MovieChat Forums > Being John Malkovich (1999) Discussion > How did Dr. Lester know how the portal w...

How did Dr. Lester know how the portal works?

posted 14 years ago by pt100
28 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand where Dr. Lester would learn that he had to enter JM's mind before midnight of JM's 44th birthday; or that if he just barely missed the deadline, he would end up forever helplessly trapped in Emily's mind. How would he know about these things ahead of time? It's not like there's a 'Book of the Portal' where he could read about it. (He did have an explanatory book with drawings, etc., but this seems like something he put together to explain it all to others. But it raises the question about where he got the knowledge to put that book together. It almost suggests that Dr. Lester, or the person(s) he was in the past, is a supernatural being of some sort with special powers of knowledge.)

There's no information about how he got into Dr. Lester's body in the first place, or how many other bodies had been inhabited by how many of his former selves going who knows how far back in time. But it seems that no matter who started this progression however far back in time, that person wouldn't have a clue about when he/she would have to take over the vessel, nor about what would happen if he/she missed the deadline--unless they are a supernatural being with special knowledge.

It just seems like a huge plot hole or logical inconsistency that can't be resolved.

[–] krushman89 14 years ago

i think its because its a comedy

[–] pt100 14 years ago

Most good comedies don't have such huge plot holes. Just because it's not a drama doesn't mean it should be so flimsy.

[–] SteveO0041 14 years ago

So let me get this straight...you just watched a movie where the main character is able to literally crawl into the mind of another person through a mysterious portal on the 7 1/2 floor of a Manhattan office building, and then said to yourself "you know what was really unrealistic about that movie...the fact that they never explained how Dr. Lester knew how the portal worked!"

Honestly, I can't stand it when people take movies (especially movies like this that are so clearly works of fantasy/science fiction/imagination) and go out of their way to pick them apart over the smallest, most unimportant plot points.

All kidding/ridicule aside...it really doesn't matter how Dr. Lester knew how the portal works. Kaufman/Jonze probably chose to omit that information because they realized it would have virtually no bearing on the plot of the movie and (I'd argue) would even diminish the film's larger themes of exploring the human mind, existentialism, and the existence/essence of the soul. Questions such as how the portal came to be or how Dr. Lester learned how to use it are inconsequential when compared to the larger questions the movie is designed to provoke.

[–] pt100 14 years ago

I don't want to waste much more time on this, but just a couple of points. First, I liked the movie a lot, and am not trashing it or picking it apart. I am merely pointing out a huge plot hole. And secondly--perhaps you're confused about this--it is precisely *because* of the seemingly unfathomable, bizarre portal idea that Dr. Lester's detailed knowledge of portal-entry timing issues seems so out of place. (It could be considered what professional creative writers call a "cheat"--something which moves the plot along, but which violates a sense of *internal*--not external--story consistency/validity/logic.)

Creatively, I think it would have been interesting and appealing at least to allude to a possible answer to this question near the end. E.g., Cameron Diaz's character might have questioned Dr. Lester about this, and he could have made a semi-cryptic reply w/a twinkle in his eye. That would have also been amusingly consistent with his character's personality, while at the same time closing--at least partly--the existing plot hole, and perhaps also giving the audience some food for additional thought/discussion. And it *is* a huge plot hole, because it's amazing and illogical that not a single other character in this story thought to ask the obvious question about where he got his detailed knowledge.

[–] Joel_S 14 years ago

He probably learned it from another person who used people as vessels that he encountered years and years ago. That person likely it learned it from another, and another. None of them knows the real answer of how or why this works the way it does, much like some stories with vampires and werewolves don't know their true origins or the immortals in the Highlander universe don't know much about exactly why they were immortals or compelled to fight to the death.

[–] krushman89 14 years ago

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.(Wikipedia)

this does not contradict anything, does not go against the flow of logic (besides the whole movie doing that), it is not relevant to the main plot of john cusack cameron diaz and catherine keener (the main protagonists), it maybe illogical or impossible events but so is the fact that they are entering an actors head and that a monkey has flashbacks with subtitles. you may want to find a more significant plot hole in a movie to write a paragraph about

we are to assume he got his info from a book and no one asked him where he got it because they saw the book...as too where the book comes from who cares it may have added to the story a bit but did not take anything away from it

[–] pt100 14 years ago

As I said before, I really don't want to keep wasting time on this, so this will be my last detailed reply. In response to your comments, quoted below:

"it maybe illogical or impossible events but so is the fact that they are entering an actors head and that a monkey has flashbacks with subtitles"

That comment completely ignores the distinction I clearly made between violations of *internal* logic vs. external logic. Your comment refers to *external* logic, which is *clearly not* what I was talking about.

