Poor Man's Fight Club
Having not read any of the spoilers, I right away knew this would be a fight club type ending. Predictable, and was nowhere nearly as greatly executed as Fight Club.
shareHaving not read any of the spoilers, I right away knew this would be a fight club type ending. Predictable, and was nowhere nearly as greatly executed as Fight Club.
shareThe Double was released in 1866, so who copied who?
shareIf you haven't read The Double, maybe you should. The story, but especially the ending, is very different from what the director chose to do in this film. IMO the current ending is the poorer option. There are far too many parallels to Fight Club. Had the director stuck to the original ending, maybe he could've avoided some of the more obvious criticism.
shareYou might have read The Double, but you haven't understood it.
shareStrange assumption for someone who doesn't know me and hasn't bothered to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue, but perhaps that's just how you deal with perceived difference of opinion?
Either way, I don't care. I'll just say this, if you think this film is anything more then a pale shadow reminiscent of the existentially brilliant story in Dostoevsky's novel, then you probably just think you understand more about the novel than you actually did.
> Strange assumption for someone who doesn't know me
You started it.
Enough. Don't you know you're both the same person?
shareI'm the only person on here who does.
shareThere aren't too many like you. Are there Aidy?
shareFirstly I haven't read the book version of the Double. For the movie though while the endings appear quite similar ... I interpret them to have entirely different meanings. Of course your interpretation may be different to mine.
In both movies at the end the character killed himself. The basic idea is the same that the main character kills off the successful, overtly dominant, masculine and aggressive part of his personality. (Tyler / James). In fight club though Tyler had already ensured the Banking system which was controlling him and society through materialism and consumerism would be destroyed (one of the main themes in Fight Club). Additionally Tyler was holding his feminine side (Marla who was also part of his multiple personality) hostage. Suppressing her and presumably going to kill her. (again emasculation was a big theme throughout fight club)
So I think he kills Tyler because now he is now free from materialist mindset of society and he doesn't need him anymore. He grows a set of balls and kills Tyler signifying he has become a man again. The final scene with he and Marla holding hands signifies he (masculine) and Marla (feminine) becoming one sane balanced person again in a now freed society. Ying and yang. A story of triumph in my eyes.
In the double I get the complete opposite message. Its not balanced - he doesn't get freed from the controlling nature of his own fear and insecurities. The shadow (Simon) wins and kills off the successful dominant masculine aspects of his personality there by killing his true potential and leaving only the introverted fear and nothing else. Very depressing ending actually. I think perhaps Ayoade's take on the current state of humanity - which is we are living in fear.
Wait, what? Fight Club? That's like comparing apples and... machine guns. Fight Club and this movie have basically nothing in common.
shareI'm guessing he specifically meant the idea of Simon killing off his other self while managing to survive.
shareExcept in Fight Club the "other self" was an alter ego, not an actual person with it's own individual body and existence.
shareWhere is it shown "the double" was a real person?
shareIt can be inferred from the fact that every other character in the movie acknowledged the double's existence. So we know that it's as real as all the other characters.
shareCan it not also be inferred that as no-one acknowledged the likeness of the two people that the third party observers in the movie are "unreliable narrators"?
Edit: Also the other characters that appear multiple times...are these also doubles? Is there something about this universe that spawns many instances of people who look identical to each other? Or could the perception we're shown of the universe be skewed?
Well, that's not actually true. The movie made it very clear that these two people actually did look identical, twice. The first time was when the original one took the test for the double. The second time was when he took the double's place in the date. These were actually two individual people, and they did actually look identical.
Of course it's possible that the other characters had doubles as well, but that is 100% speculation, since the movie offered no evidence for that, either way.
I said the characters in the movie made no reference to the likeness, not the movie itself. If the characters can not be relied on (if we are to believe the character's are to be relied upon they would point out the likeness, so we have to assume they are not to be relied upon as no-one did), you can't use them or their actions as firm evidence that there were two people.
