Two more points to support your thesis:
-
calvincrack — 15 years ago(May 22, 2010 10:13 AM)
This reminds me of the theory about "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" where Ferris is an alter ego created by Cameron who is more like the person Cameron wishes he could be.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/04/30/the-ferris-bueller-fight-club-theory/
and
#4 on this list: http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/
As for your theory, i love it (and everyone else's posts were very interesting to read as well). I agree that the George Stark reference is more than a coincidence and even though the book was published in 89 and the movie in 91, lines are often added to a film during production by the director, writers or actors. So, if the movie was already a comedic play on Dostoevsky's "The Double" and someone involved was a Stephen King fan (or a fan of the book) then they might have thought it fit with the theme very well to tease that name. I think that anyone familiar with "The Double" (i am not) would be able to pick up the similarities while watching "What About Bob" but it just so happens that the George Stark line led us all out there (thanks to you).
I've loved analyzing this movie for a long time. I now find it hard not to pick up on the subtle layers which are weaved into the film. My main theory about the movie is that it is a portrait of how ridiculous the idea of psychotherapists can be when they are liable to be unstable themselves. That's the premise and then a farce proceeds out of that showing how Bob was able to undermine someone who thought himself to be so stable.
Let's not forget that Leo isn't the first psychologist that Bob has driven to the brink of insanity though, since he was released by the first guy (who looks directly at camera and says: "I'm FREE"). So it appears that Bob has been "The Double" for perhaps a series of psychologists until they are finally able to shake him - him being their unstable/dark side - and then they are mentally "FREE".
Now of course Bob and Leo aren't actually the same person a la Fight Club, but I think that it's more than fair to say that they represent a personality conflict (that might happen in one's own head) metaphorically and are represented as a patient undermining the doctor. Really, it's what the patient REPRESENTS that undermines the doctor and Leo is clearly at a loss with how to deal with such a problem despite his profession. -
jay_brown71 — 15 years ago(May 30, 2010 06:03 AM)
malibulax - first, thank-you for posting that link with the crazy fan theories. I found that interesting.
Second, your post is eloquent and simply stated, and I think it fits perfectly in this thread. When I made the original post, I was just trying to express this idea that had been nagging at me for a while; I never gave any thought to how fascinating the debate and input from everyone else could be, for or against, it doesn't matter.
Lastly, this long after the original post, and with all the time and thoughts of others to consider, I thought maybe I would redefine my position on all of this -
A) I don't "literally" think that Bob and Leo are the same person. I mentioned several times that I meant it figuratively.
B) Having said that, I DO think you could have had a final scene showing Leo in a straight jacket in a padded cell, shouting at Bob to shut up while Bob is bouncing off the walls in his own straight jacket, and panning out through the small window in the door, we see a doctor asking his wife who Bob is, and her shrugging as they both look in at Leo sitting alone in the cell - a la "A Beautiful Mind". But no, I don't think it was ever meant to be that kind of movie, I just think you can enjoy it on another level if you look at it that way.
C) The question might be "Why would you look at it that way?". Well, as some have noted in the thread, where it must begin and end is "George Stark". You can't pull that name out of the air. If you read "The Dark Half" or even saw that movie, this would all seem a lot more plausible (in a supernatural Stephen King way at least) - maybe it would help if I explained a little more about George Stark -
wikpedia has it pretty good -
Thad Beaumont is an author and recovering alcoholic who lives in the tiny Maine town of Ludlow (the setting of Pet Sematary and about an hour away from King's fictional town of Castle Rock). Thad's own bookscerebral literary fictionare not very successful. However, under the pen name George Stark, he writes very successful crime novels about a violent killer named Alexis Machine. When it is learned that Thad Beaumont is really Stark, he and his wife Elizabeth decide to stage a daylight funeral for the fictional Stark during a People magazine photo shoot. His epitaph at the local cemetery says it all: "Not A Very Nice Guy".
Stark, however, emerges as a physical entity and goes on a killing spree, gruesomely murdering everyone he perceives responsible for his "death"Thad's editor, agent, etc. Thad, meanwhile, is plagued by surreal nightmares and is soon visited by Sheriff Alan Pangborn (a main character in the novel Needful Things), asking questions Thad cannotor does not want toanswer. Thad's voice and fingerprints are identical to Stark's, causing Pangborn to believe that Thaddespite having alibisis responsible for the murders.
Thad eventually discovers that he and Stark share a mental bond, and begins to find notes from Stark written in his own handwriting. The notes tell Thad what activity Stark has been engaging in. Observing his son and daughter, Thad notes that twins share a unique bond. They can feel each other's pain and at times appear to read the other's mind. Using this as a keystone to his own situation, he begins to discover the even deeper meaning behind himself and Stark.
