MovieChat Forums > Anomalisa (2016) Discussion > In-depth analysis/theory (Only if you've...

In-depth analysis/theory (Only if you've seen the film)


So to answer anyone's question to why Anomalisa is so amazing, it's because it is a very complex psychological film that ponders the unsettling mind of Michael and the ultimate tragedy of his struggles, but also a testament to human connection. The film is very cryptic with its explanations but things fall into place when context becomes clear. Anomalisa is a fine example of how bleak storytelling should be. At first it might seem spacey and tough to unravel, but once you find that pinhole of context the scope of its narrative widens to greater depths.

Michael suffers a rare psychological disorder called Fregoli Delusion.

The Fregoli delusion, or the delusion of doubles, is a rare disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that different people are in fact a single person who changes appearance or is in disguise.

This disorder is a subtle fact about Michael as he frequently ponders psychological problems but also the hotel he stays at is called The Fregoli, and also every character has the same voice.

This hotel is an alternate manifestation of the hotel he's staying at on his business trip.

Theory: Michael is in a dream, or a form of hysteria that meets dream and reality.

At the opening sequence as we watch a plane follow through the clouds, after a while the camera pans back to the cabin Michael resides as he watches out the window - was that really another plane, or the plane Michael sees himself riding in? Some people dream in 3rd-person. There is also a man next to him slumbering away as he mutters how holding his wife's hand is an instinct, which goes along a continuous theme of Michael's sexual frustrations muttered throughout the film.

The reality of Michael's world changes depending on his moods and patterns he picks up on (i.e dialogue from the taxi driver repeats with other characters and also visually on billboards). The redundant amount of food services on the hotel phone caught his attention as irregular as well, because it was not realistic.

Michael explores his sexual frustration, first with his ex, Bella. He thinks about where she is years after he left her. He looks up her name in a phone book and her full name is Bella Amarossi. I started thinking about her name after thinking of "Anomalisa" and how it's a play on two words, and I realize Amarossi might just be a play on words as well, and the distinction between "Amorous" and "Rossi". The real Bella Michael once dated might have been Bella Rossi, and the word Amorous reveals a very important detail.

Amorous - showing, feeling, or relating to sexual desire.

It turns out Michael is indeed going through lustful sexual desires that he'd have to call it up.

Lisa, or rather the Anomalisa Michael created, is not real. I speculate Michael did indeed have a one-night stand with a woman named Lisa, and he did indeed take advantage of her, but the Anomalisa he names is just a figment of his ideal woman and not something that exists. Anomalisa is a play between "Anomaly" and "Lisa"

Anomaly - something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

Michael literally placed and anomaly over this woman and devised her as a "Goddess of Heaven", which the film later defines as the meaning of the two words together. Anomalisa is Michael's idea of a perfect woman.

The next day Lisa's girlfriend tells her to stay away from him because he's not normal. He took advantage of her, and her friend protects her.

Michael had wishful thoughts that Animalisa the character that he imprinted on a woman, would be the perfect remedy to break his delusional spell, and it worked for a while because only Animalisa had the distinct voice of all the voices in the film.

The song lyrics in the credits is very important, as it explains a man who gets introduced to many yet none of them are you, the woman he has not met yet, the woman of his dreams. The song then goes into saying how he sometimes re-constructs your imaginary voice in his dreams and plays out how the perfect coupling would be, and then the song closes with the emphasis that maybe one day he will meet you at a street corner.

In conclusion: Anomalisa explores a man's sexual frustrations, loneliness and psychological imperfections in a dream-reality state while he is on a business trip. There's the irony of being a public speaker yet so disassociated with human connection yet he clamors onto the possibility of finding the right one so much he dreams of it. He manifests the ideal woman onto a one-night-stand only to realize the next day she's just like everyone else and not the remedy he hoped for. He goes back to his family and still yet he suffers.

Pure tragedy.

Thoughts?

reply

Great analysis, well written. Who would have thought that one of this year's best films would be with puppets. Tom Noonan's voice is gonna haunt me for days.

reply

Pure tragedy.


You nailed it, crazyllamathing. I think sometimes people forget that 'tragedy' is a film genre and that the characters in that genre aren't going to have a happy ending. I've seen so many people complaining about how Michael is an ass, jerk, etc that they are fundamentally missing the point: He's supposed to be that way, otherwise we wouldn't have a story.

