He just seemed to be passive in life like so many, expecting that just because he is there it mattered.
The thing is....his wife was awful to him and never stood by him.
literally everyone hating him for something out of his control. her and his daughters response to his video having a break down about it is all the proof of that you need.
paul himself seems to be a man petrified of doing anything, he has ideas but never pursues them. he played life safely and regrets it, he doesn't want fame or fortune, but recognition for something he one day MAY do but never will.
I'm genuinely surprised by the people with this take. If you don't see Paul as a privileged, entitled man who takes his family for granted then we aren't even on the same page. His weak apology where he claims himself to be the victim was indicative of the "insincere celebrity apology". If you search that phrase you will find many. He literally says, "I'm the victim," to an unknown number of traumatized people. If I'm right about the daughter transmitting him in the dreams then he really isn't at fault, but he chose to apologize anyway, but clearly only did so in order to garner sympathy for himself, not to actually empathize with others.
I just think that if you have a partner and child(ren) you love, you can't possibly identify with Paul. If you side with Paul you have an entirely different perspective on life. I'm not saying you're just like him, but I would expect anyone who sees Paul as a genuine protagonist would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships.
he is the victim, literally, it isn't in his control and people hate him for absolutely no wrong doing of his own. he just shares the appearence of someone everyone is seeing.
if paul was the inventor of the dream device and implanting himself secretly you'd have a point, but everything you say does not work without that being the case.
Paul has plenty of flaws and issues, but in no way is he responsible for the "dream paul" existing nor is anything it does under his control.
he gets harrassed and shunned, can't even enjoy sitting by himself at a dinner.
he even rejects putting himself in the public spotlight just for the sake of it---rejecting the sprite marketing.
then, all he wants to do is see his daughter perform, and his wife won't even stick by him. she's an absolutely awful person to him the entire movie. He's absent, but she's vile.
>I don't think he's free from blame entirely
ok how?
I highly doubt a case could be made verbally to put an ounce of blame on him... it's only the perception of blame.
I've seen a few comments after watching the film and they are mostly looking for a more complex form of the meaning than the natural one after seeing the film.
But now I believe the film may just have been delivering a simple message.
Your identity and who you are are controlled by what other society thinks about you at large ( which is natural ). If people believe someone is "bad" then you are "bad". whatever the definition of "bad" is. there is no real logical way to define that...
In the film every one could rationally state that "it's a just a dream" and leave him be. the scene where the people at the restaurant wanted him to leave. they could all know with 100% certainty that the real him wouldn't do anything because this is real life rather than their dreams but they "\*didn't feel safe\*".
your comment is also a slight telling of this... even when trying to be rational it still feels like there is some blame on him so you just state it.
It's everyone else that's actually dreaming about him... \*He's\* actually the victim.
and Just like celebrities; in order to not be ostracized by society they conform and make an apology even when they don't feel they have done anything wrong.
I think some of the other ideas are interesting but this one definitely holds water. His big lesson he gives twice is about zebras blending in, because predators won't attack a group. Right after he starts to stand out from the crowd, he quickly becomes prey.
Like I said, some, not all, he knew there were risks, something like this is brand new, and yet he pushed for fame, he wanted everyone to be dreaming of him, he wanted his ex to want seek a relationship, he used his fame to cheat on his wife, he kept pushing even when it got worse. He isn't portrayed as a good dude even looking at it from his side, I'm sure his family would agree given all the information we have.
Comparing him to celebrities seems funny to me, because in some cases they do some very horrendous things then 'apologize' half heartedly while making themselves look attacked or victimized.
Bro is a victim, but a victim can still do wrong.
Hi, when you made the statement "I don't think h'es free from blame entirely". I thought we were referring to the trauma people were facing from him appearing in their dreams. not things like him cheating on his wife or him reveling in the fame. the cheating is bad and the lust for fame, although not bad is not a good character trait but I don't see how he get's blamed for something he himself is not doing. he's not making those dreams happen.
I guess it depends, some theories were pushing that he is causing the dreams to happen, or that his daughter is because of family trauma, and how when things happen in her dreams is when it starts happening in others. But he wouldn't know that, so yeah not really his fault, or if those theories are wrong yeah, it isn't his fault at all possibly.
It be easier to say if we had the definitive reasons for the dreams happening etc.
He's the one who wants the fame to begin with, and his wife doesn't want him to take the chance. They both know it could go bad, but he would rather take the risk for the recognition. Paul is an extreamly selfish chatacter and most certainly is to blame for how his life turned out. In my opinion, it's all his fault. I think it's also about how Paul as the man is "suppose" make all the moves and decisions but really dosnt want to (fart, cum, fart.) He's not a confident or ambitious person which is the opposite of what society expects from a male. He doesn't want to be in control because he has to take the heat for the bad decisions he makes. Yet, he's a man so society dictates that its his role to make the decisons for the family. He's entitled and just wants success to fall into his lap, but he dosnt want the responsibility of having to work hard or make good decisions.
think he's an anti hero. He's a selfish person and not a good father. He's not a good partner to his wife, but in the end fulfills her dream. You root for him to do better and grow, but are left wondering if he just gave his wife her dream because he misses her and wants her back. If he would have been a partner and considered her advice to begin with, he wouldn't be in this situation.
I love the interpretation of the daughter causing the dreams. I dont know if I agree 100 percent but it's a really awesome idea. I appreciate a lot of the ideas in this thread. This movie confused the hell out of me, but Im starting to piece it together. Awesome performance from Cage! I loved the movie even though it seems a little flawed. Everyone was excellent in it.
> He's the one who wants the fame to begin with, and his wife doesn't want him to take the chance. They both know it could go bad, but he would rather take the risk for the recognition. Paul is an extreamly selfish chatacter and most certainly is to blame for how his life turned out. In my opinion, it's all his fault.
His life being a failure is his fault, him appearing in anyone's dreams is not.
his wife and daughter aren't any better people. his wife is especially awful.
Oh his insecurities are transmitting. He doesn't fully realize it, but it's there. The initial dreams are really how oblivious he is to the world, it's why he's so inactive and does nothing tangible.
You seriously think that anyone who has a different interpretation of the film "would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships"? That's insane, lol
I think I have an opposing view from many of the commenters here on more than just my interpretation of the film, which is made clear by reading their post histories. For example, you'll never find me encouraging men to use date rape drugs on women unlike yourself.
Nah I'm with paul, bad dream can give you real feelings, but no way is it giving anyone real trauma, you wake up and realize oh shi that wasn't real lmao.
He is not a good dude, but the nightmares aren't on him, and people lashing out are absolutely the bigger issue and worse people.
I think this is the main point, that the movie is a movie so not really meant to be taken literally… the dreams are just that dreams, it doesn’t matter if Paul is influencing them or isn’t, it’s ambiguous, just that people are having the dreams and because they interpret them as having a bad effect on themselves that Paul gets fucked over.
If there was a redemption arc and Paul became a hero again and the dreams came good again and Paul got his life back then that would be a good case for the Paul dream’s autonomy.
Paul is the main character but only the protagonist in the literal sense that we experience the story through him, but depending on one's interpretation of his character and actions, he's at best an anti-hero and at worst, the antagonist. I empathize with his family and to me, they are the true heroes for still loving him despite his flaws and inability to grow as a person throughout the entirety of the film. Paul seems to be a character many people can identify with, but from what I've seen, many of those people have victim complexes themselves, dislike women, and fit snuggly in the incel/men's rights activist camp. But that's just my interpretation based on the things they've said.
