As far as I am concerned, the movie is realistic and makes sense ONLY if they are doing unethical experiments - especially since pretty much the entire film is the "role-play" which is itself an easily identifiable unethical human mind experiment. Otherwise you have to misinterpret the unethical experiment as something that is realistic and reasonable therapy, and that makes no sense. It requires no suspension of disbelief to interpret the "role-play" as an unethical and abusive mind eff because that is what it really is, but even the film's psych consultant admits that the role-play is nonsense as therapy and requires a willing suspension of disbelief to see it as therapy. In my book, something that requires no suspension of disbelief is always more likely than something fantastic that requires the suspension of disbelief.
A common error is the belief that it is more likely they are trying to help Teddy/Andrew than it is that they are using him as an unwitting subject of an unethical mind experiment. The historical context is that they would have never done something like the "role-play" as therapy, but they really did do unethical mind experiments on unwitting subjects. It is a "conspiracy" no matter what - you just think that it is a "conspiracy" to help him. That would never happen, but using unwitting humans as experiment subjects was pretty common.
Why do you think the rest of the movie only makes sense if he is Andrew? Is it because you think you have to believe the doctors? Seriously, if you understood the other opinions you would know this isn't the case at all.
Are they slow? Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.
reply
share