There is a point to the movie. It doesn't try to send a message, but it has a point and a purpose. The purpose was to show us events that unfolded surrounding some lost soul wandering around the place being endlessly lost.
You're right that one of the themes of the movie is his sociopathy. But there are many themes to every movie. Another theme is about the life of a lost soul drifter pathetically trying to grasp onto anything he can find, looking for real connections, only to fail miserably and then moving on to something else again. Yet another theme of this movie is about adventure in a foreign country.
I have never claimed that other themes do not exist in this film. You can also claim that this movie is about a guy who tries to improve his French. But these are all secondary and arguably irrelevant. His character/motives/decisions/actions are all that matter in this film. I am making a very simple claim that his sociopathy is responsible for what he does and why ends up in these situations. It can be argued that this film is just a character exploration. With this in mind, you cannot say that him being a sociopath is secondary.
Also, I have not been convinced by your assumption that the purpose of this film is to show the story of some lost soul drifting around. Recognising the storyline is not the same as recognising the purpose. Not all films have an actual purpose or point to them. Sometimes they are just stories without any message or moral. When are saying that the purpose of this film is to show this or that, you are talking about a kind of functional purpose rather than the very purpose of the story. We may disagree on the definition here.
I don't think you understand the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. Running around and inadvertently causing havoc to himself and onto others, are not traits of a sociopath in and of itself. A person can be self-destructive without being a sociopath.
I do consider myself fairly educated on the subject of sociopaths and psychopaths and I would be interested to hear where and how you came to a conclusion that I do not understand the difference between the two? Also, I am not sure why you are telling that a person can be destructive without being a sociopath? What made you think that I had a different opinion? All my assumptions regarding his actions are based on this character alone; I am not making generalised statements about other people and their motives.
I never rejected the idea he was a sociopath, and in fact stated so myself from the beginning. I get your point. You're making a case that he was a sociopath. I think most people agree already. But beyond that I don't know what you're arguing about.
I am aware that you are in agreement with me on his sociopathy. However, it seems that you are disagreeing with my presumpation that his sociopathy is central to his character and thus to this film. In fact, I get the impression that you think it is rather irrelevant.
Your last paragraph is a contradiction. You make a direct declarative assertion, the you declare a backtracking statement to cover your bases. Sociopaths can succeed just as psychopaths can. Psychopathy is not a recipe for success, though there are successful psychopaths in the work place, or among career criminals.
My statement alluded to your statement about successful sociopaths in your previous reply. Yes I agree that I made a generalised statement about psychopaths being more likely to succeed as opposed to sociopaths. I was just speaking in general terms based on my research and understanding of differences between these concepts. I have never claimed that sociopaths cannot be successful. It is just that they are less likely to do so considering their impulsive and erratic tendencies.
As for psychopathy being the recipe for success, again I never made such claim. I was inexplicitly comparing these concepts and my research tells me that psychopaths tend to be more successful in all areas/aspects of life compared to sociopaths.
reply
share