MovieChat Forums > Copie conforme (2011) Discussion > My dream deciphered their true relations...

My dream deciphered their true relationship - SPOILERS!

posted 14 years ago by cornelia123
68 replies | jump to latest

I went to see this film on Saturday and that night I dreamed about the film, I was dreaming that I was figuring the film out, and it became very clear to me the following:

Juliette Binoche's character was the man's mistress, had a child by him, but he just wouldn't marry her how she obviously once thought he would, hence their relationship can be seen as a 'certified copy', ie, not the real thing. Hence her obsession with weddings, hence her strange reaction when their son asked 'why didn't you want him to sign my full name in the book?'...ie, because the son does not have his surname. Hence her saying she's a 'single mother', hence her telling him that the waitress 'thought we were a married couple and I didn't tell her otherwise'... etc.

The anniversary they were celebrating was their 15 years together, not their marriage. This also explains why he stepped outside to take calls on his mobile, to talk to his wife. When he took a call outside when they were in the cafe, and the older waitress said to Juliette, 'he has a mistress... that's why you are looking at him'...and she said 'no', she put on a strange face....because actually she herself was his mistress.

At the end when she asks him to stay at the hotel ....to not catch the 9pm train (to his wife), it is probably something she has asked him hundreds of times before, hence his exasperated look....the man caught between two women. Hence, he was defending before 'the copy', in other words, implying that their relationship was like a marriage, that it didn't matter that he was legally married to another woman. Of course, just like in a true marriage, after 15 years together their relationship has become more of a 'warpath', time increasing their obvious differences.

Does the film and their relationship make sense in that context?

[–] Tsquared23 14 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I think your dream was right on the money. I saw the film this afternoon in London and really loved it. A truly masterful director, and Binoche is amazing (and well worthy of her Cannes award) as always. So I guess the only question that remains is SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did he end up staying with her? I think, no.

[–] ibbi 14 years ago

Yes, absolutely. Very, very well put

_____
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb74/iyb/723-2.jpg

[–] cornelia123 14 years ago

Thank you!....

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skklock 14 years ago

Wow - Cornelia - your dream made more sense than the entire movie! Thought this film was an unfortunate, seemingly endless exercise with annoying characters. Thanks for your thoughts - though I didn't get that by watching the movie, at least it gives me some closure about what the heck was going on for two hours. I really appreciate your interpretation!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denniskriz 13 years ago

hmm, was the beginning a "game"?

First, THANKS Cornelia for deciphering the true relationship between the two.

At first I thought that the two DIDN'T know each other and he was just being an boring ass int he car while she progressively loses interest in him.

THEN the plot changed on a dime (in the coffee shop) and suddenly they actually SEEMED MARRIED which made the whole car scene seem _very strange_.

Cornelia, you offered the solution that made much more sense that they weren't married but that they had an ongoing extended affair together, that they were a "CERTIFIED COPY" OF A "MARRIED COUPLE." Thanks!!!

Let me then suggest that EVERYTHING comes together if we think of them as "an old couple" who had extended/passionate affair some years back BUT that passion's also dissipated (as often in a marriage) and (since they weren't married) they really don't see each other much anymore.

That would explain the stilted beginning conversation in the car -- they haven't seen each other for so long that they don't know what to talk about.

I say this because if they were playing a "just meeting for the first time game" (as proposed) then wouldn't _he_ "turn on the moves" at some point? Instead, he just kind of babbles cluelessly away and she gets progressively more irritated and hurt with his babbling as time goes on.

Or perhaps _he_ didn't know how to play that "game." But then if it was a game and he was just terrible at it, wouldn't _she_ then come over to him at some point, kiss him and tell him (in French, English or Italian...) "Shut up honey, just you're ruining the mood her, and we have only till 9, remember?"

Instead, they are fascinatingly like an "old couple" but an "old couple" where she was his mistress and "they don't see each other much anymore ..."

[–] captainadam 13 years ago

Hi cornelia123,

Your theory is fascinating. I don't think that it's necessarily what Kiarostami was going for, but your thoughts are well-defined and fit the facts of the film like a glove.

http://everythingyoualwayswantedtoknow.blogspot.com/

[–] cornelia123 13 years ago

So does this mean the beginning of the film is really the "game" as they pretend not to know each other? Brilliant.

phantompony - Yes, I guess if you agree with my dream-version that indeed the 'game' was to pretend they didn't know eachother for their 'anniversary'. Remember her son kept saying to her 'you are crazy for that guy'...as if he knew who 'that guy' was what he meant to her. It's also as if the son 'knew' about their 'pretend we don't know eachother for our anniversary' game.

captainadam - Thanks for your post. Yes, of course, my theory (via my strange dream) is not necessarily what Kiarostami was going for, I agree. He obviously intentionally made the film 'ambivalent', but it's strange how I would dream that, hey? Maybe it's meant to be seen on different levels.

I mean, if my dream was wrong...what then is the 'certified copy', the film's title? If you take it to a deeper level, could it be....Love?.....Life?......Art? Isn't Art itself just a copy of life, reporducing 'moments' 'ideas' etc? Are we copies of originals?....Once you have loved, is loving again just a 'copy'?

