MovieChat Forums > Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles (2011) Discussion > (SPOILERS) Something smells fishy here

(SPOILERS) Something smells fishy here

posted 13 years ago by WhoisThePrisoner1
13 replies | jump to latest

So I'm reading some of the defenses/explanations for the ending of the doc. Most revolve around these 2 defenses:

1) If the audience found out too much about the mystery, it would have lost it's magic.

2) One should respect the privacy of another, if they wish to be left alone.

Hmmmm....not a lot of logic there.

In response:

1) If the audience didn't want to know about the mystery, they wouldn't have viewed the documentary. If the investigators wanted to keep the "magic", they wouldn't have gone beyond looking at the tiles on the street like everyone else.

2) Obviously the man behind the tiles (MBT) did not want to be discovered, and wanted to be left alone. This was known by the investigators well before the documentary, the audience, and the neighbors. This obviously was no surprise to anyone. So if the purpose was to "respect his privacy", then the documentary wouldn't have been made. Because as of now, the man is being bothered more than ever before, since the world knows his address, and knows much more about him. (assuming this is a true story, and not fake to begin with).

Obviously, IF this doc isn't fake, then the man will have to come out sometime, and will inevitably be bombarded with questions, pics, videos, etc.. Since this is the case, why wouldn't the investigators for the doc want to be the ones to do it?

Numerous items don't add up, and the sudden "change of heart" by the investigator/s seems mightily convenient and possibly fraudulent.

The primary investigator just so happened to miss the MBT by a few minutes? And just so happened to spot a fresh tile under the sludge?

The primary investigator just so happened to be on the bus with the MBT, got off at the same time, and "nothing was said"?

No one thought to stake out the residence and get a picture, interview, etc..? Beating on the door with full camera crew and neighbors is good for entertainment value, but comes off as very contrived (and hypocritical if one supposedly "cares" about the MBT's privacy).

No one thought to search public records of the MBT? This guy is a "ghost" with no history or present? Never had a job? Never went to high school/college? When did he begin renting/buying his residence? No past records at all? Who bought the car? etc..., etc.., etc.., etc...

All of this seems conveniently incomplete. And the plug/teaser for the next "mystery" was a bit ridiculous and crass. Will that mystery end in the middle with the investigators realizing that the "magic" will be lost, or that privacy should be suddenly taken into consideration?

[–] Protozoid 12 years ago

Readers note that this thread contains MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!

Just saw the doc last night (LOVED it, btw), but I disagree with defense #2 as you've presented it. The principle "detective" in the story, Justin Duerr, initially assumed that the creator of the Toynbee tiles was secretive but wanted attention. Why else broadcast by radio, hand out leaflets, solicit memberships, and call Larry King?

As I watched the doc, I assumed that the tiler wanted to be contacted. And, for me, the ultimate, very painful irony of the film is that once the tiler finally got the attention he wanted, it was either too late or he no longer wanted it. He spent decades trying to get someone to notice him... only to decide not to open the front door when they find him. When Justin bumps into the tiler by chance later on, he decides not to approach him because he realizes that the tiler has come to prefer anonymity.

Also, although the tiling seems to re-commence in 2008, I think the new tilers are none other than Justin & Co. themselves. That is probably the extent to which the film is "faked" -- Justin didn't want to be incriminated. Good call.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 12 years ago

Wanting attention for yourself, and wanting attention to your message, are two different things.

[–] blackknight273 12 years ago

As I watched the doc, I assumed that the tiler wanted to be contacted. And, for me, the ultimate, very painful irony of the film is that once the tiler finally got the attention he wanted, it was either too late or he no longer wanted it. He spent decades trying to get someone to notice him... only to decide not to open the front door when they find him. When Justin bumps into the tiler by chance later on, he decides not to approach him because he realizes that the tiler has come to prefer anonymity.

That was how I saw it too. He tried to get his message out but became discouraged, and changed his delivery out of frustration.

People forget that this guy probably has psychological issues, and probably isn't much of a social butterfly. Hopefully someday he will sit down with someone and explain his theory, and how he came to it.

[–] theNomadz 12 years ago

'The primary investigator just so happened to be on the bus with the MBT, got off at the same time, and "nothing was said"?'

Agree that bit was terrible and so unlikely. And the bit early on showing the investigator caring for the wounded bird, seemed shoe horned in to make his later 'stand back approach to the reclusive tiler' appear more genuine.

I still enjoyed the mystery and docu overall, whomever started the tiles (if it was their MBT or not) was truly bizarre and highly creative at the same time.
____________________
'Censors tend to do what psychotics do,they confuse reality with illusion' David Cronenberg

[–] oliver454 12 years ago

I really enjoyed this film but have to say that i found the ending as another person on this board said, perhaps imagined. The whole thing seemed to be very romanticised and linking the main man who pursued the mystery in terms of personality to Sevy in the way that they were both reclusive and artistically and creatively inclined, both cared for birds sort of felt a bit odd to me. Then there was that 'connection' like moment on the bus, as another person mentioned he would have known what sevy looked like from looking up at him in his window but then why was that not mentioned, he remarks that he knew it was him because he looked very introspective and lonely or something along those lines. Then add the little tilt up to the bird in the animation towards the very end. It smacks a little of sentimentality and romanticising the image of these two being outsiders etc. It was very emotional (also in terms of sound) and subjective which a documentary (in my opinion) doesnt really need to be at all. fun watch though!

[–] unsorted-169-79012 12 years ago

I think it's funny how there are a bunch of people on these boards who think the whole documentary is a fake or something. And then there are people who are only skeptical about the ending scene, where Justin discusses his close encounter with the tiler. Perhaps it seems "imagined" because we, the audience, can only "imagine" it ourselves, because we would very much like to have seen it! Personally I can say I've tried to construct a detailed image in my mind about what it looked like. Also, I suppose it feels contrived because it represents an effort to provide closure to the mystery and an ending to the film. Anyway, don't have much to say, just wanted to respond to you guys!