"you may want to find a more significant plot hole in a movie to write a paragraph about"

Well, given that the *key punchline* of the film was the John Cusack character's getting forever trapped in the mind of the little girl, I think that not knowing how Dr. Lester came upon that insight does leave a significant hole in the plot.

"we are to assume he got his info from a book and no one asked him where he got it because they saw the book...as too where the book comes from who cares it may have added to the story a bit but did not take anything away from it."

Pointing to the book just begs the question about the origin of the book, about which no other character thought to ask Dr. Lester (!). (I can't speak for other viewers, but the first time I saw the scrap book, my first thought was, "Where did he get that information about the critical timing for entering the portal?") And to say that knowing where the book comes from may have added to the story a bit, is, I believe, an understatement at the least. The scrap book, like the stuff on the wall of the "shrine" room, was ostensibly put together by Dr. Lester, who stumbled upon the portal himself a long time ago.

But if he didn't put the scrap book together, all I'm saying is that it would have been an interesting plot-hole resolution to have at least some compelling hint of the book's origin, or the origin of Dr. Lester's special knowledge about crucial portal entry timing. Or if any response by Dr. Lester on that topic would have been somewhat cryptic, then it would have given the audience something more to discuss or muse over after the film. But to leave out any discussion of the book's origin does seem to me to be a significant plot hole; and something creative could have been done to address that hole in an interesting way.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I don't need you to agree with me. I was merely pointing out something where I thought, creatively, they could have taken the plot farther in an interesting way, and at the same time resolving a point of information on which the film's key punch line was based.

[–] Warhol_Superstar_no_5 14 years ago

The "Captain" makes it obvious that they've been doing it for quite a while, so he obviously has the hang of it. No leap of logic is required, really.

[–] pt100 14 years ago

Huh? The point is that if they've never experienced the problem of missing the extremely precise deadline, then how would they know about it? And if they did at one time miss the deadline, they would no longer be around to be talking about it. Do you see the problem?

[–] Warhol_Superstar_no_5 14 years ago

Well, in the original script they were satanists and the whole thing was a possession ritual. Maybe you'd have an easier time with that.

You're capable of being more imaginative than this, c'mon. I think you have a problem suspending your disbelief because you're taking everything at face value. Think of it as mysticism, reincarnation with it's own internal rules, or a pure science, it doesn't destroy the premise either way in the story's own kooky internal logic.

We live in a world where we can discern people's personality traits based on their genetic buildup, and we know all sort of weird things about reality, like how quantum superimposition stops once we observe the act. It's not so hard to buy that the doctor could have come up with the sufficient data to understand the nature of the portal?

Not that it matters, this is an existentialist comedy about identity and control, not strict science fiction. The story is there to explore other subtexts.

[–] Gheelnory 14 years ago

Warhol Superstar no 5 wrote: "I think you have a problem suspending your disbelief because you're taking everything at face value."

..........................

I don't see pt100's remarks as showing a problem with suspending disbelief, or with taking an overly literal view of the movie's premises. Instead, pt100 seems to be pointing out one possible problem an audience can have with a work of fiction: experiencing something jarringly incongruous enough that even those who willingly suspend disbelief are taken out of the story.

In the case of this movie, it was the sight of a main character being introduced to the Book--and having no curiosity about it, at the time or later. Even if we posit a character (Lotte) who's not a great intellect, and therefore tends to be incurious in general, that very lack of interest in the book's origin merited a line. (pt100's suggestion of devoting 10 seconds or so to showing Dr. Lester making some cryptic reference to the book's origin made sense to me.)

The problem was not that the book's origin was not explained, but that it seemed odd that no character cared that the book's origin was not explained. (Or, alternatively, if we assume that Dr. Lester made the book himself, the problem becomes that no character cared how Lester had learned all the rules contained in the book.)