Interesting that my predictions are playing out exactly as I said they would
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825157/board/nest/228518250?p=3&d=233 227896#233227896
Your reasoning is completely flawed. We don't need the characters to say "Hey! You two look identical!" to know that they do in fact look identical. The fact that one of the copies was able to take the test for the other copy and the test taker didn't notice the difference is proof that they did actually look identical. How can you argue against that?
And the fact that none of the characters didn't point out the likeness isn't proof anything, other than that it was a weird movie. However, if you do recall, there was a scene early on where one of the characters did acknowledge their similiarity after the main character tried to bring it to his attention.
When he was at the table with the girl who was gushing about the double, saying how he was unique. When asked if he reminded her of anyone, she said no.
As I predicted in the link I posted...you go on thinking that a movie in which no-one mentions the fact that two people look identical all characters are reliable, while ignoring other evidence of character unreliability like the multiple roles that were duplicated, because insisting an unorthodox interpretation must be true just makes you so much cleverer than I. I mean, your thinking is so unconstrained. Wow.
The movie offers plenty of evidence that the two people actually do look identical. It's also called "The Double." The fact that most people didn't seem to notice this or find it strange was what made the movie surreal and interesting. I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter.
The link you posted is broken. And I'm not quite sure what you are getting at in that second paragraph.
You can admit the fact that no-one commented means these people can't be considered normal characters you'd get in a straight-forward movie. Either something supernatural is going on, on the story is being told by unreliable narrator. The latter is what is really going on, but if you think it is the former then don't worry, Michael Bay will be making "The Double II"
shareOf course they aren't normal characters in a straightforward movie. I never claimed they were. All I was saying was that it was obvious that the doubles were individual people that actually did look objectively identical. That's the entire extent of my point. To me, the movie seemed to be a set in a strange dream-like universe where the normal rules of logic don't apply, i.e., it was clearly supposed to be surreal. And no, I don't think there is a supernatural explanation to the events of the movie, in the sense that the movie existed in our universe but the characters were being influenced by a supernatural force. You are posing a false dichotomy, as there are other explanations to be considered.
shareThe girl at the funeral said "Why have you got his face?"
shareYou are wrong Aidy. When Simon attends his mother's funeral a woman very clearly says something along the lines of "why does he have your face?!", as well as another line regarding the matter directly after that. So you are very off-base. They are confirmed two separate people. Deal with it.
shareI put that down to the director deliberately creating ambiguity. Given that 99% of his interactions are with people who think nothing of the similarity, the one time it is mentioned doesn't prove the rule. The movie is more ambiguous than the book in a few ways, not just this, and the overall effect is one where the goings on are less certain. On the same subject, he wasn't the only "double" in the movie either, others were replicated. Are these different people too? Or just a part of the protagonists schism of mind? Given the source material has only a single person I think it would be naïve to think the movie is otherwise.
At the end of the day, I predicted these very arguments would be the prevalent ones pretty much on my first post after watching it, so I'm in no way surprised. It's just IMDB nonsense.
So you genuinely believe that was his alter-ego, like in Fight Club, and not two different characters? Wow, I really did not see it like that. I'm not saying you're wrong, it just seems strange to me you see it that way.
We call this the Loom of Fate.
It's a movie, things don't have to be 100% real or even make 100% sense. It being two different people is unlikely due to the lack of references. If two people who looked identical worked in the same place, don't you think people would mention it? Also in the novella it is taken from it is more obvious there is only a single person who is losing his mind (a schizoid type personality where he isn't aware of the other personality), but the director has chosen to run with the story but make it more ambiguous as there is a strand of movie making that thinks movies are better if left ambiguous.
shareIf they were 2 different people, and not the exact same person via alter ego, why did any damage done to one reflect on the others body?
List of best tv series voted by IMDB users http://www.imdb.com/list/ubCYOSR-b6E/
Because it's a black comedy set in an alternate fantasy world. The 2 characters are closely related, but are not the exact same person, in my opinion anyway.