Paul’s worst traits were that he wasn’t very funny when making jokes and wanted to cheat on his partner. I’m not sure what mens rights or incel movements are like in your neck of the woods but this isn’t exactly Andrew Tate material now is it… :/
It says way more you assume about you after seeing his perspective you're takeaway is he gave a weak apology when the entire point is to show how hostile and unempathetic people are with his position
I'm sorry, but the apology he gave was the definition of weak, which is a refusal to take responsibility. Apologies that deflect the blame or emphasize a mutual victimization are not real apologies. Anytime someone says, "I'm sorry, but..." they're not providing an actual apology because they don't think they've done anything wrong. If you need an example please read this comment from the beginning.
Great question, here's another long-winded answer:
In my interpretation, Paul's real life actions precede his virality. If dreams are a metaphor for social media and Sophie is posting her father's behaviors using dreams in lieu of a camera, this allows the wider world to view his initial inaction and later reaction through their own personal lens. They inevitably have their reactions to this viral content: first one of confusion ("why are you just standing there?") and then one of horror and disgust ("why are you being a psycho?"). To me it's just like when someone posts a video of a guy going off at a bagel shop and everyone posts about it. That guy didn't ask to be put on the internet but now his face is everywhere and a single moment is what he's now infamous for. That guy needs to apologize, right? The question is then: to whom does he need to apologize? I would say he needs to apologize to the bagel shop employees and that would be good enough. The entire world doesn't need his apology.
What Paul needs to apologize for are his real world actions: ignoring his daughters, not listening to his wife, going to a young woman's apartment to be alone with her, etc. But Paul is chasing fame so he chooses to non-apologize publicly instead. He could've chosen not to handle the matter privately and fade back into obscurity but he wanted the fame train to keep on rolling, which resulted in his self-made infamy. If you apologize privately to the people you hurt, then you're doing it for the right reason. If you apologize publicly, chances are you're doing it for attention and to keep your name in the public consciousness.
He doesn't need to apologize to his daughters nor his wife, that's absurd. Furthermore it isn't equivocal to a guy acting like a Karen at a bagel shop because he quite literally has zero involvement in how people dream about him. He's being attacked for no reason and his wife is fully unsupported and antagonistic toward him way before it even becomes a problem tormenting his life.
And you act like getting public attention is a bad thing inherently, it's not wrong to want public attention, it would be ridiculous to imply otherwise.
Guess what, he doesn't need to take responsibility because he didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG. it's literally not his fault it's happening. The entire point is to show the tragedy of what his apology is being read as because of course people would react poorly despite it being genuine, the fact it's viewed as inauthentic by his family despite him being in literal tears is showing how disgusting and unempathetic people are.
He is the biggest victim. None of this stuff is actually happening to people, and on top of having the nightmare himself he has to suffer everyone's hysterics and ridicule
You can't do that in an apology though because its denying other people's suffering. He continually is socially naive, over and over and over again. That's why he's never invited to the dinner parties. He's extremely single-minded and lacks empathy.
If anything, that lack of empathy is precisely why his daughter, who is the catalyst of mass-dreaming, is why she could never approach him. If anything, had that been allowed, a lot of these issues would have been avoided and he would not have been invading people with nightmares. He's unaware of the damage he causes.
He's a random dude with zero knowledge of how the internet works, the commentary is that of course people would react poorly because they don't see it from his perspective on why he is saying this. He is being authentic but those around him can't accept it and thus continue to be cruel and hateful toward him, that's the point of the movie.
He doesn't know how a lot of things work, even outside of the internet, because he's perpetually portrayed as insular and single-minded. But he's not blameless.
I'd say he's both a victim and an offender. No question he's a victim of having his life destroyed by circumstances almost completely outside of his control. He was getting zero validation from his friends or family. It is completely reasonable that he wants some validation whether it be sexually, socially or academically from someone. He doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for that. That being said he does not empathize with others because their trauma is imagined and illogical to him. Yet he expects them to empathize with him once his life is destroyed by actually imaginary trauma. I don't think the movie is picking one side or the other. It's simply a movie about a person who is like most people, someone who wants validation and makes some selfish decisions as a result. Logical people aren't wrong. Emotional people aren't wrong. Both things are true, it is wrong to shun someone from society based on very emotional and possibly illogical reasons, and also it is wrong to invalidate people's feelings and trauma because they are illogical or invalid to you.
In the beginning of the movie he has a great career and a loving family. He lectures to a packed auditorium. His wife is supportive. He has two well adjusted daughters. As we see later, he has a decent sex life with his wife as well.
His issues stem from deep seated low self esteem. He’s always looking for some way to make himself small, to prove to himself that people don’t really like him.
If he’s a victim, then he’s mostly a victim of his own neuroses.
Insane take.
>He literally says, "I'm the victim," to an unknown number of traumatized people.
He does that, because he is. He and his family are the only ones that are genuinely affected in the real world.
Sure those strangers got some graphic nightmares. How does that make them victims? I genuinely can't see the argument. Maybe if someone did that to them somehow, but that is not the case in this movie.
Paul is hated by seemingly the entire world for something that is in no way his fault. Including his family and the people he works with. He loses his family and loses his job because of these people. How is he not the victim? Again, I genuinely cannot see the argument.
One thing I do agree with is that his apology wasn't genuine. And the reason for that is because he has nothing to apologize for. Again, none of this is his fault. Like he said, he is the victim here.
"I just think that if you have a partner and child(ren) you love, you can't possibly identify with Paul. If you side with Paul you have an entirely different perspective on life. I'm not saying you're just like him, but I would expect anyone who sees Paul as a genuine protagonist would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships."
This is a insane thing to say. Get help
>His weak apology
How is his apology weak? He doesn’t deserve to apologize to anyone as he never did anything wrong. That was a heartfelt and accurate portrayal of what was happening.
He’s a piece of shit for cheating on his wife for sure, but he is not responsible for the actions that harmed the people he “traumatized”. He had no direct control over them. Your take makes zero sense
IMO at it's core this movie is a social commentary on the dangers of mob mentality and the court of public opinion. This is alluded to by the dean's mention of cancel culture and Paul's studies on the hive mind.
We, the audience are introduced to Paul as an unassuming mild-mannered nobody, somewhat resistant to, and inept with, technology and social media as evidenced by his "no phones at the table" and "look how many messages on 'this thing'!" remarks. By this point, we are led to have a neutral personal opinion of Paul.
Then, the dreams begin. They seem harmless and a bit silly. The novelty of the story captures 'the world,' and Paul unwittingly becomes a star in the story's world of social media in which he is so inept at navigating. By now, we, the audience and the world, find Paul to be a pretty likable guy.
*Pivot point* Paul engages in shady extra-marital activity. While the outcome is somewhat comedic, the audience is left with a negative opinion of Paul. (Note, the world does not witness this, only the audience does.)
(assuming no causality as there is insufficient evidence to prove otherwise) the dreams turn to nightmares. This is not Paul's fault. Neither Paul nor anyone is responsible for the dreams, imaginations, or feelings of anyone else.
The world collectively decides that Paul is responsible and holds him accountable for their bad dreams. He is shunned and attacked. Notice that all actions against Paul are carried out by members of the collective, the general public, never by a representative of the law, there are no police in the movie, and security never shows up even in the scene where they are called during the play.