Pangborn eventually learns that Thad had a twin. The unborn brother was absorbed into Thad in utero and later removed from his skull when the author was a child. He had suffered from severe headaches and it was originally thought to be a tumor causing them. The doctor who removed it found the following inside: part of a nostril, some fingernails, some teeth, and a maliformed human eye. This leads to questions about the true nature of Stark, whether he is a malevolent spirit or Thad manifesting a multiple personality. Thad eventually vanquishes Stark, but the book ends on an unhappy note with Thad's wife having serious doubts about the future of their relationship: Thad not only created Stark (if unintentionally), but a part of him liked Stark and his bloody-minded, psychotic outlook on life.
So, I guess for me, the use of the name George Stark is what keeps fueling this line of thought. And I believe that once you are familiar with THAT character and story, you can draw a lot of parallels to What About Bob.
To all who have posted here, and may check back every now and then, you guys are awesome and I want to sincerely thank you for all your input and ideas. -
MrBook_ — 12 years ago(April 18, 2013 09:57 AM)
This reminds me of the theory about "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" where Ferris is an alter ego created by Cameron who is more like the person Cameron wishes he could be.
I love stuff like this. Even if it's not intended by the creators, it's interesting possibly even more so that way, because it shows so much creativity on the part of the viewers who come up with it, and how rich the original is that it can inspire this kind of thinking.
You want some ice cream, in case there are no gay people there? -
mamu2 — 15 years ago(October 05, 2010 12:57 PM)
Interesting.
You probably aren't frequenting this board anymore but I'd be curious as to what your opinion is of the older couple whose dream house was bought by Leo. They hate Leo and love Bob for making Leo's life hell.
They would still hate "fun Leo" (Bob). -
jay_brown71 — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 06:09 AM)
"Interesting.
You probably aren't frequenting this board anymore but I'd be curious as to what your opinion is of the older couple whose dream house was bought by Leo. They hate Leo and love Bob for making Leo's life hell.
They would still hate "fun Leo" (Bob)."
Well, I do check back here from time to time because I like everyone's thoughts and contributions to this thread. So, after pondering for some time, I suppose the old couple could represent LeoBob's mother and father.
I think I'll tell my wife that we're going to watch it again today, its been a few years now, and I'll see if I can make that hold up, or if I had any more thoughts on the matter.
We did watch "The Machinist" last night with Christian Bale. My wife had some trouble with it due to Bale's appearance (he lost so much weight you could see his ribs and spine, admittedly it was disturbing and cring worthy). Not to spoil that movie for anyone, but I might suggest viewing that movie with WAB and this thread in mind. A warning though, it is dark and disturbing. -
Zimmy-Z — 14 years ago(September 15, 2011 05:34 PM)
To the TC: This is the absolute worst post I have ever seen on IMDB. I can't even begin to point out all of the errors in it, it's shockingly bad. You have over analyzed to the point of insanity and it all spiralled out, like a mad firework, because of a name being the same as in another piece of work (which happens ALL the time). In fact why is it George Stark? Surely it could be George Starke, the football player. Let's also just ignore that WAB had begun filming by August of 1990. The Dark half was published in November 1989. It's highly likely that the screenplay and script of WAB had been written before The Dark Half was even published.
Here's a hint for you: If you are going to ignore the artist's intentions and what is actually present you can basically apply any hypothetical framework to any piece of literature, film-making etc. Simply because there is so much other work out there, such a massive depth of psychological issues etc.
If you want you can watch an episode of the Smurfs and view it as a commentary on communism. Papa smurf being Karl Marx (they even look similar!)and trying to have his people live a life where all smurfs are equal. While the horrid Gargamel is capitalism, only caring about wealth and viewing the smurfs as a resource. However it's still going to be a frivolous pursuit. All just 'intelligent' musings that are actually painfully hollow. Although having read some of the posts in here I'm sure you will in fact now begin viewing the smurfs as such. -
PutTheGlassesOn — 14 years ago(October 10, 2011 08:44 PM)
Jeeze Zimmy-Z, I don't know how a guy can get so bent out of shape over something that someone else (Jay 71) has repeatedly stated in a friendly, non antagonistic way is not an attempt to definitely change someone's mind, merely just to get them to consider it. So you disagree with it- a few other people did, too. No need to rip into someone. After all, look at what you're doing, blowing up over a frickin' movie. Whether you love it, hate it, love this thread, hate this thread, whatever, it's all about fun. That's what talking about movies should be- even if someone reads something serious or deep into it. I don't mean to sound snarkey myself here, but lighten up.
I like the idea of the post myself. I have also always wondered about the George Stark reference. I don't necessarily agree with all the points in it, but the George Stark notice is something that should at least make you wonder. If not, no one is forcing you to.
Notice, a lot of other people seem to think Jay's point has some merit. Maybe your post represents Karl Marxexcept it's a post world where everyone is supposed to see things the way you do.
