Just Dont Get It


Movie makes no sense its like 3 plotlines in 1?
Mask was cool though, id rather watch Stay, movies just like it but makes sense.

reply

Wow, you call this confusing? It made almost too much sense in the end.

reply

Yes I find it surprising how many people in here "just don't get it". Maybe Idiocracy was right :) I enjoyed the movie very much.

reply

This is pretty much what the film is about. I haven't included the hospital janitor as nobody seems to really know who/what he was....

Here are the main characters...

Emilia - an art student who lives in London
Milo - a heartbroken young man who was recently left standing at the alter
Esser - a father searching for his ex-military son whom we learn was committed to a hospital (mental institution?) following a traumatic tour of Basra
Preest - a vigilante searching for a high ranking man known as 'The Individual' in a futuristic city following the disappearance or murder of a young girl.


Here is why they are in the film....

Emilia is undertaking a college art project. She films herself attempting suicide but always calls the emergency services beforehand and secretly films the outcome. Her college tutor dismisses the project as sick and briefly mentions she concentrate on an earlier project where she simply follows and films strangers around London.

One 'stranger' she was filming is a young man called Milo. However after a period of time he became aware of Emilia's secret filming. No confrontation between the two is hinted at in the film. Milo we learn was recently left standing at the alter when his fiancé backed out of their wedding. However since that episode Milo has noticed that his childhood sweetheart, Sally is in town and he wants to rekindle their romance. Sally is the spitting image of Emilia, the art student. He tracks Sally down to a school where she is working as a teacher and arranges a date at a nearby Cafe. He casually tells his mother of this and after a conversation between the two we learn, according to Milo's mother, Sally doesn't actually exist. She was an imaginary friend Milo conjured after a traumatic childhood experience, the death of his father. As Milo was recently left standing at the alter of his proposed wedding, Sally re-enters his freshly traumatised mind. As for her physical similarity to Emilia, this is because Milo randomly noticed her around London during her 'stranger' art project. Milo argues with his mother and refuses to accept Sally doesn't exist.

Esser is a man in his late fifties/early sixties. He is searching throughout London following the escape from a hospital/institution of his mentally unstable son, David, who was traumatised during a tour of Basra. David attacks two and kills one nurse in the hospital he escaped from. We learn that Esser is separated from his wife and had a daughter who died due to an "accident" in her early youth. David was particularly traumatised by this and according to a hospital psychiatric doctor mistakenly blames his father for her death owing to his mental illness.

Preest is a masked vigilante living in a futuristic city governed by various religions. He is seeking the leader of a particular faith, a man known as 'The Individual' for his part in the disappearance or death of a young pre-adolescent girl.

And this is how they are all linked together....

David is hiding out in an abandoned apartment. The apartment is situated one floor above Emilia's. David's father, Esser, tracks his son down to this address, given to him by a former soldier, Bill, who served with his son in the army. The address was given to Bill by David knowing his father would be looking for him, so he could lure him into a trap where he will get revenge for the death of his Sister. When Esser arrives at the apartment building he attempts to speak to David through the intercom but due to poor wiring, he gets through to Emilia's apartment by mistake and tells Emilia, whom he mistakenly assumes may know David, that he will be waiting in a cafe across the street. David from upstairs hears the buzzer ring in Emilia's apartment and knocks on her door telling her he was expecting a call at the specific time she received one and wondered if his caller may have gotten through to Emilia by mistake. She mentions that a man called looking for a David and is waiting across the street in a cafe. David forces his way in knocking Emilia to the ground and sits by the window pointing a sniper rifle at his father, Esser who is across the street sitting in the cafe by the window.

Also in the same cafe is Milo who previously arranged a date with his childhood sweetheart, Sally. Milo has been agonising over the revelation that Sally does not exist and gradually comes to realise this following their conversation in the cafe when she shows up. (Of course, she doesn't really turn up - Milo is sitting at a table talking to himself much to the puzzlement of the other diners). As Milo stands up to leave David takes a shot from the apartment window across the street hitting Milo in the arm. Esser rushes to Milo to see if he is alright and notices his son in the window across the street. David has him in his sight but doesn't pull the trigger. He is interrupted by Emilia who is holding a lighter to a leaking gas pipe. She threatens to kill herself and David and tells him he wouldn't have broken in if he knew who she really was (an art student who happens to have suicidal tendencies).