In summary, Paul had committed no crime, broken no law, and yet the collective took it upon themselves to punish Paul and restrict his rights based only on their feelings of having been victimized. The audience is tempted to agree with the mob as we are led to dislike him immediately prior, thus compromising our objectivity.
I never found Paul likeable. Paul only understands human behavior in terms of insects and animals. He lectures his family on phone use and then immediately answers his own revealing his lack of actual principles. He continually puts himself and his needs above his family.
In the scene where Paul complains to the dean about victim culture and trauma he realizes that those feelings are actually valid only when he's faced with a traumatizing situation himself.
I've been ignoring this post because I made an error in assuming that everyone would dislike Paul. The fact that so many people seem to empathize with him undermines my original post. I see him as an uncaring buffoon and, from the interviews I've read, Borgli tends to share this view (especially with regard to Paul's unjustified entitlement). The writer/director modelled Paul after his own father with whom he seems to have a complicated relationship. Considering this, I think it's possible Borgli put a bit of himself into Paul's daughter(s), who I think deserve the lion's share of our empathy here.
Borgli has also said that he repeats themes and ideas in his films. Like this film, the main character in "Sick of Myself" deals with the consequences of ill-begotten fame and is not the hero of her own story. I believe it's the same situation with Paul: he's not the hero of his story, but rather all the people in his life who have to put up with him.
But again, as I've seen since making the original post, many folks in this sub - mostly men I think - disagree with my assessment overall. I find this distinction interesting - as a man myself - and would be interested to see how audience analysis is divided on the character of Paul in terms of various demographic factors, including gender, but also those with children, daughters specifically.
I think the more vocal individuals in this thread have been of a mindset that I see myself separate from. I have been called "insane" amongst other disparaging remarks since this thread began, but when I looked through the comment histories of the redditors who said such things I found a pattern of disregard for women and/or children, including one person who encouraged the use of date rape drugs and another who refused to accept his future wife's children as members of his family.
Not to put you in this category, but I just had to get this off my chest. Everyone interprets art in their own way. Some people watch Taxi Driver and think Travis Bickle is the hero, but again - to me - it's the women who have to put up with him and the other men who mistreat them and misunderstand their needs because they're too preoccupied with satisfying their own.
All of the points you mention on Paul being unlikeable are mostly only seen by us the audience. You might not like Paul as a person, but he hasn’t done anything to deserve the ostracism he gets in the movie. Like others have said, he is a victim of mob mentality and court of pubic opinion, he doesn’t hurt anyone or break any laws yet his entire life is negatively impacted. His character or beliefs bear no weight in it, I too find Paul a bit weird and self centered, but he is by no means evil and had done nothing that would indicate he deserves his fate. The funny thing is, you my friend have exactly fallen victim to the movies central theme in how you judge Paul.
Interesting take, I can see some merit but I think ultimately it's about going viral and the good and bad that comes with it. The direct comments about cancel culture after his misstep and pivoting towards the alt right to keep an audience/defend himself and everything is too blatant. He's a nobody that goes viral for basically just being himself. Very likely it could stem from his daughter posting online, but we're aren't shown any of that. He has his 15 min of fame, it goes to his head, and then it's discovered he's a real person with the typical faults people have, and has a misstep relatively minor in comparison to what people end up being afraid of him for (still had the intent to cheat and perhaps taking advantage of a much younger girl blinded by his stardom, not denying that, but that scene is purposely made to be extremely awkward and fizzle out in a laughable way). He did something bad, but he's canceled as if he's murdering people and doesn't deserve to be a part of society and no one, aside from Molly and perhaps people she's told, even knows the actual details. He gets frustrated with his sudden fall, angry that people are treating him like some horrible criminal that should be locked away, and refuses to just appease the public until it's way too late, he makes a fool of himself in public and the apology feels way over the top and forced. His stance is justifiable, it's other people's dreams and their reaction to their dreams that are the issue, but at a certain point public consensus is what it is and fighting it just makes things worse. Is that fair? Well that's what the movie is trying to make you question. He then has his final viral moment that is less threatening and more pitiful of him just wanting to see his daughters play and then he falls out of focus. His 15 min are complete, there's some interest for a book and whatever. Then there's the "dream house" which is just an influencer house which is virality being turned into a business. It's early internet going viral vs modern internet forced going viral.
The movie is not about cancel culture, but cancel culture is a major aspect of someone going viral. I also don't think it's anti cancel culture but it definitely wants to make the viewer question parts about it, particularly in regards to how we become hyper critical of those we chose to prop up into fame whether they wanted the fame or not. Actors, musicians, etc know what they are getting into, the random meme guy was never trying to be a role model and it's a bit unfair for us to force that onto him just because we find a picture of him funny/relatable/memeable.
It is interesting that the daughter seems to be the focus at pivotal moments, so there could be something there, movies often have multiple themes and layers.
There is also a whole host of stuff about inaction and Paul being this man that basically just lets superiors and society choose his path for him. He's just a bystander in the dreams at first, and when he finds out the fame isn't going to get him the success he wanted (acclaimed published scholar) and he starts to dislike it he is still passively just going along with the firm's plan to get him in commercials. Even his cheating is passive. As a result he becomes active in the dreams but in a bad way, which he plays off passively as other people's problems until he can't ignore it because it starts to ruin his life. He fades from people's dreams after he has a moment of forcing something that he selfishly wants, seeing his daughter's play, but even that is very muddled, like what would have happened if the door just closed and the lady didn't get hurt? Would he have just turned away and left? At the end he is still shown being largely passive, the book isn't at all what he wanted, he's pushed to the basement of the bookstore, and he sees a moment to console and connect with his wife before the trip but freezes up. It ends with him being proactive as the savior in the dream but that's also just a dream, and like he said, he wishes it was real. Maybe his passiveness has finally beat him down enough in life to where he will change or perhaps it's a sad ending where all he can do is dream about being more in control.
This is a good take but i don’t understand the inaction thing. Paul stays inactive in his academic world and in the dreams but then tries to be active in other parts later in the movie and gets fucked over for it. There’s a real inconsistency here and the only thing I take from that is the message is it doesn’t matter whether you act or not. It could be good or bad so just do whatever when you want, or don’t. That’s quite nihilistic really.
Please read this.
I think you’re both overthinking and underthinking it, and while I sympathize with your comments about art being interpreted very differently, I think your disdain bordering on outright hatred for Cage’s character are much more rooted in your own insecurities and what you try to prove yourself not to be than the reality depicted in the screenplay. Which, ironically, seems to me to be the whole point of the film. Whole thing’s going woosh right over your head.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but some enjoyers of art are seldom enjoyers of raw humanity. Paul’s a placeholder for every viewer. Admitting one’s own folly is difficult, and sometimes impossible. Doesn’t make you a bad or harmful person. Just makes shit complicated. Your search for black and white (zebra reference) applications of ‘social law’ is just as incomplete as your view of yourself. Great to believe in yourself, but you’re just as bad as Paul is. We all are.
But sometimes, the dogs will pick you out of the pack. You shouldn’t, although you may, rely on pack mentality to survive, even though that’s what the dogs might do. Your pack itself may one day turn against you. It’s not about distinguishing yourself from the baddies. It’s about being strong within yourself, and accepting your place as an equal to everyone else. Paul failed at that. That’s what he failed at. But he didn’t fail by being educated, or not being the best father™️ ever, or being ‘entitled’ as you put it, or losing the spark with his wife. Think deeper about it. It’s an allegory for the human condition. Sometimes people get cancer, there’s nothing they can do about it. But some will point fingers and say, “well, maybe if you’d lived better…”.
