Bob and Leo are the SAME PERSON !
-
EruditeGoof — 19 years ago(November 06, 2006 06:22 PM)
What about the scene where Bob tells the knock knock joke "I'm a schizophrenic and so am I"? Schizophrenia is often associated with Multiple Personality Disorder. Just something I'd thought I'd point out.
-
pamdalove — 19 years ago(March 03, 2007 10:02 AM)
MAybe its bobs way of becomming completely tied to Leos physe, like u can;t beat him now that hes directly related i mean the moment he and lily are married, Leo snapps back into life. perhaps its his mind finally identifying with the fact that he and bob are now of the same family(or life) theres no getting rid of him now this can be taken literally or figuratively
-
justinmacri2032 — 17 years ago(May 18, 2008 03:24 PM)
wait i am confused you mean to say Bob and leo are the same man like from diffrent time line? I do not see them look alike unless your saying oneof them is from the past and future. How can they be alike if they do not even know if there are time travelers or lost brothers i do not understand. All i can see the movie like any other movie unless you can please clear this up with a you tube clip?
Justin
Bond James Bond -
jay_brown71 — 17 years ago(October 23, 2008 12:33 PM)
Hey Justin, sorry, I haven't visited this thread in a long while, so I hope you get this message sometime. I would just reply with this clip from my original post -
"So, at first, I thought that this line was just a clever allusion to the fact that both Bob and Leo are battling their own psyche. But then I thought it might be deeper than that, and maybe Bob and Leo represent the two sides to one man, both battling for control. Now, I guess I mean this figuratively, and not literally, as other characters in the movie see and interact with Bob independently"
I think that addresses your question.
Jay -
fatcouchpotato — 19 years ago(November 04, 2006 04:17 PM)
Truly insightful interpretation. How odd that your analysis is of a person who is an analyst with his own un-concluded analysis brought about with a person possessing all the personality quirks he hates to see in his own self.
The Metal Man From Titan
"Till All Are One!" -
courtney-strahan — 19 years ago(November 08, 2006 10:42 AM)
I watched this movie last night specifically for a Psychology courseLooking at it critically, I right away found that Bob and Leo could easily (figuratively) be the same man. Or, with that other person (i forget your screen name, sorry) I can also see how Leo could essentially be schizophrenic. Altho, I am not as well versed with Stephen King, so I didn't pick up on the allusion to George Stark. Good eye, mate!
CS. -
Eboran — 19 years ago(November 13, 2006 10:12 AM)
"I watched this movie last night specifically for a Psychology courseLooking at it critically, I right away found that Bob and Leo could easily (figuratively) be the same man. Or, with that other person (i forget your screen name, sorry) I can also see how Leo could essentially be schizophrenic."
I know it's common for people to confuse Dissociative Identity Disorder with Schizophrenia, but you should probably try not to make that mistake in your Psychology course.
-
-
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(November 10, 2006 05:56 PM)
OK, I promise, this will be my last contribution to this line of thought. Apparently I haven't gotten a life yet, nor a new car I might add (I guess the carburetor is shot on my old car), but, I digress
hamerhead12 points out that Bob and Leo have a physical confrontation. I don't mean to sound like a broken record here, but I did mention that I meant all of this to be taken figuratively and not literally, HOWEVER -
Since I will now have to assume the role of someone defending my hairbrained interpretation of this flick, I shall do so with grim and pathetic determination. I direct your attention to defense exhibit A - Fight Club - a movie in which the split psyche of Edward Norton has many physical altercations with his alter ego Brad Pitt (sorry if I have ruined that for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but its been out for a while now, good flick btw). Furthermore, now that I think about it, we see Brad Pitt interacting with others in that movie, and only in the end do we realize that this was just a way for the director to show us which side of Norton's charachter was in control at that moment. So, with my new found solid ground, I now feel that this view could indeed be taken a little more literally, if we use the Fight Club parallel as a template.