And again, this doesn't mean that a detailed back-story need be supplied...just that the movie would have been more satisfying for many of us had Lotte (or some other character) wondered aloud how Lester knew the things he knew. The question might not have been answered, but the failure to ask it distances us from the characters because their lack of curiosity seems implausible.

[–] Warhol_Superstar_no_5 14 years ago

I think it'd be much easier if you imagine Dr Lester as a Captain of a mother ship, commanding the vessels that are humans with people inside of them, and that the people in this vessel from before created the book.

[–] pt100 14 years ago

Thank you. I'm glad that someone understood what I was saying. Again, there would seem to be a basic paradox here: how would someone know about the crucial midnight/40th birthday timing unless they had missed the deadline? But if they had missed the deadline, then they wouldn't be able to let anyone know about it.

I believe I speculated in one of my earlier posts that this *apparent* paradox (notice that I stress the word "apparent") implies that Lester may be a lot more than just an old guy who stumbled onto the portal. He might be supernatural or at least some sort of alien being with superior knowledge. And it would have been interesting to at least hint at this possibility so that the audience would have something to ponder after seeing the film. But the apparent cluelessness of all the other characters--not a single one thought to ask how Lester knew all this information--seems odd to me.

On the other hand, given the location of the portal and Lester's history w/the building's founder, the story makes it sound as though he did stumble on the portal many years ago quite by accident. If so, then it's even more puzzling that he would know all this information--again, because the only way to know it would be to have missed the deadline, in which case he wouldn't be around to tell people about the deadline.

[–] master_bait 14 years ago

Maybe hot lesbian midget witches from the late 1800s taught him how to make portals like that and how they work. Why else would an Irish ship captain show an interest in constructing a business building? Just sayin', but really, to quote Charlie Sheen: "The truth are for suckers, Johnny boy."

[–] ShiiStyle 12 years ago

When I decided to check out the IMDB forum for this film, I expected some kind of nerdiness, but not this deep. This thread is amaaaazing if only to prove how much people can misinterpret a film.

[–] lazur-2 13 years ago

You're right that it isn't adequately explained, but there some reasonable assumptions: 1/If this process has been going on for generations, enough study of esoteric arts , plus much observation and recording of others' successes & failures, could hone the change down to the perfect age. 2/We're basically talking about black magic here, the info could come from a supernatural source. 3/ Since Schwartz is in Maxine's daughter at the end, there may also be genetic or other familial connections between Malkovich & his inhabitants. In any case, some perceived resonance with a particular person.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevorino0 12 years ago

Just because you can't take a movie seriously doesn't mean other adults can't. In fact, almost every other adult I've talked to has taken its content seriously. You can't dismiss the seriousness of a movie just because its premise is strange. Movies do this all the time: they establish some weird twist on reality, and then let the characters struggle within this new version of reality.

What is important is that, given this strange premise which has been established, can the movie stay true TO ITSELF, and operate somewhat rationally within its own created guidelines. Consider the great sci-fi's of movie history, moron, and consider how many of them also start off with an "unrealistic" premise. ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

There are several legitimate questions to ponder about this movie, including the ones OP posed.

"Who are you and how did you get in here?" "I'm a locksmith...and I'm a locksmith."

[–] lunamuna 11 years ago

This is one of my favourite films but I still agree with OP, this is an inconsistency which could have been explained in the film with a sentence or two. It never actually occurred to me while watching the film but now that Pt100 has pointed it out, I can see what he's getting at. It's kind of like someone telling you they know exactly what happens after you die but they never explain how they have that knowledge and you never ask them. In this case 'death' is when the host turns 44 and you get trapped inside them forever. I think this could have been explained in a number of ways. Either a) Lester found the book which explained the process b) Someone told Lester or c) Something along the lines of Earloduke's theory regarding Lester and his theoretical friend..

[–] virgiltx 14 years ago

If he found the portal he might have also found the book that goes with it. Maybe it was formerly just inside the portal but Dr. Lester brought it home.

[–] kugar469 11 years ago

To me, the whole building construction history sounds like the Captain KNEW where the portal was. He even made a floor of a special size rigth where the portal was. He arrived to the city with the knowledge, and just needed to construct something in order to "secure" it and make it accesible.

That would mean that he gained this knowledge during one of his sea travels. Maybe he found the book there, but I find that unlike. It looks rather new, so he probably learned from something/somebody how to locate the portals and how did they work, then he proceeded to secure one and write all he knew in that book.

