Bob and Leo are the SAME PERSON !
-
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. -
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.