Bob and Leo are the SAME PERSON !
-
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. -
sstovall-1 — 19 years ago(January 26, 2007 09:40 PM)
JB, first let me say that I never meant to belittle your opinion of the film, or would I ever attempt to diminish someone's enjoyment of a film, song, play, etc. even if it was one that I didn't care for myself.
Obviously we all watch movies from our own point of view. You are someone that appears to be heavily involved in psychology and saw the characters and messages in WAB from that vantage point, and then drew your interpretations.
I thank you for posting those ideas and starting a conversation about the movie that we can all enjoy. I am rather new to IMDB but it seems that most of the boards are "who should be in the remake?", "this movie is the best (or worst) movie ever and beep you if you dont agree" rantings. So again bravo for starting something with a little more to it than that.
I agree with your kudos to the production, directing, and writing staff on this movie. I did not mean to say that comedys are souless bits of drivel. While some of them fit that category, some of them (too few in my opinion) do incredible things on a multitde of levels, and break ground that drama or action movies would be afraid to try. MAS*H/ This is Spinal Tap/ The Blues Brothers/ Defending Your Life/ Shakes the Clown/ What's Up Tiger Lily? just to name a few. I also agree that the quality and professional pride that goes in to cinematography, and other technical aspects of these movies can equal that done in The Godfather or Citizen Cane.
My point was just that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Then again sometimes a cigar is a raging, rock hard, ginormous C==K.
Then again sometimes we all are. -
jay_brown71 — 19 years ago(January 27, 2007 03:20 PM)
Dear sstovall-1,
While trying not to turn this into some marijuana fueled 60's hippie love-in, let me just say, peace brother.
I never in any way took offense at your post. If I can express my thoughts here, than so can everyone else. And we all do it with the pre-requisite understanding that our comments are themselves subject to judgement and reciprocation.
When I said I think you are right, I wasn't patronizing you, I meant it sincerely. I've gotten carried away with this line of thought, and you stepped up and gave me the necessary slap in the face. I do still think there is something lurking just beneath the surface in this film, but I don't believe that uncovering it is integral to understanding or enjoying it.
Now, let me get sidetracked for just one moment. An old friend of mine was, well, lets just call him Ned Flanders. One day, Ned and I were discussing a book that we'd read, "Hawaii" by James Mitchner. A good bit of it deals (in a fictionalized account of history) with the Christian missionaries arriving in the islands to "save" the godless inhabitants by teaching them about Christ and yada yada yada
Anyways, Ned, my friend, made some comment abouut feeling sorry for the natives. I agreed, thinking that Ned and I were on the same page, but as our conversation progressed, I realized that he felt sorry for the natives because they didn't know Christ and they were so backward until the missionaries showed up to save them. When I explained that I felt sorry for them because the missionaries came and destroyed their way of life, made them renounce their gods, and told them that all their ancestors were burning in hell, well, Ned and I had quite a heated debate. I don't talk to Ned much anymore. I guess it didn't help that his father was a missionary. But anyways, where was I, oh yes, the point is that it was the first time that I realized that two people could read the exact same text, I mean identical, but be doing it from two so completely polarized points of view that it's almost as if they were reading two different books.
If I had been just a little wiser back then, Ned and I might still be friends, because now, thanks in part to imbd, I realize that when someone says "hey, heres what I thought of this movie", its not right or wrong, its just what they thought. -
Miss_Jena — 19 years ago(February 12, 2007 01:16 AM)
highly interesting findings here!! but stephen king's "the dark half" (about george stark) was published in 1989. "what about bob?" came out in 1991 so you figure it was filmed in 1990. could someone really have written, cast, produced and filmed the entire movie in the span of one year??? i think you may have examined this film a little too far it's kind of like how discovering the pink floyd/wizard of oz connection but not.
i love "what about bob?" for what it is a comedy that has a lot of plot and is always moving. -
HillCityColonel — 19 years ago(February 13, 2007 06:22 PM)
agreed.
its a movie. 2 characters. DIFFERENT people.
true in fight club the 2 characters interacted with the same people, but never at the same time.
in W.A.B? for example, bob and dr marvin talk to the same people at the same time. also, the old couple who owned the genstore hated dr marvin and loved bob. when bob was in the asylum, the dr called dr marvin to come back and get him. NOT the same people. at all. with all due respect.the whole idea is retarded. -
kron500 — 19 years ago(February 25, 2007 11:13 PM)
My personal opinion is that this movie very much mirrors an episode of Seinfeld called "The Opposite". In that episode George has a run of good luck, finds 20 dollars, gets hired by the Yankees, gets a new apartment ect; meanwhile Elaine has a run of bad luck, loses her apartment ect ect For every good thing that happens to George a bad thing happens to Elaine; by the end of the episode essentially George has become Elaine and Elaine has become George.
In "What About Bob" a similar argument could be made. At the beginning of the movie Leo is on top of his game, getting a feature on Good Morning America, celebrating a best selling book ect ect. Meanwhile Bob is a complete mess, can't even get in an elevator, bus, use a payphone ect ect.
As soon as Bob and Leo meet the chain of events sets off. From this point on everything that goes well for Bob has a negative impact on Leo. To make a long story short by the end of the movie Bob has basically become the Leo from the start of the movie He returns to Psychiatry, has a best selling book ect
Meanwhile Leo has basically become the Bob from the beginning of the movie, so messed up he can now barely function. Remember he was reduced to this point by the negative impact Bob has had on his life.
So to tie everything together the wedding scene shows the complete opposite of the beginning of the movie. Bob is rolling on top of his game and Leo is completely messed up in a wheelchair.
There is a hint at a sequel most likely titled "What About Leo". The reverse chain of events begins with the negative impact Leo has on Bob's life when he sues him over the "Death Therapy" book.
I had to do a report on this movie in school a few years back so before you ask, yes I do have a life. -
MrPrudence04 — 19 years ago(March 02, 2007 04:39 PM)
Interesting thoughts, although I am going to have to swim against the tide here and disagree. I think this was nothing more than a comedy with a decent, progressive plota rare thing these days, and perhaps such a rarity that it drew you into your analysis.
What I did find great about this comedy was that I can't decide on whether it is to be deemed as "light hearted" (which admittedly is what I'm leaning towards) or actually quite dark.