[–] bluemonkey54-1 14 years ago

While in some films the origin story behind the portal/the way it works would be relevent,but in this one it is not, and this is because it is a work of fiction rather than of science fiction. For example, i a series like star wars, part of the fun and intrigue of the series is learning the in depth back story behind how this different world functions and how it came to be that way. However, in this film the portal, and therefore the difference between its world and ours, exists simply to put the characters in an interesting and thought provoking situation. It is not important where the portal comes from or someone got detailed info about it, simply that the info is correct, and that the portal exists for the characters to interact with. One is not meant to explore the backstory behind the portal, but instead react and think about how the characters are interacting with it and perhaps about what you would do in a similar situation. While you may feel it is a plot hole if it disrupted your watching of the film, I personally don't believe that it is and it is certainly not a huge plot hole. You have mentioned several possibilities for how dr. lester might know about the portal, and I would suggest that you just accept that it is any one of them or maybe none of them at all, he just knows, and that is all that is needed in order for the film to function within its genre.

[–] LLOwens 14 years ago

While in some films the origin story behind the portal/the way it works would be relevent,but in this one it is not, and this is because it is a work of fiction rather than of science fiction.

Funny how some make it seem that fiction has to make more sense than nonfiction. Speaking of science fiction, in my opinion, Dr. Lester is to the portal in Being John Malkovich, as the Oracle is to the Matrix in The Matrix franchise. The ambiguity which surrounds the Oracle is one of the reasons why many are baffled by the plot in the two sequels. Yet the mystery that surrounded the Oracle did not prevent moviegoers from shelling out dough to watch it on the silver screen. And speaking of reality, many Christians regard the Holy Trinity as a mystery as well, yet this does not prevent believers from accepting polytheism when this is in direct contrast to the Bible's teaching of monotheism. I personally do not accept the Trinity simply because it is not logical nor is it taught in Holy Scripture. So similarly, I don't believe it necessary to completely understand the identity of Dr. Lester in order to appreciate the sheer genius of Charlie Kaufman's mind bender.

[–] virgiltx 14 years ago

Maybe you don't need to know how Dr. Lester knew how the portal worked, but it stands to reason that those who will be using it have instructions so they can continually pass them along so they can perpetuate themselves in the future vessels.

Question, did Dr. Lester say he had discovered a "portal", or he had discovered a "way"? Did he construct the tunnel based on something he learned?

I'll have to notice next time I watch.

[–] BeatriceBlue 14 years ago

I actually wondered the same thing, for an instance, but was able to put it aside & let it go due to my suspension of disbelief, which is needed quite often in Kaufman's work. It doesn't make the film or idea any less entertaining or thought provoking. Take it for what's it's worth. You won't get an answer, so what is the point in continuing to ask the question & press the point? That may be the even bigger question at stake here.

"Damaged people are dangerous, they know they can survive."

[–] earlodukes 13 years ago

Perhaps Lester and a friend of his decided to enter the mind of another person (a previous target of the portal). Let's call Lester's friend "Fred" and let's call the target mind "Tom". Perhaps Lester and Fred had been entering Tom's mind quite frequently before Tom turned 44, much like the characters in the film do with John Malkovich. Then, they discover that they can start to control Tom. They decide they can use this to live forever, so they decdide to do it after Tom has turned 44. Perhaps they take some time to say goodbye to loved ones, or ship all their belongings to Tom, or whatever.

The point is, when they decide to do this, AFTER tom has turned 44, Lester lets Fred go first. Fred jumps in, but accidentally gets trapped in a baby. Lester decides to hold off going in until he meets with Tom and makes sure that Fred has taken over. When he meets with Tom, he discovers that Tom is still Tom. UH OH! Something went wrong. Lester decides to wait many years until old age to try the portal again, which happens to lead into the baby grown up. He then infers that the target of the portal switches at 44 and that Fred's consciouss is trapped in the baby's head.

I think this is a moderately decent explanation.

[–] acdc363 11 years ago

That's exactly how I assumed Lester discovered this as well. Unlike other people I don't need this idea flashed before my eyes to be satisfied. I just figured somewhere along the lines Lester found out the ripe age. He's been doing this for a long time and had books on the subject so you have to assume he understands it fully.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]