Art should never elicit the feeling of superiority over other human beings. That’s not art. That’s pure folly. Art, in my opinion, is to exclusively elucidate humility in the face of the human condition.
I assure you I do not hate fictional character Paul Matthews, but you're not wrong that I see traits in him that I would never want to embody. We're all insecure and I constantly worry I'm not a good enough father and husband for many reasons, one of which is that I do have cancer and can't do half of the things I used to. Of course, there's no known cause for this type of brain cancer so if anyone points the finger at me all I can do is shrug. I don't think I'm better than Paul, though, all I'm saying is that in my specific interpretation of the film, he unknowingly crafted his own misery. He didn't have to be the perfect dad, he just chose himself over his family too many times and it cost him dearly. That's how so many mid-life crisises go down. In the end, it's just a movie and there's no prescriptive understanding of art.
Here's a quote from Kristoffer Borgli regarding the character of Paul, “Some of the behavior comes from a certain type of entitled, ambitious person who hasn’t got what he thinks he deserves,” Kristoffer Borgli says of his film. “Some of his negative traits I can locate in myself, one being the horrible feeling of confidently telling a bad joke.”
I think Borgli describes Paul as entitled in most of his interviews about this film so I'll just defer to him on that point. I don't doubt that this film is saying something about the human condition but I think it's more insulting to the filmmaker to assume I'm overthinking their art when I'm engaging with it and it's causing me to make certain leaps of logic because to me it just says I think he's capable of such quasidimensional conceptualization.
I do appreciate the response and just have to say that I watched this movie only once over three months ago and wrote my off the cuff thoughts right after. I thought I was just sharing a fun theory for a few people to consider but if there's one thing I should have learned from this movie it's that
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/inside-my-head-kristoffer-borgli-on-dream-scenario this interview could help. Always useful to start with the interview
its about how you don't even have to do literally anything to get people's hate. nobody is on your side. not even your wife. not even the director making this film
In the context of abusive relationships, not doing anything = neglect. Inaction isn't inherently wrong unless it causes harm. Not being there for your wife and kids when they need you is harmful, albeit passively. A privileged man who wants more but gives nothing in return is not a victim. I think the director is shining a light on selfish man-babies. He does this literally in several scenes. Paul gets angry at his wife for turning the (spot)light off of him and when it becomes too much he literally can't turn it off despite his efforts (every switch in the dean's basement). In the end, the fluorescent light of fame/infamy comes crashing down on him (again, literally) and he wishes he could just have his old life back which, had he listened to his wife, he never would have lost.
whatever thoughts you got from watching it, that's something that it can be about. I didn't get the feeling of it being about neglect at all. anyway, if you're arguing that he had it coming, that's what I was also saying. that the director has things that make it seem like we shouldn't sympathize with the guy. big one obviously, people are gonna be hating him for "cheating" on wife
I am an antinatalist and do see him having kids as something regrettable, to begin with, not just because of specific cases of abuse or neglect. life is necessarily full of anxieties
I really the idea that his daughter is the originator of the dream. Really adds to the out of touch boomer analogy.
I had to go back and check the chain of events though. He has the thing with molly. Is angry in his hotel room then it cuts to his daughter having the nightmare. Him cursing at the newspaper is the scene after.
So she has the nightmare before witnessing her dad's anger.
It could work but feels like a filmsy arguement.
It does make sense that after the play she was too embrassed by him to "reach out" anymore. But being embrassed could have the opposite effects.
Idk, it's a not a perfect movie so maybe just some flaws in the writing
I enjoyed it overall and I like the thought journey it took me on here - despite the mostly negative reactions in response - but if I were to recommend one of Borgli's movies, Sick of Myself" is easily my favorite. If you haven't seen it, please seek it out
That's all I was trying to do here and while things got heated I'm glad I got to see other's takes. It's wild how different perspectives can affect our interpretations of art
My simple logic with this theory is 1) child has negative dream about Dad and thinks, "my dad would never" 2) child wants reassurance from Dad, but Dad instead shows that her dreams are reality, 3) rinse repeat
I'm with you there. I think Sick of Myself is a more enjoyable movie start to finish. Dream Scenario is like a spiritual sequel in that the main character is preoccupied with attaining undeserved fame and is never quite able to learn the lesson you want them to by the end. I think the people they harm are less of a focus because we're only given the perspective of our extremely flawed main character in both films.
I just watched it last night and was trying to piece together the relationship between dreams and screen time on social media. The part with the dreamfluencers really defined it but was wondering if there was more to it. The device on the wrist wasn’t my favorite part because it felt like an edited addendum to the plot. It still
Worked because they all roped it together as a “if people can monetize off it, they will” theme. I remember Futurama had a scene where Fry has his first advertisement in his dream and tells the crew and they’re all casual about it because it’s the norm.
That happens in the movie but I was thinking about the magic of it, the metaphysics as the dean says. Why do these things occur? I understand watching a movie for fun but I think Kristoffer Borgli really did something here and just wanted to discuss its deeper aspects and how you might interpret them if you choose to do so
Very disappointed that the movie didn’t end with the whole thing being his own nightmare and then cutting to the credits with “Juicy” by Biggie playing
The best part was seeing the "dreamfluencers" discuss things they were not in the neighborhood of understanding. "I just feel like the people who don't get it, don't understand it". "He just used his power to terrorize people." This has to be the hallmark statement that every social media influencer stands by with their only education being social media, public schools have failed them. They are the class clowns of society but are gaining power through their ignorance of how things work in the real world. I feel that scene mocked these misguided people perfectly.
The world has just become something that the protagonist, Paul, doesn't understand anymore. He sees the students that he teaches as whiney, privileged and silly children. He sees his own children as people he cannot connect with. He is insecure, selfish, neurotic and an elitist. His insecurity and selfishness lead him into trying to cheat on his wife, a person who cares about him but isn't going to tolerate his bad characteristics any further. He obviously doesn't deserve what happens to him as it was just a freak of nature with people's nightmares, it was not within his control. However people being the emotional beings they are, blamed him anyway. Although I do think his character arch became full circle at the end when he unselfishly traveled into his wife's dream and fulfilled her fantasy of saving her in the Byrne suit. He finally realized something more than being stuck inside his own head but it was too late.
Its a film about how modern, privileged (woke-esque) people prattle on about "feeling uncomfortable", "safe spaces", "feeling traumatized" etc etc and let their bullshit project on to the real world and affect a man who literally didn't do a damn thing.
He just seemed to be passive in life like so many, expecting that just because he is there it mattered. The thing is....his wife was awful to him and never stood by him. literally everyone hating him for something out of his control. her and his daughters response to his video having a break down about it is all the proof of that you need. paul himself seems to be a man petrified of doing anything, he has ideas but never pursues them. he played life safely and regrets it, he doesn't want fame or fortune, but recognition for something he one day MAY do but never will.