David, like Milo suddenly has a moment of clarity. We the viewers learn that the masked vigilante seen throughout the film, Preest, is actually David. But Preest is a wild figment of David's mentally unstable imagination. And in this imagination, David's father Esser, is the person Preest is tracking (The Individual) in relation to the disappearance/murder of a young girl. The young girl doesn't exist either of course. She is, in reality the sister David lost whom he blames his father for.

In the immediate aftermath of David's realisation he takes the lighter from Emilia and tells her to get out of the building. She runs out the door and the building suddenly explodes. David has killed himself knowing that his life is not worth living. He has lost his sister, murdered a hospital employee and will probably spend the rest of his life in jail or a secure psychiatric unit. Emilia emerges onto the street and is met my Milo. Milo recognises her as being virtually identical to his imaginary sweetheart, Sally. Emilia is concerned for him as he has just been shot. Fate it seems has taken its course in bringing her to him.

reply

Hospital janitor was there to foreshadow some plot elements and make them more believable, I recon. His line about when you kill yourself, it isn't only the people you know that are effected but the people you don't know, made it more fate like that the 2 characters met at the end. More of a plot element than a true character and I don't think he had any purpose beyond that.

reply

Thanks! Your description confirmed what I suspected was going on :)

reply

[deleted]

thanks. this puts it nicely in place. i just wonder did the individual get killed or vice versa?

reply

The last we saw of The Individual (Esser) was him on the street alerting the paramedic of Milo's shooting, so no, he wasn't killed.

reply

I understood the whole movie and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but I'm puzzled about the role of the janitor. How could he have seen Sally as well? Why was he writing things down in a book? Perhaps he was observing all four characters, or was he a representation of God?

And what was the painting that was reenacted with Emilia and Sally in them? What was the significance of reenacting them?

reply

The writing in the book made me think of the angels from Wings of Desire

reply

Emilia isn't identical to Sally exactly. Emilia talked about her art project following people with a camera. Milo was one of the people she followed. She expressed an interest in him earlier by recording him and drawing him while he sits on the bench. He was "Man #5." She also mentioned she wore a wig a few times so he wouldn't recognize her.

Sally looked like Emilia in his mind because he had seen her and her red wig following him around. That's probably why Sally reappeared in his life at all. He thought he had been seeing her around (when he wasn't), and during a time of stress in his life, his subconscious reproduced her -- looking like Emilia who he really had been seeing.

They were already connected before they met on the street at the end.

Mary

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Films are not a math problem you have to work out. I understood it perfectly well on the first viewing. A well done, thoughtful film, just like a well written book, or a beautiful painting, or really any work of art, has something more to offer with each successive viewing by its audience.

That's how I feel about film. Which is not to say that one can't enjoy a rather shallow example, be it explos-tainment or a bromance comedy. But the best films, IMO, are ones that can entertain AND bring a depth of experience.

"This film is just a poor ripoff of stay meets magnolia." And if that was true, which I by no means think it is, wouldn't that be an accomplishment in itself? I'm not a fan of "Magnolia" but there's no doubt that it was bold. "Stay" of which I am a big fan was ironically accused of being a ripoff of "Magnolia". I didnt'find THAT accusation to be any more true than yours.





"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

Regarding:
-----------------------
But you have gone too far, giving away the plot of an entire film like that. Don't you think that people deserve the right to see it fresh for their own selves without your intervention?
---------------------

I'm not sure I understand the issue - the person was responding to someone who has already seen the film. The original poster said they did not understand the movie, and clarifying exactly why it does make sense instead of the usual "oh you're just too stupid to get it" is a good thing, isn't it? Would someone that is browsing the forums for information on a movie click on a thread asking for someone to explain the movie to them not expect to have the plot explained to them? I was just curious because I thought it was wonderful how the person took the time to politely explain a movie to someone that may have had issues following it.

reply

And what is the Drama of Spoilers? One can always stop reading or not open a post! *sigh* these Trolls, why don't they go back to Barbie and G.I. Joe?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Thanks, that was some explanation.Good job, I think I agree with it for the most part.

reply

thanks for the exposition, but you didn't really explain "why" anything happened; you just wrote a really long summary.

