Okay, okay, now , just stick with me on this, and if you liked this movie as much as I did, read this and then watch it
-
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. -
-
beaverman225798 — 18 years ago(August 08, 2007 07:30 AM)
i saw it as bob was taking leos "saneness". you can see as bob is getting better, leo is getting crazier. not, same, person. but if you want to see it as that, i can understand your points.
Dictionary.com ppl -
CheerZ — 18 years ago(August 12, 2007 08:41 AM)
Well
It could be that the family is "playing along" calling Leo Bob anytime he acts cool and loose.
As for the psychiatrist in the beginning, it could be that Leo was his patient when he was in his "Bob"-persona and the psychiatrist just figured that signing Bob as a patient to Leo, would eventually help Leo get along with his "Bob" persona..
The George Stark comment could have been added there at a later stage as a clue. -
KelTron42 — 17 years ago(December 06, 2008 09:38 AM)
That would have been an amazing twist to this movie! At the end, the audience realizes that "Bob" is really a split personality created by Leo's psyche!
It would've made the line "You think he's gone? He's not gone! That's the whole point! He's NEVER GONE!" much more deeper and the line where Anna says "Bob is fun!" and Leo says "Your father's kind of fun" would've held much more merit!
"Just because you ARE a character, doesn't mean you HAVE character."
-Winston Wolf -
Thosewhoplay — 17 years ago(January 11, 2009 02:53 PM)
I like your attitude. But if this was really intentional, in my opinion, it would have resulted in a very different movie with a much more scrutinized, and less relaxed sort of dialogue and dynamic. You may have found elements which fit your premise, but there's just too much that doesn't fit.
I'm just not seeing the Fight Club in What about Bob.
By the way, do you know Fellini's 8 1/2 ? 8 1/2 is the ultimate in a character being split in several personas. In fact each detail of the film represents some particular aspect of the protagonist/Fellini.
Also check out Bergman's "Persona" if you never have.
