MovieChat Forums > The Zero Theorem (2014) Discussion > It was all in his head

It was all in his head

posted 10 years ago by lunchboxwanderer
27 replies | jump to latest

I think all the main characters were his internal dialogue (self talk).

His boss was his parent(rules to live by).

Management was his adult, objective self (processor of information, zero emotion).

Bob was his childish influence (anything goes, I want it now mentality).

His pain, like most people, is caused by conflict of the parent and child in his mind.

"Zero theorem" is a paradox. The only way to make zero 100% is to destroy everything known to you and your being.

100% of zero is zero. Void.

The conflict is resolved at the end when he's at the core and it self destructs, in effect destroying his former self (thought patterns).

This is symbolized when he looks into the void, sees pictures from his life and the galaxy/black hole. At first he's scared of the uncertainty of himself (is he real?) and steps away.

However, he's ready to "step into" the next stage of his life/being/entity and unafraid, smiles and takes the plunge.

He ends up at what was the only place he was happy in the film/life, the beach.

I'd say the main idea is that your "life" is all in your head.

It is what you want it to be.

[–] silverscreenimage 10 years ago

I love this interpretation. What was Bainsley? I was so sad when he didn't go with her.

[–] lunchboxwanderer 10 years ago

Bainsley symbolizes his spirit. Does he have the capacity to love himself?

Or does he want to continue on the path to 100% of zero through his self loathing?

Clearly, he chooses the former.

Think about the character, he calls himself "we" (parent, adult, child, soul/spirit) throughout the film.

When the conflict is resolved, he finally calls himself "I," meaning at one with himself- mind, body and soul.

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

Did you get the feeling, the kid was him when younger, and the prostitute was his wife?

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] lunchboxwanderer 10 years ago

In a basic way, yes.

[–] DangerManTX 10 years ago

If you have to analyse a movie in depth to understand it, then it failed in its task. You could also argue that Bainsley was the emotional side of him that he had shunned or missed out on. Probably irrelevant but dividing by zero is of course infinity... Which implies that multiplying infinity with 0 = everything (100%).

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

actually

and so division by zero is undefined.

Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 has no defined value and is called an indeterminate form. Historically, one of the earliest recorded references to the mathematical impossibility of assigning a value to a/0 is contained in George Berkeley's criticism of infinitesimal calculus in The Analyst ("ghosts of departed quantities").[citation needed]

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] DangerManTX 10 years ago

Well if you have to google wikipedia and cut and paste bs. as your reply then that speaks volumes. There's no 'actually' about it. You google Wikipedia for your knowledge, and I'll draw from my Math's (Hons) Degree.

Had you bothered to read some more of the same article you cut and pasted from you might have read: "In computing, a program error may result from an attempt to divide by zero. Depending on the programming environment and the type of number (e.g. floating point, integer) being divided by zero, it may generate positive or negative infinity by the IEEE 754 floating point standard, generate an exception, generate an error message, cause the program to terminate, or result in a special not-a-number value." The movie was about a computer hacker, was it not...

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

Good for you except I dont know you from a bar of soap

why dont you take your honors degree and modify the wikipedia page ALONG with your thesis and references ;)

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] DangerManTX 10 years ago

Well because I think Wikipedia is crap and a massive source of misinformation. Which is why, it is not allowed to be cited in any scientific paper, college or school report.

[–] Korios 10 years ago

Wikipedia is tightly controlled and for scientific articles only uses sources from scientific papers. They are basically rewriting the scientific papers in a more plain and comprehensible language, understood not only by academics, and the sources are always listed. Nature and Science are not readily accessible to the entire world, they are journals only for scientists.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] Jorgosch 10 years ago

The only thing that's worse than misguided thinking is thinking in absolutes all the time.

[–] ChazzJazz 10 years ago

BTW, this movie wasnt like Darren Orondosky's (sp) The Fountain....it wasnt about everlasting consciousness.

He was looking at his sunset, and becoming stardust

http://myimpressionz.tk

[–] lunchboxwanderer 10 years ago

Computer programs are garbage in garbage out and finite.