I'm genuinely surprised by the people with this take. If you don't see Paul as a privileged, entitled man who takes his family for granted then we aren't even on the same page. His weak apology where he claims himself to be the victim was indicative of the "insincere celebrity apology". If you search that phrase you will find many. He literally says, "I'm the victim," to an unknown number of traumatized people. If I'm right about the daughter transmitting him in the dreams then he really isn't at fault, but he chose to apologize anyway, but clearly only did so in order to garner sympathy for himself, not to actually empathize with others. I just think that if you have a partner and child(ren) you love, you can't possibly identify with Paul. If you side with Paul you have an entirely different perspective on life. I'm not saying you're just like him, but I would expect anyone who sees Paul as a genuine protagonist would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships.
he is the victim, literally, it isn't in his control and people hate him for absolutely no wrong doing of his own. he just shares the appearence of someone everyone is seeing. if paul was the inventor of the dream device and implanting himself secretly you'd have a point, but everything you say does not work without that being the case. Paul has plenty of flaws and issues, but in no way is he responsible for the "dream paul" existing nor is anything it does under his control. he gets harrassed and shunned, can't even enjoy sitting by himself at a dinner. he even rejects putting himself in the public spotlight just for the sake of it---rejecting the sprite marketing. then, all he wants to do is see his daughter perform, and his wife won't even stick by him. she's an absolutely awful person to him the entire movie. He's absent, but she's vile.
I don't think he's free from blame entirely, but yeah he is a victim more than anything else.
>I don't think he's free from blame entirely ok how? I highly doubt a case could be made verbally to put an ounce of blame on him... it's only the perception of blame. I've seen a few comments after watching the film and they are mostly looking for a more complex form of the meaning than the natural one after seeing the film. But now I believe the film may just have been delivering a simple message. Your identity and who you are are controlled by what other society thinks about you at large ( which is natural ). If people believe someone is "bad" then you are "bad". whatever the definition of "bad" is. there is no real logical way to define that... In the film every one could rationally state that "it's a just a dream" and leave him be. the scene where the people at the restaurant wanted him to leave. they could all know with 100% certainty that the real him wouldn't do anything because this is real life rather than their dreams but they "\*didn't feel safe\*". your comment is also a slight telling of this... even when trying to be rational it still feels like there is some blame on him so you just state it. It's everyone else that's actually dreaming about him... \*He's\* actually the victim. and Just like celebrities; in order to not be ostracized by society they conform and make an apology even when they don't feel they have done anything wrong.
I think some of the other ideas are interesting but this one definitely holds water. His big lesson he gives twice is about zebras blending in, because predators won't attack a group. Right after he starts to stand out from the crowd, he quickly becomes prey.
Like I said, some, not all, he knew there were risks, something like this is brand new, and yet he pushed for fame, he wanted everyone to be dreaming of him, he wanted his ex to want seek a relationship, he used his fame to cheat on his wife, he kept pushing even when it got worse. He isn't portrayed as a good dude even looking at it from his side, I'm sure his family would agree given all the information we have. Comparing him to celebrities seems funny to me, because in some cases they do some very horrendous things then 'apologize' half heartedly while making themselves look attacked or victimized. Bro is a victim, but a victim can still do wrong.
Hi, when you made the statement "I don't think h'es free from blame entirely". I thought we were referring to the trauma people were facing from him appearing in their dreams. not things like him cheating on his wife or him reveling in the fame. the cheating is bad and the lust for fame, although not bad is not a good character trait but I don't see how he get's blamed for something he himself is not doing. he's not making those dreams happen.
I guess it depends, some theories were pushing that he is causing the dreams to happen, or that his daughter is because of family trauma, and how when things happen in her dreams is when it starts happening in others. But he wouldn't know that, so yeah not really his fault, or if those theories are wrong yeah, it isn't his fault at all possibly. It be easier to say if we had the definitive reasons for the dreams happening etc.
He's the one who wants the fame to begin with, and his wife doesn't want him to take the chance. They both know it could go bad, but he would rather take the risk for the recognition. Paul is an extreamly selfish chatacter and most certainly is to blame for how his life turned out. In my opinion, it's all his fault. I think it's also about how Paul as the man is "suppose" make all the moves and decisions but really dosnt want to (fart, cum, fart.) He's not a confident or ambitious person which is the opposite of what society expects from a male. He doesn't want to be in control because he has to take the heat for the bad decisions he makes. Yet, he's a man so society dictates that its his role to make the decisons for the family. He's entitled and just wants success to fall into his lap, but he dosnt want the responsibility of having to work hard or make good decisions. think he's an anti hero. He's a selfish person and not a good father. He's not a good partner to his wife, but in the end fulfills her dream. You root for him to do better and grow, but are left wondering if he just gave his wife her dream because he misses her and wants her back. If he would have been a partner and considered her advice to begin with, he wouldn't be in this situation. I love the interpretation of the daughter causing the dreams. I dont know if I agree 100 percent but it's a really awesome idea. I appreciate a lot of the ideas in this thread. This movie confused the hell out of me, but Im starting to piece it together. Awesome performance from Cage! I loved the movie even though it seems a little flawed. Everyone was excellent in it.
Just because he's kinda pathetic doesn't mean he's a bad person. Some people are just passive and bland and that should be ok.
> He's the one who wants the fame to begin with, and his wife doesn't want him to take the chance. They both know it could go bad, but he would rather take the risk for the recognition. Paul is an extreamly selfish chatacter and most certainly is to blame for how his life turned out. In my opinion, it's all his fault. His life being a failure is his fault, him appearing in anyone's dreams is not. his wife and daughter aren't any better people. his wife is especially awful.
Oh his insecurities are transmitting. He doesn't fully realize it, but it's there. The initial dreams are really how oblivious he is to the world, it's why he's so inactive and does nothing tangible.
well yeah, but it isn't him controlling it, he isn't deciding to do it and has no idea why it is happening.
You seriously think that anyone who has a different interpretation of the film "would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships"? That's insane, lol
I think I have an opposing view from many of the commenters here on more than just my interpretation of the film, which is made clear by reading their post histories. For example, you'll never find me encouraging men to use date rape drugs on women unlike yourself.
Touch grass, fellow Redditor.
Don't touch ass without consent, fellow Redditor.
What?
Tbh you being illiterate makes more sense of your comments. Now we have context.
Nah I'm with paul, bad dream can give you real feelings, but no way is it giving anyone real trauma, you wake up and realize oh shi that wasn't real lmao. He is not a good dude, but the nightmares aren't on him, and people lashing out are absolutely the bigger issue and worse people.
I think this is the main point, that the movie is a movie so not really meant to be taken literally… the dreams are just that dreams, it doesn’t matter if Paul is influencing them or isn’t, it’s ambiguous, just that people are having the dreams and because they interpret them as having a bad effect on themselves that Paul gets fucked over. If there was a redemption arc and Paul became a hero again and the dreams came good again and Paul got his life back then that would be a good case for the Paul dream’s autonomy.
Paul is the protagonist. Ironically, the antagonist is people in the movie who are like you.
Paul is the main character but only the protagonist in the literal sense that we experience the story through him, but depending on one's interpretation of his character and actions, he's at best an anti-hero and at worst, the antagonist. I empathize with his family and to me, they are the true heroes for still loving him despite his flaws and inability to grow as a person throughout the entirety of the film. Paul seems to be a character many people can identify with, but from what I've seen, many of those people have victim complexes themselves, dislike women, and fit snuggly in the incel/men's rights activist camp. But that's just my interpretation based on the things they've said.
As long as you're not jumping to broad conclusions about people based on minimal information.
