THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION


It's amazing how no one gets it. This is a kind of unique movie, it has main metaphor and this metaphor is SIMPLE this time. The world with the smell of chocolate, laughing children, music, home pastry is a family world. The world of cold colors, ikea furniture, promiscuity, absence of love, office job is the opposite to family values world, what should we call it?
The main character says he wants children, wants to be able to taste chocolate again, wishes to be able to get drunk again (to experience real things), he seeks for new relationships because he wasn't in love - go figure.

reply

You've pretty much absolutely nothing...just a bunch of incomplete thoughts and no interpretation.

reply

You're just too stupid.

reply

ssseuth > THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION

It's amazing how no one gets it. This is a kind of unique movie, it has main metaphor and this metaphor is SIMPLE this time. The world with the smell of chocolate, laughing children, music, home pastry is a family world. The world of cold colors, ikea furniture, promiscuity, absence of love, office job is the opposite to family values world, what should we call it?
The main character says he wants children, wants to be able to taste chocolate again, wishes to be able to get drunk again (to experience real things), he seeks for new relationships because he wasn't in love - go figure.
paulike > You've pretty much absolutely nothing...just a bunch of incomplete thoughts and no interpretation.
ssseuth > You're just too stupid.


No, he’s correct. You created a thread (with ALL CAPS) and spouted off about everybody being wrong and you knowing the “correct interpretation”, yet you did not give a single, coherent statement about what that is. As pauliek said, you only typed in some half-baked, incomplete thoughts.

In case you need some help, let’s break it down:

THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION
You set up high expectations with this bold claim.

It's amazing how no one gets it.
You flat-out say that everybody else is wrong and only you are smart enough to understand this movie. Expectations are through the roof now.

This is a kind of unique movie, it has main metaphor and this metaphor is SIMPLE this time.
Your terrible grammar aside (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is not your first language), you effectively say absolutely nothing with this statement. At most, you just reinforce the idea that everybody else is too dumb to understand the movie—and at the same time minimize your “achievement” of understanding it.

The world with the smell of chocolate, laughing children, music, home pastry is a family world.
Okay, that’s almost an interpretation… but not quite. What is a “family world”? What does that mean? Maybe you will explain it in a moment and blow us all away with your brilliant interpretation…

The world of cold colors, ikea furniture, promiscuity, absence of love, office job is the opposite to family values world, what should we call it?
Um… you’re asking us? According to you, we are too dumb to get the movie, and you are so smart that you have it all figured out. You came here to post your brilliant insight, yet you don’t even have a fundamental part of your analysis prepared? Not very promising; expectations falling…

The main character says he wants children
He said no such thing; he said he misses the sound of children playing. But no matter, easy mistake to make (if you aren’t paying attention).

[He] wants to be able to taste chocolate again, wishes to be able to get drunk again (to experience real things)
No doubt you are merely reiterating and obvious parts of the movie that everybody who actually watched it (and even some who didn’t) are already aware of in order to sum up with an astounding conclusion that will enlighten us all…

he seeks for new relationships because he wasn't in love
Yes, yes, he exposited all that when he dumped Anne for Ingeborg; get to the point, we are on the edges of our seats!

go figure.
Um… that’s it? Is that really the end, all you had to say? Go figure what‽ You didn’t say anything! You did not address any of the major images, symbols, events, or characters. We are still waiting to hear your brilliant interpretation that eluded us all. You just repeated a few things that everybody knew, then stopped in the middl

reply

Another moron, sigh.

reply

After many movies and hundreds imdb pages, I read your post. God gave me the chance to read your post. You, kind sir, are the biggest idiot from the internet. Please don't reproduce! Thanks! Imdb community.

reply

Reading imdb posts haven't made you any smarter. You're still the same sad moron. You might try reading a book.

reply

Best reply I have ever read. That idiot didn't deserve your time.

reply

I understand where you coming from but its not that simple, yes the lack of love is there but there's so much missing like free will and freedom to ask/express and ETC but definitely i'll say you're half right. :D


Les Noir

reply

There is no "correct" interpretation.. the film was intentionally vague.

reply

The film is pretty simple, but interesting. A man is discontent with his materialist world though the framing is vague. The world he is in is ultra dull so he tries to find meaning. It shows him as a man who has everything that he needs to be "happy", he has a wife, a job and a nice house. However he is shown to be unsatisfied. At first he tries drinking and that fails to please him, so he has an affair. The fails to make him "happy" as well, so he then tries to commit suicide. The hole in the wall is a plot hole, in which the protagonist literally rejects his world and gets kicked out. Somehow with the hole he "breaks the rules" and is forcible removed from town. He then finds himself in an arctic wasteland.
In some sense it's a be happy with what you have story presented in a existential narative. It ends with the protagonist being thrown out into the cold with little more knowledge than he had at the beginning. to understand the style read Kafka's The Trial or Camus's the Stranger.
In terms of framing its very vague. Is he in heaven or hell? perhaps he is in the real world. Or the film is a metaphor. there is little evidence to give the characters surrounding a context. But I think it is an existential take on the real world.

reply

seems like even adam sandlers comedys are vague for you..

reply

Amen to that. Reading a new age freak interpretation pissed me off, those ppl are not much different from the ppl in the movie..

reply


This is my interpretation

I thought that because he had commited suicide he was sent not to Heaven but to eternal purgatory where everything is dull and grey there are no smells and no taste to any foodstuff, his job is dull and everything is boring..so he tries to recreate his suicide by throwing himself under a train..but he recovers again and again so he is destined to this eternal life of dullness.
The hole in the wall that the man has discovered leads to Heaven where they can see sunshine, smell bread and feel the warmth of the sun. But he is not allowed to go there so he is taken away and punished by being sent to the Arctic like place..which is Hell!!

I guess everyone's interpretation is different but that is mine

reply

I've got exactly the same interpretation as yours. Except for "the Arctic like place" being "Hell" in the end. It's not Hell. He does not deserve Hell more than they do (possibly all of them - suicides or just people longing for easy and comfortable existence and getting it in the afterlife). Andreas (being already dead) cannot die (again), they cannot kill (destroy) him, so to let him get frozen in a cold place far away is the only way out for them. Thus they finally get rid of the troublemaker. They could also let him stay in the warm and cozy kitchen and fill in the hole behind him. Or they couldn't? Maybe he still doesn't belong to the "cozy Kitchen world" (it is either the physical world of the living which he simply cannot get back to, or Heaven)?

Why is he assigned to the "Dull world"? All of its inhabitants have a common trait, a common idea of happiness, a common innate habit: they avoid responsibility, noise, worries and pain. Easy job, no conflicts. Children are noisy. Even analysing dreams (do you remember that conversation about dreams in the movie?) is a complicated thing to do - fidgeting in one's subconsciousness, no way, that's another worry! It breaks the main rule of this society: Don't you dare looking for troubles! Andreas somehow belongs to this place, he is not there by mistake: he easily betrays his first girlfriend ("I hate responsibility"), ironically not noticing that the second one is exactly like the first one - a mindless doll.

reply