MovieChat Forums > Copie conforme (2011) Discussion > SPOILERS AHEAD: NO CONSISTENT INTERPRETA...

SPOILERS AHEAD: NO CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION

posted 13 years ago by andiam-1
5 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS AHEAD

There is no consistent interpretation of this film. If they were married, she would not have had to tell him how far it would take to drive to the small town, or that she had a car, or all the facts she mentioned about her sister. If they were just play-acing in the second half, he would not have gotten so angry at her. If he was the father of the child, as one poster has suggested, and was visiting Italy, he would have made some effort to see his son. He did not know his way around the town where they supposedly had spent so much time together. I think you have to accept this as a surrealistic film and not try to find a consistent interpretation which would make all the pieces fit.

[–] Revolutionow 13 years ago

He could have just been pretending to not know that stuff.

ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image

[–] ccscd212 13 years ago

YES. Glad to see I'm not the only who thinks this around here. This film is full of contradictions that cannot be resolved in any logical way. That should inspire people to think of the (real) ideas the film presents and not the fictional story.

[–] MisterWilliamTell 13 years ago

Though that interpretation is very curious and interesting, I have to disagree. Throughout the film James exclaims that he "doesn't remember those times" or something like that. He seems to forget some things, and that has no logic but I think that that is precisely the writer's odd idea. It would definitely be interesting to reach the writer with these interpretations/questions.

[–] jmc4769 13 years ago

Actually there is a consistent interpretation. See my reply on page 4 of the "My dream deciphered..." thread. It resolves your issues.

[–] frithjh 12 years ago

Boomer, I liked your interpretation, but it's certainly not any more correct than many other ones. It takes a lot of filling in that isn't warranted by the film for any of these literalist interpretations to make sense. I think that a consistent narrative was never the point. I don't think it matters whether they were playing in the beginning or playing in the end. They were doing both and neither. The movie is like a beautiful, tragic dream, and it doesn't matter which was the "truth". As they discuss throughout, the truth/beauty doesn't exist except through interpretation. We can't see anything except from certain viewpoints shaped by certain knowledge, which was the point of the discussion of the original vs. the copy. So there is no "correct" interpretation. Maybe they were married, maybe they were having an affair. But it doesn't really matter in the end. That's not the point.