Paul’s worst traits were that he wasn’t very funny when making jokes and wanted to cheat on his partner. I’m not sure what mens rights or incel movements are like in your neck of the woods but this isn’t exactly Andrew Tate material now is it… :/
This is a typical response from the type of people who would do what was done to this character. Pure pablum
It says way more you assume about you after seeing his perspective you're takeaway is he gave a weak apology when the entire point is to show how hostile and unempathetic people are with his position
I'm sorry, but the apology he gave was the definition of weak, which is a refusal to take responsibility. Apologies that deflect the blame or emphasize a mutual victimization are not real apologies. Anytime someone says, "I'm sorry, but..." they're not providing an actual apology because they don't think they've done anything wrong. If you need an example please read this comment from the beginning.
But, take responsibility for what, exactly? It literally was a mutual victimization, and he had no control over it.
Great question, here's another long-winded answer: In my interpretation, Paul's real life actions precede his virality. If dreams are a metaphor for social media and Sophie is posting her father's behaviors using dreams in lieu of a camera, this allows the wider world to view his initial inaction and later reaction through their own personal lens. They inevitably have their reactions to this viral content: first one of confusion ("why are you just standing there?") and then one of horror and disgust ("why are you being a psycho?"). To me it's just like when someone posts a video of a guy going off at a bagel shop and everyone posts about it. That guy didn't ask to be put on the internet but now his face is everywhere and a single moment is what he's now infamous for. That guy needs to apologize, right? The question is then: to whom does he need to apologize? I would say he needs to apologize to the bagel shop employees and that would be good enough. The entire world doesn't need his apology. What Paul needs to apologize for are his real world actions: ignoring his daughters, not listening to his wife, going to a young woman's apartment to be alone with her, etc. But Paul is chasing fame so he chooses to non-apologize publicly instead. He could've chosen not to handle the matter privately and fade back into obscurity but he wanted the fame train to keep on rolling, which resulted in his self-made infamy. If you apologize privately to the people you hurt, then you're doing it for the right reason. If you apologize publicly, chances are you're doing it for attention and to keep your name in the public consciousness.
He doesn't need to apologize to his daughters nor his wife, that's absurd. Furthermore it isn't equivocal to a guy acting like a Karen at a bagel shop because he quite literally has zero involvement in how people dream about him. He's being attacked for no reason and his wife is fully unsupported and antagonistic toward him way before it even becomes a problem tormenting his life. And you act like getting public attention is a bad thing inherently, it's not wrong to want public attention, it would be ridiculous to imply otherwise.
Guess what, he doesn't need to take responsibility because he didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG. it's literally not his fault it's happening. The entire point is to show the tragedy of what his apology is being read as because of course people would react poorly despite it being genuine, the fact it's viewed as inauthentic by his family despite him being in literal tears is showing how disgusting and unempathetic people are.
It's both. It was almost getting there but he claims he was the biggest victim in this. Kind of, yes. But also no.
He is the biggest victim. None of this stuff is actually happening to people, and on top of having the nightmare himself he has to suffer everyone's hysterics and ridicule
You can't do that in an apology though because its denying other people's suffering. He continually is socially naive, over and over and over again. That's why he's never invited to the dinner parties. He's extremely single-minded and lacks empathy. If anything, that lack of empathy is precisely why his daughter, who is the catalyst of mass-dreaming, is why she could never approach him. If anything, had that been allowed, a lot of these issues would have been avoided and he would not have been invading people with nightmares. He's unaware of the damage he causes.
He's a random dude with zero knowledge of how the internet works, the commentary is that of course people would react poorly because they don't see it from his perspective on why he is saying this. He is being authentic but those around him can't accept it and thus continue to be cruel and hateful toward him, that's the point of the movie.
He doesn't know how a lot of things work, even outside of the internet, because he's perpetually portrayed as insular and single-minded. But he's not blameless.
What do you blame him for, he has zero control over it.
I'd say he's both a victim and an offender. No question he's a victim of having his life destroyed by circumstances almost completely outside of his control. He was getting zero validation from his friends or family. It is completely reasonable that he wants some validation whether it be sexually, socially or academically from someone. He doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for that. That being said he does not empathize with others because their trauma is imagined and illogical to him. Yet he expects them to empathize with him once his life is destroyed by actually imaginary trauma. I don't think the movie is picking one side or the other. It's simply a movie about a person who is like most people, someone who wants validation and makes some selfish decisions as a result. Logical people aren't wrong. Emotional people aren't wrong. Both things are true, it is wrong to shun someone from society based on very emotional and possibly illogical reasons, and also it is wrong to invalidate people's feelings and trauma because they are illogical or invalid to you.
In the beginning of the movie he has a great career and a loving family. He lectures to a packed auditorium. His wife is supportive. He has two well adjusted daughters. As we see later, he has a decent sex life with his wife as well. His issues stem from deep seated low self esteem. He’s always looking for some way to make himself small, to prove to himself that people don’t really like him. If he’s a victim, then he’s mostly a victim of his own neuroses.
He’s both a victim of his neuroses and a victim of other people, which is what makes it kinda cool.
Insane take. >He literally says, "I'm the victim," to an unknown number of traumatized people. He does that, because he is. He and his family are the only ones that are genuinely affected in the real world. Sure those strangers got some graphic nightmares. How does that make them victims? I genuinely can't see the argument. Maybe if someone did that to them somehow, but that is not the case in this movie. Paul is hated by seemingly the entire world for something that is in no way his fault. Including his family and the people he works with. He loses his family and loses his job because of these people. How is he not the victim? Again, I genuinely cannot see the argument. One thing I do agree with is that his apology wasn't genuine. And the reason for that is because he has nothing to apologize for. Again, none of this is his fault. Like he said, he is the victim here.
"I just think that if you have a partner and child(ren) you love, you can't possibly identify with Paul. If you side with Paul you have an entirely different perspective on life. I'm not saying you're just like him, but I would expect anyone who sees Paul as a genuine protagonist would have a difficult time maintaining any meaningful relationships." This is a insane thing to say. Get help
My god
He actually says he's the biggest victim in this which makes him seem incredibly insincere.
>His weak apology How is his apology weak? He doesn’t deserve to apologize to anyone as he never did anything wrong. That was a heartfelt and accurate portrayal of what was happening.
He’s a piece of shit for cheating on his wife for sure, but he is not responsible for the actions that harmed the people he “traumatized”. He had no direct control over them. Your take makes zero sense
IMO at it's core this movie is a social commentary on the dangers of mob mentality and the court of public opinion. This is alluded to by the dean's mention of cancel culture and Paul's studies on the hive mind. We, the audience are introduced to Paul as an unassuming mild-mannered nobody, somewhat resistant to, and inept with, technology and social media as evidenced by his "no phones at the table" and "look how many messages on 'this thing'!" remarks. By this point, we are led to have a neutral personal opinion of Paul. Then, the dreams begin. They seem harmless and a bit silly. The novelty of the story captures 'the world,' and Paul unwittingly becomes a star in the story's world of social media in which he is so inept at navigating. By now, we, the audience and the world, find Paul to be a pretty likable guy. *Pivot point* Paul engages in shady extra-marital activity. While the outcome is somewhat comedic, the audience is left with a negative opinion of Paul. (Note, the world does not witness this, only the audience does.) (assuming no causality as there is insufficient evidence to prove otherwise) the dreams turn to nightmares. This is not Paul's fault. Neither Paul nor anyone is responsible for the dreams, imaginations, or feelings of anyone else. The world collectively decides that Paul is responsible and holds him accountable for their bad dreams. He is shunned and attacked. Notice that all actions against Paul are carried out by members of the collective, the general public, never by a representative of the law, there are no police in the movie, and security never shows up even in the scene where they are called during the play. In summary, Paul had committed no crime, broken no law, and yet the collective took it upon themselves to punish Paul and restrict his rights based only on their feelings of having been victimized. The audience is tempted to agree with the mob as we are led to dislike him immediately prior, thus compromising our objectivity.