We call this the Loom of Fate.
I'm afraid Aidy you'r wrong. others have told you countless arguments to tell you they are actually 2 guys looking the same. There is an advertisement " people are just people with nothing special". That's the meaning of the movie. The point is to make you think that people are tools and formatted to see what they are told to see.
This guy James is an executive : his work is good . They are blind to reality . Only when forced to watch and not just see they can realize the 2 are the same. (Simon ask one of his colleague to look closely ) but even then they dont care as what matters is who society decided who they'd be.
It's very accurate for a book from the 19th century. It describes the society we are more and more going to deal with. If the system says you dont exist then you dont. If you look the same well who cares because on file one is an employee the other the executive so they are treated according to their assigned class.
And well if you think all this happens in a schizoid mind you missed the whole point of it and that's quite a pity. All in all great movie.
People have indeed given arguments as to the fact that it is two people...however there are even more arguments to suggest that it isn't. By ignoring the arguments given by myself and others that say it is one person, and instead focusing on the arguments that satisfy your own opinions is mere confirmation bias.
You speak as if the movie is clear cut and unambiguous when even I would admit that it isn't. However in the original material there was only one protagonist, in this movie there is the odd thing that suggests there are two (as in the original material) but the overwhelming evidence points toward the idea that there is only one person. What you are suggesting is that the writer chose to adapt a work of fiction and, in the process, completely invert the entire thing. The fact that you ignore what is in front of you just so you can spout the predictable (*) IMDB is what is the pity.
* so predictable I already predicated it;
"What I find interesting is that for about 90% of movies, everyone on the IMDB boards has a theory that none of it ever happened and it was all in the person's head. When this is officially debunked\denied by "The Voice of God" they then fall back on the premise that movies are open to interpretation and there is an implication that they think the "it was all in their head" theory makes them more intelligent than everyone else.
Now here is a movie where you could actually plausibly say that it did happen in his head....and the IMDB regulars are now stumped for theories that make them seem more intelligent as their catch-all theory no longer works.
...
Were they the same person? A figment of each other's imagination? It's just a movie...it was just things that happened and you should just enjoy it for what it was. Having read the source material I'd err to the side that it was simply madness, but when the IMDB regulars get wind of this you'll start to see them insist that it was actually two different people because some people think that having an interpretation that differs from the orthodox makes them "more intelligent" than you."
if you read the original novel you would immediately noticed that this movie is an adaptation not at all a transcription of the novel . Only few narrative element are identical the rest has been discarded as it would have been inadequate to put on screen in 2013.
Besides even the novel has 2 version : the first one published in 1841 and the second rewritten from 1866.
In this movies evidences tends to show they are actually 2 guys.
I guess they didn't want to have only 1 guy in the end because they are many movies already out there with that common twist.
now what matters is that you have to remember ( and I found it a shame no one point this out here) that Dostoevsky is a contemporary of karl Marx and the russian revolution. As I said earlier it really depicts how society react to someone based on his class not who he truly is;
The first guy, of a lower class is generous, takes care of his mother. But of course being just a employee his work is seeing as bad by his chief.
the other guy , with no moral, who doesn't work, who steals, lies, and abuses, gets the honors ( symbolic of honor lounge) and when the humble guy tries to point out the other one has no moral and his a fraud , people tell him he's crazy. That was often what happened in Russia at that time , if you dared to tell such things , you would end up in a psychiatric hospital. Communism has killed millions and hundred of thousands of intellectual. Still nowadays communist tell their opponents they are suffering from some psychosis if they dont agree with them ( See Melenchon in France for instance).
I understand why you think there is only 1 character but still that doesn't fit at all to me.
Then I dont know what "imdb" people have to do with anything. dont you think people can't have their own thoughts like you do?
Besides people here are from everywhere in the world ( most american true) and how you "receive" a film also depends of your cultural/political environment. So there arent going to be a 100% agreement over your ideas no matter what they could be.