==================
astrolupine: even with makeup, you can't make an actor's face look like a chair

reply

Agreed. I just watched this film and while I understood the plot, I came here hoping there was more to it than I got out of it. I guess David's breakdown was really just a way to bring Milo and Emilia together. Overall I found the three storylines pretty weak, especially the "imaginary friend".

I did like his dreamworld though...the idea that his turning on religion/faith led to him creating this oppressive place in his mind.

reply

Thanks for the explanation, it helped explain clarify the plot a lot more but the movie really failed to do it for me. The pacing is too slow, too many things told but not shown and i really hate the 'it was all in his head' plot device.

Oh well i'm just a bit mad because the trailer had me jacked for this movie and i had difficulty locating the dvd

reply

This was a great explanation. Thank you so much. Although my reason for being consumed is being constantly distracted by my children and movies are hard to follow. Thank you, that was brilliant.

reply

People have talked at length on this board about who the janitor is. There are quite a few "nobodies" who feel that they know who the character is.

I reiterate my objection to your summarization of this film. Principally because you editoralize and interpret. There is more than one way to understand many of the plot points in this film. And in my opinion, you have stripped the complexities of all life.

For those of you who need someone to explain the film because you can't give it the time and attention, can I ask, why are you trying to watch a film in those conditions? And particularly a multilayered film such as Franklyn? I admire your ambition but I plead with you to try and watch in stage if necessary, to pay attention, and not to fall back on someone's rather dry "Cliff Notes" summary.



"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

There is nothing wrong inherently wrong with "editoralize-ing" or "interpreting" a movie. And just because you think someone's summary is 'dry' doesn't make it so.

"And in my opinion, you have stripped the complexities of all life."

Hyperbole much?

reply

Have you seen the film, Fentagon? And if so have you read the cut and dry analysis of the film's plot here? Franklyn is a really intelligent film that offers its audience the opportunity to let their imaginations soar, IMO. I love talking about it. But I don't understand an attitude that wants the storyline to be hammered down in one little rut.


"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

Of course I've seen the film. I wouldn't be commenting if I didn't.

Just because a film is intelligent does not mean you cannot analyze it. "Hammering down things" is just your way of describing (and berating, I might add) someone else's method of understanding a complex piece. It's a little chauvinist don’t you think?

Different people have different ways of piecing together things. Who says yours is somehow better?

reply

It's not a matter of "better." I believe that my method, however, is more respectful. I've spent lots of keyboard time exchanging thoughts with many fellow aficionados of this film. But I can't like that someone wants to go point by point through the film from beginning to end just slashing the life out of it, calling it analysis.

I neither think it's chauvinistic nor belittling to thus react critically.



"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

If you “believe” your method is better than it is a matter of opinion. That's fine, but it should be recognized as such. There no need to berate other people’s methods of processing just because it’s not yours.

Your respectful ‘argument’ is moot (I assume you mean respectful to the integrity of the film rather than to other viewers, which you have not been). It’s a subjective experience and people can process it however they wish. It that means “slashing the life out of it” (to use your hyperbole) then so be.

Moreover you have not dealt with my central argument, so I’ll repeat it. Different people have different ways of piecing together things. Who says yours is somehow better?

reply

Anyone ever accuse you of beating a point to death? I can see why you admire the left brained approach I'm criticizing.

For your last question, reread my previous reply.



"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

For your last question, reread my previous reply.

Let’s review then shall we?

ME:
Different people have different ways of piecing together things. Who says yours is somehow better?

YOU:
It's not a matter of "better." I believe that my method, however, is more respectful. I've spent lots of keyboard time exchanging thoughts with many fellow aficionados of this film. But I can't like that someone wants to go point by point through the film from beginning to end just slashing the life out of it, calling it analysis.

You clearly do think your method of watching the movie is better; you’ve simply operationalized the term as “respectful,” which I reject, and you have not specified why “respectful” is more ideal (since you don’t want to use the term “better”). You also haven’t explained how “slashing the life” out of something is inherently wrong/bad/worse/whatever label-you-would-agree-to-using.

So I’ll repeat my question, for a third time.

Different people have different ways of piecing together things. Who says yours is somehow better?

reply

I'd guess you are under the age of 25.

Give it 10 years.

reply

[deleted]

I literally don't understand how someone could just not get it when it's all explained in the end of the movie :/

real human being and a real hero

reply