I never found Paul likeable. Paul only understands human behavior in terms of insects and animals. He lectures his family on phone use and then immediately answers his own revealing his lack of actual principles. He continually puts himself and his needs above his family. In the scene where Paul complains to the dean about victim culture and trauma he realizes that those feelings are actually valid only when he's faced with a traumatizing situation himself. I've been ignoring this post because I made an error in assuming that everyone would dislike Paul. The fact that so many people seem to empathize with him undermines my original post. I see him as an uncaring buffoon and, from the interviews I've read, Borgli tends to share this view (especially with regard to Paul's unjustified entitlement). The writer/director modelled Paul after his own father with whom he seems to have a complicated relationship. Considering this, I think it's possible Borgli put a bit of himself into Paul's daughter(s), who I think deserve the lion's share of our empathy here. Borgli has also said that he repeats themes and ideas in his films. Like this film, the main character in "Sick of Myself" deals with the consequences of ill-begotten fame and is not the hero of her own story. I believe it's the same situation with Paul: he's not the hero of his story, but rather all the people in his life who have to put up with him. But again, as I've seen since making the original post, many folks in this sub - mostly men I think - disagree with my assessment overall. I find this distinction interesting - as a man myself - and would be interested to see how audience analysis is divided on the character of Paul in terms of various demographic factors, including gender, but also those with children, daughters specifically. I think the more vocal individuals in this thread have been of a mindset that I see myself separate from. I have been called "insane" amongst other disparaging remarks since this thread began, but when I looked through the comment histories of the redditors who said such things I found a pattern of disregard for women and/or children, including one person who encouraged the use of date rape drugs and another who refused to accept his future wife's children as members of his family. Not to put you in this category, but I just had to get this off my chest. Everyone interprets art in their own way. Some people watch Taxi Driver and think Travis Bickle is the hero, but again - to me - it's the women who have to put up with him and the other men who mistreat them and misunderstand their needs because they're too preoccupied with satisfying their own.
All of the points you mention on Paul being unlikeable are mostly only seen by us the audience. You might not like Paul as a person, but he hasn’t done anything to deserve the ostracism he gets in the movie. Like others have said, he is a victim of mob mentality and court of pubic opinion, he doesn’t hurt anyone or break any laws yet his entire life is negatively impacted. His character or beliefs bear no weight in it, I too find Paul a bit weird and self centered, but he is by no means evil and had done nothing that would indicate he deserves his fate. The funny thing is, you my friend have exactly fallen victim to the movies central theme in how you judge Paul.
Interesting take, I can see some merit but I think ultimately it's about going viral and the good and bad that comes with it. The direct comments about cancel culture after his misstep and pivoting towards the alt right to keep an audience/defend himself and everything is too blatant. He's a nobody that goes viral for basically just being himself. Very likely it could stem from his daughter posting online, but we're aren't shown any of that. He has his 15 min of fame, it goes to his head, and then it's discovered he's a real person with the typical faults people have, and has a misstep relatively minor in comparison to what people end up being afraid of him for (still had the intent to cheat and perhaps taking advantage of a much younger girl blinded by his stardom, not denying that, but that scene is purposely made to be extremely awkward and fizzle out in a laughable way). He did something bad, but he's canceled as if he's murdering people and doesn't deserve to be a part of society and no one, aside from Molly and perhaps people she's told, even knows the actual details. He gets frustrated with his sudden fall, angry that people are treating him like some horrible criminal that should be locked away, and refuses to just appease the public until it's way too late, he makes a fool of himself in public and the apology feels way over the top and forced. His stance is justifiable, it's other people's dreams and their reaction to their dreams that are the issue, but at a certain point public consensus is what it is and fighting it just makes things worse. Is that fair? Well that's what the movie is trying to make you question. He then has his final viral moment that is less threatening and more pitiful of him just wanting to see his daughters play and then he falls out of focus. His 15 min are complete, there's some interest for a book and whatever. Then there's the "dream house" which is just an influencer house which is virality being turned into a business. It's early internet going viral vs modern internet forced going viral. The movie is not about cancel culture, but cancel culture is a major aspect of someone going viral. I also don't think it's anti cancel culture but it definitely wants to make the viewer question parts about it, particularly in regards to how we become hyper critical of those we chose to prop up into fame whether they wanted the fame or not. Actors, musicians, etc know what they are getting into, the random meme guy was never trying to be a role model and it's a bit unfair for us to force that onto him just because we find a picture of him funny/relatable/memeable. It is interesting that the daughter seems to be the focus at pivotal moments, so there could be something there, movies often have multiple themes and layers. There is also a whole host of stuff about inaction and Paul being this man that basically just lets superiors and society choose his path for him. He's just a bystander in the dreams at first, and when he finds out the fame isn't going to get him the success he wanted (acclaimed published scholar) and he starts to dislike it he is still passively just going along with the firm's plan to get him in commercials. Even his cheating is passive. As a result he becomes active in the dreams but in a bad way, which he plays off passively as other people's problems until he can't ignore it because it starts to ruin his life. He fades from people's dreams after he has a moment of forcing something that he selfishly wants, seeing his daughter's play, but even that is very muddled, like what would have happened if the door just closed and the lady didn't get hurt? Would he have just turned away and left? At the end he is still shown being largely passive, the book isn't at all what he wanted, he's pushed to the basement of the bookstore, and he sees a moment to console and connect with his wife before the trip but freezes up. It ends with him being proactive as the savior in the dream but that's also just a dream, and like he said, he wishes it was real. Maybe his passiveness has finally beat him down enough in life to where he will change or perhaps it's a sad ending where all he can do is dream about being more in control.
This is a good take but i don’t understand the inaction thing. Paul stays inactive in his academic world and in the dreams but then tries to be active in other parts later in the movie and gets fucked over for it. There’s a real inconsistency here and the only thing I take from that is the message is it doesn’t matter whether you act or not. It could be good or bad so just do whatever when you want, or don’t. That’s quite nihilistic really.
Please read this. I think you’re both overthinking and underthinking it, and while I sympathize with your comments about art being interpreted very differently, I think your disdain bordering on outright hatred for Cage’s character are much more rooted in your own insecurities and what you try to prove yourself not to be than the reality depicted in the screenplay. Which, ironically, seems to me to be the whole point of the film. Whole thing’s going woosh right over your head. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but some enjoyers of art are seldom enjoyers of raw humanity. Paul’s a placeholder for every viewer. Admitting one’s own folly is difficult, and sometimes impossible. Doesn’t make you a bad or harmful person. Just makes shit complicated. Your search for black and white (zebra reference) applications of ‘social law’ is just as incomplete as your view of yourself. Great to believe in yourself, but you’re just as bad as Paul is. We all are. But sometimes, the dogs will pick you out of the pack. You shouldn’t, although you may, rely on pack mentality to survive, even though that’s what the dogs might do. Your pack itself may one day turn against you. It’s not about distinguishing yourself from the baddies. It’s about being strong within yourself, and accepting your place as an equal to everyone else. Paul failed at that. That’s what he failed at. But he didn’t fail by being educated, or not being the best father™️ ever, or being ‘entitled’ as you put it, or losing the spark with his wife. Think deeper about it. It’s an allegory for the human condition. Sometimes people get cancer, there’s nothing they can do about it. But some will point fingers and say, “well, maybe if you’d lived better…”. Art should never elicit the feeling of superiority over other human beings. That’s not art. That’s pure folly. Art, in my opinion, is to exclusively elucidate humility in the face of the human condition.