[–] Umakemyheadswim 11 years ago

I agree. Incredibly contrived and fake.

[–] Faustus5 11 years ago

Except that the tiles predate the movie by years and years. Some of us have been following the story for a long time.

But don't let reality get in way. You never do.

[–] Umakemyheadswim 11 years ago

No. The documentary is.

So many contrived moments. Or coincidences

[–] Faustus5 11 years ago

Hardly. The only fishy element is when the guy thinks he missed the tiler by just minutes, but even that isn't very fishy at all.

1. The tiler and Justin live in the same city, and the tiler seems to want practically every street to get a tile. So that makes the odds of them passing close by not so unbearably high.

2. Plus, Justin, because he's so obsessed, is not a reliable witness about this event. It was dark--he might very well have walked by the tile on his way to the store and only noticed it on the way back. Plus, he's no forensic scientist--he doesn't really know if it had been there for only minutes. It could have been days or hours. I think his claim that he just barely missed running into the tiler is just wish fulfillment fantasy on his part, not dishonesty on anyone's part.

3. Same with the BS story of meeting the tiler on the bus. That was probably him fantasizing over an ambiguous look by a stranger. He's not reliable in this regard.

[–] Anamon 11 years ago

Yes, the point of the bus story is not whether or not it actually was the tiler, but how it explained the conclusion Justin came to. If I remember correctly he never says that he was convinced that it was him, but he explains why he decided not to walk up to him and ask. He uses the anecdote to explain his decision to respect the man's wish of not being contacted, above his urge to solve the last bit of the mystery.

[–] BurtMurray 11 years ago

Its not fake. Your idea that it is fake is slightly less strange than Sevy's but a lot less interesting.
The dude isn't a "ghost". Don't you remember they spoke with one of his relatives on the phone. They presented a time lime of what Sevy likely did over a long period of time so he did have a history. Why you want his SS number?
"Nothing was said" after getting off the bus?" Again, it explains in the movie that: A) He wasn't absolutely sure it was Sevy on the bus and B) He felt that Sevy wanted to remain in the shadows and he wanted to respect that. It simply didn't feel right to him to pry into the guys life after all the previous attempts. Its a true story. You better believe it. And Sevy's legacy is the subversion of the mainstream media to get out an altruistic, although farfetched, idea. Tiles are springing up all over the world. The mainstream media, for example FOX NEWS, is out to spread political messages that seek to alter our beliefs. Sevy will be remembered for a long time.

[–] Anamon 11 years ago

Obviously the man behind the tiles (MBT) did not want to be discovered, and wanted to be left alone. This was known by the investigators well before the documentary, the audience, and the neighbors. This obviously was no surprise to anyone.

Well, he obviously didn't always want to be left alone. Tiling your address on a road, calling in to radio shows, writing to newspapers, and transmitting shortwave messages asking people to write to your P.O. box, then sending out promotional packages—not really the actions of someone who doesn't want people to contact him about his messages. He tried to spread his message publicly for a long time, and was frustrated when he wasn't able to. So I don't think it was an entirely outlandish idea that, after some 30 years, he would agree to talk to some filmmakers about it, despite the fact that he had become sort of a recluse. I think the filmmakers found a good journalistic compromise: ask a few times, but back off when the person makes it very clear that they don't want that kind of publicity.

Numerous items don't add up, and the sudden "change of heart" by the investigator/s seems mightily convenient and possibly fraudulent.

The change of heart was in no way sudden. They followed the leads as far as they took them. At no point did they say that they would want to drag the tiler in front of the camera against their will. They tried his front door, his phone, and reaching him by mail. This showed them that the tiler doesn't want to talk, so they backed off. There's nothing sudden about this, and the documentary followed them every step of the way. They didn't know who or what to expect, and when they found out, they made their decision. Let alone the fact that pretty much any other decision probably would have involved something at least in a legal grey area (stakeouts, as you mentioned, etc.). They went as far as they could.

The primary investigator just so happened to miss the MBT by a few minutes? And just so happened to spot a fresh tile under the sludge? The primary investigator just so happened to be on the bus with the MBT, got off at the same time, and "nothing was said"?

The investigator was very involved, bordering on obsessed, with this, and hence very prone to confirmation bias. I think the film made a good job of showing this in context and subjectively. It's only his recollections, and I'm sure he would have liked to have missed him by just minutes, or seen him on the bus. The documentary never claims any credibility for this, and I'm guessing Duerr himself is well aware of how prone of jumping to conclusions his involvement made him.

No one thought to search public records of the MBT? This guy is a "ghost" with no history or present?

As far as I know they did, but it wasn't included in the film for lack of relevance. I'd agree with that decision; I don't see how any of the information you mentioned would have contributed to the documentary, or the MBT's profile.

All of this seems conveniently incomplete. And the plug/teaser for the next "mystery" was a bit ridiculous and crass.

I think you read a bit much into the "crass teaser" in the end. It was a single sentence about what one of the primary subjects of the film was doing afterwards, to show that he has moved on.

As for the documentary itself, I thought that it was very complete. It gave answers to the questions they set out with. Some of the mysteries have been solved, for some others a very probable theory has been presented, and for the remaining ones it became clear that there weren't going to be any answers, so continuing to look for them would be pointless.

Really the absolutely only thing I can think of that was not in the film is a direct interview with the suspected MBT. And how much do you suppose would a hostile interview ambush, with someone who doesn't want to talk, have contributed or revealed?