Can anyone explain this film?

Well I think this is as good an explanation as any I'm likely to get. We did wonder at the end if any of it had really happened. Thanks for your time.

For maybe the first time in my life. I finished this movie with no definitive understanding. Prophylactic's summary helped quite a bit, making more sense of it than I had. It was not clear to me just how deep his illness was until the end of the movie. Which is most likely the directors intent.. I did not however put together all the dots pointing to Hawkes character imagining the entire story. Up until then I just figured that he was dark and brooding. (more evidence of mental illness) In hindsight, maybe the exchange between Margit and him where he said, "you don't know what they're capable of" and she replied, "you don't know what you are capable of" should have alerted me more. Prophylactics ability to see all the consistancies that point to him existing in a state of confinement make perfect sense to me. Which adequately explains that which I was struggling to understand. Whether for convenience or closure or both. I rally behind this interpretation. Thanks Prophylactic, I almost had to call my mom for her take on it. And she probably hasn't even seen it.

@ Prodigal Prophylactic:
Your deconstruction is the only explanation that makes any sense. I usually like these kinds of films, but in this case the director's storytelling techniques were far too pedestrian for the subject matter.
As far as I was concerned, the incessant shots through railings, bars, foliage, windows and screens were the big reveal, demonstrating the Ricks character is clearly confined in some institution. The entire Paris adventure is his delusion - a mixture of life memories and fantasies. The hotel owner Sezer is doubtless the governor of the asylum where Ricks is an inmate - Ania is a kind-hearted nurse bringing medications - Omar is a fellow patient at the insane asylum, against whom Ricks harbors homicidal rage - Margit is a reinvention of his murdered wife (or possibly his mother!).
The back-story can probably be unraveled, but I didn't admire the film sufficiently to make the effort.

Thanks for your interpretation of the film; it opens many plot venues and makes the movie more interesting. I can definitely see the main character being in prison from what you noted, and also because the story stressed on him sharing a toilet, which I thought was odd. Initially, I thought that detail didn't matter because in hostels, bathrooms are normally for communal use. However, there was something different about the dynamic between Omar and Ethan Hawke's character. Also, just to add to others' comments about him committing suicide, what if the letter to his daughter was a suicide note?

yup. cliched.

I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content

Thanks a lot for the insight. From what you write about the book, I think I like the film more for staying surreal / metaphoric / poetic without going into fantasy.

SPOILERS AGAIN!

Crikey9 - I just saw this a few hours ago and my first conclusion was that he committed suicide at the end. But I also can see your friend's conclusion. Sounds more like what the writer of the novel intended.

Overall, I loved the movie. It reminded me of Mullholland Dr. where it takes a few viewings to come up with a solid conclusion of what happened. I thought Ethan Hawk did a great job of playing a tortured man who has lost everything.

Thank you Crikey9. I just watched this with my husband and enjoyed it a lot, but at one point he was saying "What's going on?" and I said "It's a ghost story." I also felt that it was the ghost who had "taken care of" the demanding neighbor (and somehow also the threat from Cesar). At the same time, since Tom had been mentally ill, clearly there was the option that the woman, and as much more of the story as one wants, was his mad fantasy. I too like the intensity of the ambiguity.

"The novel is quite clear that the Scott Thomas character killed the man on the toilet."
So, the only character who is definitely an imagined character killed Omar? How convenient, why don't criminals just imagine characters who do the crimes for them?

[deleted]

What ev. What is this? Nothing.

http://womaninthefifth-movie.com/q-and-a-with-pawel-pawlikowski/

This helps explain the director's intentions. Perhaps fully understanding is less important than absorbing the experience of the film. Very strong acting all round. And I am delightfully mystified.

I think there are a few possible theories:

1) KST is a ghost (which seems to be where the book goes)

2) KST is a fantasy figure Hawke creates to help him through his crappy life.

3) Prophylactic's theory that Hawke is imagining all of this from a place of confinement.

4) I have a rather darker off-shoot of Prophylactic's theory: The naturalistic scenes of the forest show Hawke watching (aka stalking) his daughter just before he kills her. The rest of the movie shows his internal struggle while he's in jail/asylum to either come to terms with what he did, or escape further into madness. So first he tries to recast his failed relationship with his family as "dad coming to Paris to live with them" but reality intrudes and we see him cast away from the family and running from the police. It's like a push-and-pull throughout the film of him getting closer to reality and then shrinking back from it. Since he's not ready to admit to himself that he killed his daughter, he "kills" Omar -- but then he "makes" his landlord the killer. He kidnaps his daughter, but instead of killing her this time, he releases her. And at the end he "chooses" madness over reality by joining KST's world.

Having said that, I think the director's point that we should just experience the film rather than trying to "pin it down" is a good one.

I think you've summed it up perfectly. Tracks were running through the entire movie (and bugs, and red) so I think your conclusion is dead on, excuse the pun.

Thank you. Now I can get back to work.

Not really spoilers because your conclusions don't jibe with the confused story line of the movie, which doesn't make sense. That is the only thing that is CLEAR about this movie. It was slow but interesting and I was willing to put up with it until we are told the lover is imaginary. At that point, it is so cliched it's hardly bearable to watch. One twist is maybe OK, but I knew it was going to end badly at that point. After the main character becomes unreliable, you can't trust anything. Whatever else you may think, this device doesn't really work on any artistic or aesthetic level. As a writer who has had his share of time in a mental hospital and broken relationships, I was rather disappointed--worse, upset with this movie. It's exploitive of the viewer's time and trust. And ends with a giant daisy chain of nothing. It's hard to believe movies like this get made. And say whatever you want about undiscerning viewers or consumerist tastes in a consumer society, people vote with their feet and their wallets. Nobody paid any money to see this film and if it weren't for the fact that Netflix has nothing of any value to see, nobody would even watch it now.

Brilliant synopsis, Adam_Skatharakis!

Sounds like a mad depressing film, but I just watched it and found it to be excellent film making, directing, acting, photography. And a great departure from the saturation of formulaic plots and sugar coated endings. My only critique (yet most of is imagined) is the amount of making out, which feels like a French cliché.