A layer too far.


I have an aversion to those movies which tease and titillate with the notion of whether something actually did happen in the story, or whether it was only in the mind of one of the protagonists.

In my opinion this is a cheap device. I mean, the entire thing is a work of fiction, so it's all the product of someone's mind. Who cares whether it's supposedly happening just in the mind of the screenwriter, or in the mind of one of the characters? There's no factuality, so select whatever you please. Does'nt matter.

For this reason, the movie didn't work for me.

As I read this back, it seems a little garbled. Anyone get what I mean?

reply

That's funny. When I wrote that it made sense. Must have been the drugs.

reply

You can edit out the last line. I totally agree with you. I didn't even try to figure out the facts from the fiction in this movie. By the end I just didn't care.

reply

Because character development.

reply

the entire thing is a work of fiction, so it's all the product of someone's mind. Who cares whether it's supposedly happening just in the mind of the screenwriter, or in the mind of one of the characters?
I mean, you could really say this about any work of fiction. "It's just a movie, who cares that this guy is dead" "It's just a movie, why should I care who killed him?" The point is to ignore the fact that it's not real and get completely wrapped up for the length of the film. If you couldn't suspend your disbelief long enough to enjoy the movie, then it seems more like a problem that you have than a problem with the film itself.

reply

Who cares whether it's supposedly happening just in the mind of the screenwriter, or in the mind of one of the characters?


The audience should care, especially when the film is about someones mind. In this particular case, the film was about writing a story that was based on real events (real as it happened in movie). Actually there was very few moments that only happened in character's mind, as both main characters - Claude and Germain - were real. Rapha family was also real, and all events we saw through Claude's eyes (or pen) were real. These events started to disfigure little by little when Germain started to guide Claude through story writing. That's why we saw some things from two different variations.

In general, when done right, mixing imaginative and real things in film is not cheap device. It's same like saying that creating a whole new world or universe with new rules is cheap device. Why couldn't authors come up something we already no exists for real?

reply