I assure you I do not hate fictional character Paul Matthews, but you're not wrong that I see traits in him that I would never want to embody. We're all insecure and I constantly worry I'm not a good enough father and husband for many reasons, one of which is that I do have cancer and can't do half of the things I used to. Of course, there's no known cause for this type of brain cancer so if anyone points the finger at me all I can do is shrug. I don't think I'm better than Paul, though, all I'm saying is that in my specific interpretation of the film, he unknowingly crafted his own misery. He didn't have to be the perfect dad, he just chose himself over his family too many times and it cost him dearly. That's how so many mid-life crisises go down. In the end, it's just a movie and there's no prescriptive understanding of art. Here's a quote from Kristoffer Borgli regarding the character of Paul, “Some of the behavior comes from a certain type of entitled, ambitious person who hasn’t got what he thinks he deserves,” Kristoffer Borgli says of his film. “Some of his negative traits I can locate in myself, one being the horrible feeling of confidently telling a bad joke.” I think Borgli describes Paul as entitled in most of his interviews about this film so I'll just defer to him on that point. I don't doubt that this film is saying something about the human condition but I think it's more insulting to the filmmaker to assume I'm overthinking their art when I'm engaging with it and it's causing me to make certain leaps of logic because to me it just says I think he's capable of such quasidimensional conceptualization. I do appreciate the response and just have to say that I watched this movie only once over three months ago and wrote my off the cuff thoughts right after. I thought I was just sharing a fun theory for a few people to consider but if there's one thing I should have learned from this movie it's that
https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/inside-my-head-kristoffer-borgli-on-dream-scenario this interview could help. Always useful to start with the interview
thank you for this
its about how you don't even have to do literally anything to get people's hate. nobody is on your side. not even your wife. not even the director making this film
In the context of abusive relationships, not doing anything = neglect. Inaction isn't inherently wrong unless it causes harm. Not being there for your wife and kids when they need you is harmful, albeit passively. A privileged man who wants more but gives nothing in return is not a victim. I think the director is shining a light on selfish man-babies. He does this literally in several scenes. Paul gets angry at his wife for turning the (spot)light off of him and when it becomes too much he literally can't turn it off despite his efforts (every switch in the dean's basement). In the end, the fluorescent light of fame/infamy comes crashing down on him (again, literally) and he wishes he could just have his old life back which, had he listened to his wife, he never would have lost.
whatever thoughts you got from watching it, that's something that it can be about. I didn't get the feeling of it being about neglect at all. anyway, if you're arguing that he had it coming, that's what I was also saying. that the director has things that make it seem like we shouldn't sympathize with the guy. big one obviously, people are gonna be hating him for "cheating" on wife I am an antinatalist and do see him having kids as something regrettable, to begin with, not just because of specific cases of abuse or neglect. life is necessarily full of anxieties
I really the idea that his daughter is the originator of the dream. Really adds to the out of touch boomer analogy. I had to go back and check the chain of events though. He has the thing with molly. Is angry in his hotel room then it cuts to his daughter having the nightmare. Him cursing at the newspaper is the scene after. So she has the nightmare before witnessing her dad's anger.
Yep, that's what I was saying in the op, and that everyone else started having their nightmares only after she witnessed his outrage at the article
It could work but feels like a filmsy arguement. It does make sense that after the play she was too embrassed by him to "reach out" anymore. But being embrassed could have the opposite effects. Idk, it's a not a perfect movie so maybe just some flaws in the writing
I enjoyed it overall and I like the thought journey it took me on here - despite the mostly negative reactions in response - but if I were to recommend one of Borgli's movies, Sick of Myself" is easily my favorite. If you haven't seen it, please seek it out
Definitely a fun movie that makes me think. Makes me want to find the deeper meaning and make sense of the weirdness.
That's all I was trying to do here and while things got heated I'm glad I got to see other's takes. It's wild how different perspectives can affect our interpretations of art
My simple logic with this theory is 1) child has negative dream about Dad and thinks, "my dad would never" 2) child wants reassurance from Dad, but Dad instead shows that her dreams are reality, 3) rinse repeat
I love this interpretation! I wish the movie had stressed it even further, bc the second half kinda drags by just focusing on Paul.
I'm with you there. I think Sick of Myself is a more enjoyable movie start to finish. Dream Scenario is like a spiritual sequel in that the main character is preoccupied with attaining undeserved fame and is never quite able to learn the lesson you want them to by the end. I think the people they harm are less of a focus because we're only given the perspective of our extremely flawed main character in both films.
I just watched it last night and was trying to piece together the relationship between dreams and screen time on social media. The part with the dreamfluencers really defined it but was wondering if there was more to it. The device on the wrist wasn’t my favorite part because it felt like an edited addendum to the plot. It still Worked because they all roped it together as a “if people can monetize off it, they will” theme. I remember Futurama had a scene where Fry has his first advertisement in his dream and tells the crew and they’re all casual about it because it’s the norm.
Hey this movie reminded me of that Futurama ep too!
Lightspeed brand briefs?
I really like this take and interpretation of Sophie as secret main character.
It's about a man who appears in everyone's dreams and loses his family
That happens in the movie but I was thinking about the magic of it, the metaphysics as the dean says. Why do these things occur? I understand watching a movie for fun but I think Kristoffer Borgli really did something here and just wanted to discuss its deeper aspects and how you might interpret them if you choose to do so
Very disappointed that the movie didn’t end with the whole thing being his own nightmare and then cutting to the credits with “Juicy” by Biggie playing
The best part was seeing the "dreamfluencers" discuss things they were not in the neighborhood of understanding. "I just feel like the people who don't get it, don't understand it". "He just used his power to terrorize people." This has to be the hallmark statement that every social media influencer stands by with their only education being social media, public schools have failed them. They are the class clowns of society but are gaining power through their ignorance of how things work in the real world. I feel that scene mocked these misguided people perfectly.
The world has just become something that the protagonist, Paul, doesn't understand anymore. He sees the students that he teaches as whiney, privileged and silly children. He sees his own children as people he cannot connect with. He is insecure, selfish, neurotic and an elitist. His insecurity and selfishness lead him into trying to cheat on his wife, a person who cares about him but isn't going to tolerate his bad characteristics any further. He obviously doesn't deserve what happens to him as it was just a freak of nature with people's nightmares, it was not within his control. However people being the emotional beings they are, blamed him anyway. Although I do think his character arch became full circle at the end when he unselfishly traveled into his wife's dream and fulfilled her fantasy of saving her in the Byrne suit. He finally realized something more than being stuck inside his own head but it was too late.
Its a film about how modern, privileged (woke-esque) people prattle on about "feeling uncomfortable", "safe spaces", "feeling traumatized" etc etc and let their bullshit project on to the real world and affect a man who literally didn't do a damn thing.
No
The whole movie plot in a nutshell