I rest my case, I mean case closed, no wait, see you in a few days probably -
Kumiko_Okada — 19 years ago(November 21, 2006 12:45 AM)
Jay Brown71, you totally rule and deserve all the life you can get. I was not getting this movie at all until reading your posts here. Not only is this interpretation fascinating, it brings to mind a specific novel by Dostoevsky, The Double. I would go so far as to say that the script may be a deliberate riff on that book, effectively updated. Are you familiar with it?
-
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(November 25, 2006 10:51 AM)
Dear Sir,
Further to your comments and compliments above, thank-you very kindly. No, I am not familiar with this novel, I am sure that I am not as well read as I sometimes allow myself to think. However, after viewing your post, I did some rudimentary poking around on the net, and found this little gem :
"Like Notes From Underground, The Double is a close examination of human consciousness, through an unreliable narrator. I repeatedly raise the question whether this imposture really happens? Does the Golyadkin junior (the double) really exist in cold fact? What really happens at the end? Perhaps the real horror of Golyadkin senior (whom Dostoyevsky eventually refers him as our hero) is that he unconsciously knows his double simply being the side of his own nature that he disapproves, despises and fears? Regardless of the existence of the double, the imposter has simply trampled Golyadkin in the mire, perfidiously intruded him, and showed clearly that the senior and also the genuine Golyadkin is not genuine at all but a counterfeit, and that Golyadkin junior himself is the real one. The book is a portrait of the darker side of despicable personality that magnifies to the full actuality."
Your post has intrigued me greatly, and I am grateful that you took the time to mention your thoughts on the possible connection (an homage? - inspiration?) between this movie and the work of Dostoevsky. I am going right now to another site I found to read what appears to be the work in question -
http://eserver.org/fiction/the-double.txt
Should you find the time, perhaps you could let me know if I am viewing the complete work here, of just the Cliff's notes.
Thanks again, I think you may have torn this case wide open.
Regards,
Jay -
susanguidof — 19 years ago(December 02, 2006 12:21 AM)
WOW JB'71 your analysis is something special! I'd love to see the director's reply to it!! Can't wait to see the film again, with a copy of your analysis in hand. Forget the car, chicks would flock around for your brain! Lucky wife!
-
sstovall-1 — 19 years ago(January 15, 2007 11:15 AM)
I gotta tell you that you (all of you) have really taken what I think was meant to be just a funny movie and dissected the living bejesus out it.
The only thing I ever saw in this movie was
BOB: A guy psychiatric hypocondriac(sp.) who just never felt comfotable in the world in genreal and so used all those phobias as an excuse and went to a pyscho-analyst to achieve some huamn contact.
LEO: An man who desires to be a famous psychiatrist (had he been a chef I'm betting he would have written a book called Baby Dumplings or some such). To become famous he has jumped on the psychiatric gimmick of the week band wagon and written a book for the "Personal Growth" section of Barnes & Noble. He even seems to know that the premise of the book is complete horsesh**, but hey if it's gonna get him on The Today show and make him big bucksOh Well.
It is their interaction that gets Leo to lighten up a little and appreciate his family more, and gets Bob to not worry so much. After all most people feel that even comedys have to have some significant message to them at the end.
Bingo end of story. At least that's my take on it. Much more simplistic I know but for cryin' out loud it's a Bill Murray comedy not a David Mamet play. -
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(January 21, 2007 01:36 PM)
I think you're right. Then I remember the George Stark comment. I must conclude that this name cannot be mere coincidence, and at the very least might be some "in" joke by the writing staff.
Anyway, you are also right that it is a funny movie. I guess that after you've enjoyed it a few times, you start looking for other ways to keep on enjoying it. Like watching it with someone who's never seen it before (any movie btw, not just WAB), showing it to your kids, watching it while your at the lake
or by reading to much into it and trying to imagine there's more to it than meets the eye.
The only comment I might debate with you is that just because it is a Bill Murray comedy and not a David Mamet play does not mean that it must be simplistic, even by comparison. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, there are some beautiful camera shots, my personal favorite being of Leo getting up at the dinner table with his face half in the dark, and, imo, some nice subtleties in the dialogue, story, and the acting. But maybe thats one of the things that makes a good movie - interpretative flexibility - if you don't feel like cake, just lick off the icing.