(BTW, I wish my dreams could now decipher, rightly or wrongly, 'Inland Empire', especially the 'Polish scenes'! Still haven't figured that one out!)

[–] portlandr 12 years ago

I like your interpretation cornelia. I had a little different take although I am going to watch it again to see how it works. Could it be that they did not know each other but that she subtly proposed a game at the cafe based on his theory that an original is not any better than a copy?

The game in an unspoken agreement, was that they would be a copy of a husband and wife and exaggerate those characteristics just to show her that it could lead to real emotional challenges inherent in a marriage. For example, after he agrees to play along (with significant pauses while he works it all out) he gives the waiter a hard time about the wine (it tastes corky!). He's overacting and it's really a husband type thing to do. He's a little out of his depth trying to keep up with her in the game. That's why near the end she stutters his name J-J-J-James, indicating like her sister she could love him anyway even though he's a bit slow.

At the final shot while he is at the sink it dawns on him that she is making an offer to him, to actually be together in a real relationship. Did you notice the two bells ringing together in the tower? I think the image says two things. It signifies that the whole understanding is sinking in for him and that they, being like two bells, will ring together but not always in unison. I think he misses his train.

[–] queerever 13 years ago

Wow, I don't normally see many interesting posts, but yours certainly is. And not for what you write about the film (although nothing wrong with your interpretation), BUT that you dream so literally, to "figure out" something that was bothering you, that you had questions about. Deciphering the mystery about the film - pretty amazing.
However don't expect too much of your dreams with Inland Empire. I am sure Lynch doesn't create nor want literal meaning or interpretations - he has become even more an artist (with Inland Empire at least) who simply plops his day/dream or nightmare up their on the screen - remembering that many of us dream mostly nonsense.
What other amazing (ly literal) things have you solved / dreamt in your dreams? I am really interested. One or two examples at least, please.

[–] cornelia123 13 years ago

queerever - sorry for the delay in replying to your post.

Well thank you! I know it's really weird what happened to me. My mind found the answer, though of course, it doesn't mean it is the 'right' answer.

Unfortunately I don't recall solving other problems with my dreams. No doubt I have solved them, and I vaguely remember doing so, but that's the problem, 'vaguely' remember. With my Certified Copy dream, I remembered perfectly when I woke up what I had 'uncovered', my mind was cristal clear.

However, one of the things I vaguely remember, is for example, when I was at University and I had a difficult essay to do, a difficult question to answer, after deliberating on it for days and days and being stuck, I would sometimes suddenly be conscious in semi-awakeness, of what I had to do....but then I would wake up fully maybe a couple of hours later...and have forgotten!

I think I will now keep pen and paper by my bedside, so if I do have an 'insight' into something, I can write it down very quickly before I forget in full consciousness.

No doubt though that the power of the mind is incredible and we have no idea how it works. For instance, a couple of years ago I was in a friend's house, she had been in this house 2 years or so, and suddenly I noticed this big fire alarm, which I hadn't noticed before and I just said to her 'gee that is big, has it ever gone off?, and she said 'no, never', and I said 'Imagine it goes off now?', and the second I said that, the mili-second I said that, bang, it went off, mega loud. The whole building had to be evacuated....but there was no fire or anything. Afterwards, my friend said to me 'that was spooky, somehow you KNEW it would go off'. Of course, unless, somehow, without wanting to, I made it happen....

[–] BanduDandu 13 years ago

wow that is truly the most beautiful interpretation. I have been thinking about their relationship ever since.. I would like to agree with your take except that there are two questions I have unanswered

SPOILERS

1) Who was the woman and child he was talking about that he used to see from his hotel 5 years ago? and Juliette Binochet broke down and he asked her whether he knew them?

2) If he is married to someone else and he just came to Italy that day, why did she complain that he went to sleep last night by the time she came to bed?

[–] cornelia123 13 years ago

blackwarrior007 - Sorry for the delay in answering your questions. Here it goes:

1) Who was the woman and child he was talking about that he used to see from his hotel 5 years ago? and Juliette Binochet broke down and he asked her whether he knew them?

Binoche and him obviously first met in Florence (or was it Rome?) The woman and child he was referring to were Binoche and her son (his son too obviously). Maybe what he was referring to is to the moment that one day he spotted them (without her realising he was there) and noticed that there was a 'rift' between mother and son. Perhaps it's as if the son was angry with her about something....maybe for not giving him a proper father as opposed to an 'absent' 'certified copy' of a father?

2) If he is married to someone else and he just came to Italy that day, why did she complain that he went to sleep last night by the time she came to bed?

2) Well my theory is that he hadn't arrived that day to Italy, he was already there....he was just playing along with her that they had just 'met' for their 'anniversary', ie, the day they first went away together and spent the night in that town. Perhaps they play this charade every year, and like I said, he just does it because she wants him to play along, because she hangs on to the romantic hope she had that first day, but like the first day, he always went back to the wife.

Happy with my explanations?