MovieChat Forums > Copie conforme (2011) Discussion > What are your theories on Certified Copy...

What are your theories on Certified Copy?


I already rewatched it... yes, yes, I know... But anyways, there was an interesting point made on it's board. On first glance it looks like it's one of two things
Either they were married all along, and they pretend not to in the first half, or they really aren't and feed off each other's feelings and roles in the second half by becoming a "copy" of who they once knew. I personally like the idea of the second theory better, because it works well in the theme. But I don't think it's as black or white as that.

When looking at the first half, the first theory makes more sense. From their opening scene together, you can feel there's a lot of hidden turmoil between them. On a rewatch applying the first theory does make a lot of sense, especially to how they act even as early as their car conversation. Just looking at both of their subtle and quick expressions supports it. On the other hand though, during the climax of the coffee scene. it seems as though they really will start playing the roles with each other. One can't tell from their conversation, but once again looking at their faces and how they react to certain statements gives the impression that Binoche is the one who instigates it and Shhimell really does go along with it. This is odd in many ways because the first theory makes sense by looking at their reactions in the first half, and yet in the second half the second theory makes sense in the first half of the second half of the film, but after the wine tasting scene it doesn't feel like they are "playing" the role anymore. Whereas it certainly feels that way from the coffee scene all the way up to the restaurant/wine tasting, after that all the way up to the ending, there finally seems to be a truth to it all. Like I said, the scenes after the coffee incident do seem role-played, but their interactions and conversations in the hotel in the end really do seem real.

Because of the many contradictions in the way the film is executed, I do believe there really isn't a right answer. I may be overthinking it, but there's many different ways that all of this can be taken. Also, the theory that they really aren't married, but do know each other from the past, makes the most sense because based on their first interactions in the beginning one has the sense that they do know each other, but based on many of the scenes in the second half it also feels like they aren't the "married" couple they are acting to be. But there's also a truth and honesty to the final 10 minutes, so that makes me believe that yes they do know each other, but they aren't married. I give credit to the poster here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020773/board/nest/170163698 and in many ways that theory fits, but there are also some contradictions that like I said makes it possibly even the writer/director intends it to be unsolvable. But I think it's probable that these two people once did know each other. I go back to the way Binoche describes her husband in the coffee shop, about ow he shaves "every other day", and then Shimell's character says the exact same thing. They may or may not be married, but they probably do know each other.



Only because you're used to something doesn't mean you like it. You're used to me...

reply

[deleted]

The way the writer humors this slightly confused woman -- meeting her, going for a trip, following her around in the small town -- it doesn't make sense until you realize that they are really married. Perhaps he's leaving her at this stage, and she's trying to win him back? She is still as much in love with him as when they first met, whereas he seems unable to love at all (never fall in love with an Englishman).

Or, this was their traditional way of celebrating their anniversary -- pretending that they're meeting for the first time.

Or (yet another theory), he's coming down with Alzheimer's, and she is desperately trying to make him remember their love story...

Anyway, the film has a completely open ending -- perhaps he decided to forget about his train, and they stayed the night at the inn of their wedding night. Or, staring into the mirror at the end he may be thinking: How do I get out of this?

reply

I was under a slight confusion when watching it wondering the same thing but seriously. they cannot be married. Her son had zero idea of who the writer was?! lol. They were psychologically projecting their relationship failures onto each other trying to make sense of why they are the way they are, each oppressively sticking to their side of the fence, egos enflamed, unable to understand one another, it doesn't help one bit that the writer is repressed emotionally while she is an open fkng spigot. This reminded me of every relationship I've ever been in... I think some people just watched their parent's fked up relationships and are simply doomed to repeat the structure. For instance, why does the woman insist on marrying a man who is unemotional when the real goal is to affect a change, to change the man from what he is to what she wants him to be? It's rather sado-masochistic don't you think? Why not marry someone yearning for the same thing she yearns for? Why? Because for people like she and he, they themselves are what are unhappy and confused as to why, they haven't unraveled their own epistemological mystery from what they witnessed from early age with regard to their parents, and will forever be doomed to project these patterns onto others.

Enemy, Under the Skin, and Nymphomaniac Vol. 1&2 will be the finest auteur films of 2014

reply

There are a number of theories that you could come up with but I honestly doubt any single one was what the director intended. The film is far too abstract to be easily defined; in fact, I think that trying to explain the plot in a logical fashion is the wrong way to approach it. Rather it's simply a platform for the director to explore a multitude of ideas.

reply

[deleted]

Because of the many contradictions in the way the film is executed, I do believe there really isn't a right answer.

I agree with this. It is left up for the viewer to decide.

An autograph may be highly valued by one person--but totally worthless to another. You assign its worth. I believe the viewer is intended to view the relationship of the main characters this way.

reply

the movie was just an excuse to showcase Binoche's multilingual capabilities





so many movies, so little time

reply

hahaha nice one

reply

You are right lol.

How could she speak three DIFFERENT languages so fluently????? 😝😜

reply

Spot on!!!!!

reply