The character being a computer hacker I believe was a metaphor of hacking one's own mind, the hardest problem of all to solve.

The variables are infinite, unable to quantify.

In the end, a person has to go with the "best information available."

A leap of faith.

[–] merqabah 10 years ago

he wasn't a computer hacker or programer, he was sort of a data processor.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] merqabah 10 years ago

that summary in imdb is wrong, he is neither a computer hacker(he doesnt do any sort of hacking whatsoever) nor does management send bob and the call girl to distract him, they send them to entice him into keeping the work on.

they refer to him as a number cruncher and he corrects them saying he is an entity cruncher during the scene with the medics.

[–] knwr (15) 7 years ago

DangerManTX

Yes, I feel the same about visual. If it makes me think, then it isn't art.
Same with music. If I don't "feel" it the first round--Garbage.

[–] lunchboxwanderer 10 years ago

I'm not saying it's a good or bad movie. I just thought it was interesting.

It made me think and that's what I came up with.

Who knows what the writer was thinking or intended for the audience to think. It doesn't matter to me.

[–] toddp-10 10 years ago

If you have to analyse a movie in depth to understand it, then it failed in its task.

People go way too far out of their way to find ambiguous or hidden themes that "others missed". Not sure if it's a vain attempt to try be smarter than others or the audience sees so many twists these days that they go hunting for them. Or maybe a little of both.

I disagree with the OP but as these theories always seem to involve "it's all in his head" and thus really cannot be disproved...

[–] merqabah 10 years ago

that overanalazing goes way back, Buñuel complained of people asigning random values and meaning to his work that he didnt have, so he poked fun at that type of audience by introducing weird random things that had no meaning at all, like the Bear in the exterminating angel, the beatles did that as well with i am the walrus.

it seems though that latest trends, have been to explain films as being in one characters head or giving freudian qualities to absoltutely everything, (even with how outdated and disproven freud and co are this days).

and remember the burden of proof remains on th eone who makes the claim.

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

"Not sure if it's a vain attempt to try be smarter than others"

it is. i even have proof of that. if you go to the boards of films like "her", "the conselour" or "transcendence", movies that are aiming for higher meaning, but IMHO fail at that, you will find hundreds of people who gladly will throw "you just did not get the film" at everyone that did not found it to be a phenomenal experiance. why? because it can not possibly be, that someone did not like something, that they liked and they have to be stupid. that's the only valid explanation in my mind. ironically you rarely see those people at a fellini or kubrick or lynch or haneke board. ;)

"or the audience sees so many twists these days that they go hunting for them."

i would rather say, that it is a desperate search for meaning. in everything. no matter how shallow.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

[–] BorisKarpov 10 years ago

How about NO! I think this theory is only in YOUR mind. Completely free (wrong) interpretation, but hey your free to think whatever you like.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stvbckwth 10 years ago

Most compelling explanation i have read yet in this forum. Respect.

[–] dax-acidburn 10 years ago

Nicely rounded up theory, I came to a pretty much the same conclusion myself after watching it. I'd also add thoughts about how the characters disappeared once he overcame the thinking patters represented by them, or learned through them.

He broke the rules, therefore disobeying the parent. He learned to love and learn from bob's childish influence. Those two acts served as a setting point to overcome what's symbolised as Management, and it's all the stress, fears, lies, negative emotions that's served to us on a daily basis by our fellow society. The more you're surrounded and fed by it, the more you're human spirit dies.

Management symbolism was the hardest obstacle to overcome, but once he did, then he finally found and freed he's true self, or as you said stepped into the true void, where all shapes and styles apply, where nothing is everything and vice versa. Basically what he found was zen, and only after he came to that point was he ready for real love and happiness to return to his life, and since we hear cutie Bainsley laughing at the end, I think it's supposed to give the viewer an optimistic ending, and I hope more people find it that way :)

[–] lunchboxwanderer 10 years ago

That was a great summation.

[–] KopCity 9 years ago

Can't believe ur making a big deal out of *beep* movie. It was interestingly *beep*