If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature -
PutTheGlassesOn — 14 years ago(October 12, 2011 07:24 AM)
And I just want to say to Jay Brown 71 that I think you've raised a truly unique and interesting point by bringing up this subject. I have always loved What About Bob? and have seen it many, many times. It's one of the films my family and I make a point to watch at least one or two times a year together.
And more importantly as relates to the IMDB boards, your approach is kind and thoughtful. It's refreshing to see you take both support and criticism (may be too strong of a word) over your original statements so well. I think the fact that this board is still here after several years and that people just like myself respond to it so often is a sign that no matter what, your point has raised some degree of question- or at least conversation.
In regard to the specific scene that was the impetus for your post, I don't know why, but I have always remembered the name 'George Stark' from that line of Anna's. It wasn't until about a year ago that I started getting really, really into the works of Stephen King. And one day, I went to my local library and was thumbing through some of the various books they had from him and stumbled across The Dark Half. When I read a little bit about its premise, I laughed when I saw the "pen name" for the main protagonist listed as George Stark. I immediately smiled and thought to myself 'The guy Anna is going sailing with in What About Bob?' lol. Although I quickly realized that King's book was published before the movie came out- although not too far behind.
Now upon reading your post (which I had the good fortune to stumble upon only because I was checking up on anoher WAB? post I put up a few months ago) I found your suggestions exciting and utterly crafty- it would be neat if there were all these hidden suggestions/plot devices/points in the film, set there by the filmmakers.
In my own opinion, I do not think that is why the 'George Stark' part was put in or any of the other things that happened event wise in the movie did, but I really like and can appreciate your thinking so much about it or at least toying around with possibilities. I love when people do that, especially because I am such an ardent movie fan/watcher myself, plus to the fact I love talking about movies and especially because of my newfound enjoyment of Stephen King's works.
And I also admire your poise and sincerity with everything. Each reply post of yours is nothing but nice and again it's so refreshing to see. This has been my favorite IMDB post to respond slash contribute to ever and it's thanks largely to your remarks done in such a respectable manner. I sincerely hope you reply back the next time you check up on the status of your post. Once more, thanks for such a thought provoking and fun post, my best- PutTheGlassesOn
If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature -
Dash_Riprock — 13 years ago(June 17, 2012 10:49 PM)
This seems to be a theme of numerous stories probably from the time of Homer, as it is a mind effer to realize the antagonist and staid-upright victim are the same person.
I myself am not literate enough to cite classical works, but the movie Neighbors with Belushi and Aykroyd comes to mind as possibly similar.
I also saw a movie with Johnny Depp as an author who was blackmailed and stalked by a man who accused him of plagarism after writing a blockbuster book. Sorry I can't remember its name.
Overall a very interesting thread on a good but unrespected movie. -
Burning_Sosobra — 13 years ago(July 11, 2012 10:51 AM)
That movie with Johnny Depp, who was accused by John Turturro's character of plagarism is Secret Window, a movie adapted by a Stephen King story. Interesting points made on this board, and I'm a few years late to the game, but some very cool ideas stated here. Perhaps a tad over the top analysis of a great comedy, but good points nonetheless. I wouldn't expect such scrutiny over this film, I certianly wouldn't over-analyze it, but that's just me. Can't say I agree with the OP's points, but it's a cool thought anyways.
As a side note, What About Bob? is playing on TV right now as I'm posting this. I haven't seen it in years, it's always a nice treat to watch this.
In Vino Veritas: In Wine there is Truth -
Veriiitas — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 05:52 AM)
Good Analysis. I can see how you came to this conclusion, and it is indeed thought provoking.
however there are some flaws in your theory..
bob's interactions with leo's family did not indicate in anyway that they were one and the same person, just the opposite
They can not occupy the same space at the same time? - just the opposite mate, this is the only case where two persons can occupy the same space at the same time!, because they are one and the same - same matter, two different personalities.
and yet, not being able to occupy the same space at the same would be further proof that they are two different matters, but if you mean that this is all happening in his mind then it would make no sense to say they cant occupy the same space because it wouldnt proof anything, a person can have several thoughts at the same.
actually the opposite of what you said would be more accurate, two personalities of the same person are more likely to occupy the same space depending on the persons psyche, however they can not be at two DIFFERENT places at the same time, if they are one and the same, which happened more than a few times in the movie, with witnesses having been at both ends at the same time.
Also, how can he Unchoke himself?, you said he cant let leo choke, because if he dies bob dies too, but if they are both supposed to be the same person how can he save himself from choking?
in the end Bob married leo's sister, i do not think leo would marry his own sister.
sorry i didnt give more points but im writing this based on my memory of the movie the last time i saw it which was almost two years ago. -
MrBook_ — 12 years ago(April 18, 2013 09:21 AM)
LOL, that's brilliant. And it makes the family laughing and having fun with this guy and loving him so much make perfect sense. He's their dad/husband, when he's in "fun" mode. Why did I wait until today to check out the board for this movie?
You want some ice cream, in case there are no gay people there?