Even if the director tells us he wanted to do this or that , that wouldn't disregard other people opinions ( well in specific case of course not for dumb logical idiotic movies). Most of the time the creation has its own life. We can see this happening many times with songs. Author often didnt even thought of what is going to be the admitted interpretation of his text.
In the end we see what we want to see , right ( how ironical this being the plot of this movie) , that's the purpose of art.
The novel often suggests there are two people also....in fact it makes numerous hints toward this. But there aren't two people....only one. So when the movie also hints there are two people, there has to be two people? The movie is the exact opposite of the novel?
If you think it makes you seem superior to other people, you're free to believe what you want.
"I said the characters in the movie made no reference to the likeness, not the movie itself."
- During the funeral for the mother, one of the girls said, "Who are you? Why have you got his face?"
So, at least one character flat-out acknowledged their likeness.
> Of course it's possible that the other characters had doubles as well, but that is 100% speculation, since the movie offered no evidence for that, either way.
The doctor and the doorkeeper where doubles. Simon acknowledges the fact that they look identical. So it's not 100% speculation, rather something we could believe to be probable, or quite likely. Even if we can never confirm the fact that everyone had a double, we know that there are probably other doubles out there.
But just for the heck of it let's try to prove the hypothesis that everyone has doubles. Hanna draws pictures of two girls that look identical from behind. There is also the doctor who is just alike the doorkeeper. The old lady who is a friend of Simon's mother hints that she knows what is happening to Simon, and tries to help him by giving him a knife, which looks esoteric.
Also most of the population looks old, and those who don't, who have few apparitions throughout the film, are between 30, 40 and 50. This hints to the possibility that the society portrayed is mostly constituted by older folk, and not a lot of newborns are being made. Which can be hinted too by the heavy Japanese influence, music, food, way of living (japan is suffering a low in the birth rate).
The low amount of younger folk could be attributed to many things:
1. not a lot of couples having sex. 40% of probability, due to a dull/bleak life.
2. matchmaking is hard. Hinted by the crowd clapping when James and Hanna kiss in the restaurant. 30% probable.
3. (my favorite) "Doubles" cause disruption and fights, which leads to deaths, and suicides. Which justifies the suicide squad of the police. It's quite likely that doubles are something that happens to everyone, but only a few survive, lowering the younger population (both Simon and Hannah attempt suicide). And if we assume that anyone that survives a double will live a full life (since the movie is set in some kind of future, healthcare could be high, similar in our current society), it would make perfect sense that most of the population is old. 70% probable.
I know that point number 3 is a bit of a fallacy, in the sense that both ideas rely on each other in order to be true... Like doubles need to be true, and the old population part need to be true, in order for the pattern (or hypothesis) to be true. It feels like a long shot, yet something about paradoxes, fallacies, doubles, and spirals seem to be the topic of the movie, so it doesn't feel as surreal or as unlikely if you see it with a lens of weird (which the movie is).
[deleted]
[deleted]
They also acknowledged Brad Pitt's and Edward Norton's characters in Fight Club even though we end up finding out they were the same person/
List of best tv series voted by IMDB users http://www.imdb.com/list/ubCYOSR-b6E/
I'm so tired of people comparing films to "Fight Club". Can't people come up with something a little more original - something not so superficial. I find the comparison ridiculous. If you didn't like "The Double", that's fine. You might want to criticize it for what it is, not what it isn't.
shareActually 'The Double' (written by Fyodor Dostoyevsky) on which this film is based was first published in 1846, a whole 150 years before 'Fight Club' was written.
shareWhat the *beep* does a movie about someone who's jealous and scared of a non-birth related identical twin and carries out a murder, have anything to do with Fight Club? Its not where near as violent, its theme is different, its tone feels different eventhough both movies do have a "strange air" but thats way to general statement to be considered a similiar theme. Also the fact the movie deviated from the book isn't proof of anything except that the movie director thought it better for the big screen.
share[deleted]