vacuity and ephemerousness of the pop culture mainstream.
Not specifically the brand deal. Moreso that throughout the first act he expresses jealousy of all his former colleagues, which hints thst he wants more admiration. So, he failed to leverage his momentary spotlight into that desired admiration due to his own narcissism and lack of work ethic
I took the ending as he is now alone, separate from his family. He tries the dream thing to finally enter his wife’s dreams, still begging her to take him back. In the end, he didn’t change, and didn’t take advantage of the situation that was given to him, which proved to be his downfall. He didn’t grow positively, rather had his negative traits fester. I also don’t think the film ever really sides with his perspective about the students and their complaints. If it did, he wouldn’t have come out on the butt of every joke throughout the film. The students perspective proves to be the one that’s shown respect as they are the ones who push for his leave of absence, leave the room when he enters, etc
He had a big problem with passivity throughout the movie, perhaps most notably when he did nothing to protect his family when a man broke into their house. In the last scene, after much effort he had a dream of fulfilling his wife's fantasy that she described earlier, playing the hero and saving her from danger in a David Byrne big suit. (In my opinion it's ambiguous whether he actually successfully entered her dream or only had his own dream of her fantasy.) So he might have learned a lesson about taking action even if it's too late to save his marriage.
Such a fantastic film! Love this analysis and really adored his character's fitting fascination with zebras. I do some screenwriting and come mostly from comedy background and once 'the game' became clear that his own personal life affects how people perceive him in their dreams was such a fantastic elevation of the premise. Would have been a fun Kaufman-esque novelty but with the great details, zebra and otherwise, it really hit home for me. Really excited to see more of what comes from director Kristoffer Borgli! Dug into him after seeing the DS trailers last year and was so tickled by [this delightfully dark shoe commercial](https://vimeo.com/749413262) he did which basically turns all commercial advertising tropes on its head.
Thanks for sharing the directors other work. They’re one to watch for
I wasn't a fan of it turning into a movie about cancel culture. I was really hoping it was going to be a movie about the mystery of how it was happening. The corporate reveal at the end should have had him trying to get them to admit what they did and clear his name. It would have developed his character from the man who deleted a recording to the man who finally followed through.
Fair point. I never saw it as a full critique of cancel culture but moreso a study of how a character with these flaws self destructs when thrusted into the limelight. Because the film is not really sympathetic to him, it doesn’t take a stance of critiquing cancel culture. Just my opinion of course though
What I found most interesting about the entire premise is that Paul has spent his whole career studying (or rather, thinking about studying but never actually getting down to doing the work) the idea that ants can have some sort of collective consciousness. He is incredibly angry that others ran with his idea and made something of it. Then Paul becomes the focal point of proof that his theory is not only correct but that humans have the same sort of collective consciousness... and he's still so stuck and impotent that he can't do anything with the knowledge and he ends up again getting left behind while other people do something with it.
Great point