Nice catch on the
"Amorous" and "Rossi".
- I totally missed that. Wow! that's brilliant! She thought she was being everything he wanted and then one day - boom, he's gone. She no longer fulfilled his fantasy and therefore he felt it ok to discard her without a word.

With the slow pace and the seemingly mundane occurrences, this movie is kinda disguised as not having much to it - but its all in the subtext.

Theory: Michael is in a dream, or a form of hysteria that meets dream and reality.

I do disagree with this. I don't think he's dreaming all of these events. Otherwise we'd be watching a dream within a dream and then, I think, it would lose its power as a real condition for many people.

This movie is really eye opening and sheds light on egocentric behavior. Essentially it calls people out on it and I think there are lots of people that don't actually enjoy looking in the mirror (their flaws). Therefore they just get defensive and call the movie dumb.

Oh well, it's an 'art film'. Not everyone going to like it.

reply

Just got home from it and it was so heartbreakingly beautiful. All of this is great analysis, although I do agree with Geovibe up above that I don't believe it was all a dream or even a partially a dream (except of course, the dream sequence haha). I think it's just purposefully surreal in ways, but within the world of the film, it's all very real, and his condition helps in making things strangely dream-like.

www.bydavidrosen.com
www.reverbnation.com/davidrosen

I compose music. That's what I do.

reply

Great analysis clt (crazyllamathing). Although I definitely don't think that Micheal was dreaming the whole time, the movie feels very dreamlike with its animation and visuals in general.

That Really Rustled My Jimmies

reply

Guys, I have been thinking about it a lot still and I've been talking about it all day at work with one of my coworker friends and I have to update this post because I think we decrypted the film entirely, and it's quite a bit different from my original theory but it kinda weaves in nicely at the same time.

I'm give it a night and write it out when I can sit down and think.

reply

This movie is way more of a *beep* than a lot of us were expecting.

I don't think this new theory will disappoint.

reply

Looking forward to this theory.
My theory about it was pretty basic, that Michael was suffering fregoli delusion and when he finally met someone he felt was a little different he quickly discovered that she was just the shame. Basically life is just full of disappointments. I also find it interesting how he is sort of in love with himself. He dreams about people admiring him, and the people around him seem to praise him quite a lot.

reply

Another way to look at the movie is that it's an analogy of being bored.

We can get tired of anything if we're fed enough of it, and that's what the protagonist is going through, his main career center around understanding PEOPLE. And in time as he understand more and more people....everyone seem the same to him.

Then he met Lisa, a woman who is unintelligent and unattractive....BUT...she is different and not mundane. However, in the end, when he was just planning to be together with her....he notice all the little flaws in her and tried to change her. Lisa with the low self esteem and admiration of the protagonist naturally tries to change to fit his needs.

As she change her habits to fit him, as she corrects her flaws....he realize she's just like everyone else. The irony being that what he finds special, that set her apart from everyone else is the very same flaws he's trying to change. And slowly....she becomes just another person.....

-------------------

If this film were to be about coffee instead of women, it'll be the protagonist is tried of every cup of coffee taste the same. Then one day someone put pepper sauce in a cup of coffee and he loved it and it's so different.....however...in the end he found it too spicy and have the sauce taken out.....and the new cup of coffee taste the same again, putting the protagonist back to his original dilemma.

--------------
That's my take on the moral of the story.

reply

you are partially right. but its not boredom, its something to do with his profesion... when you are in customer service, todays companies try to make you like everyone else.. you have to be polite, smile, be happy, attentive all the time, no matter if your dog died, didnt sleep enough that day, or just having a bad day anyway... so because of bussiness, people hide, loose, or just ignore their own feelings, in time starts to feel like its all the same to you. not to mention that mostly customers do not see the other side as humans as well, but just someone who is there to make their wish come true, or someone to yell on..

reply

Huh good catch on the Fregoli thing. I might have thought "oh you're reaching" haha but if the hotel was called that...you must be on to something!

reply

Alright, here is the blow-out for Anomalisa, and I must say...what a brilliantly deceptive film to watch that will indeed play with your very own emotions, and certainly after this revelation it might make a lot of you go back and rethink that intimate sex scene packed with compassion as a complete lie for a way more raunchy and twisted truth behind our lonely character.

Michael holds onto old letters from Bella from back when they were together, and he often reads them to re-visualize the memories he's had with her, plagued with guilt over why he left her - but he still wants her under more lusty conditions.

At the hotel Michael decides to call her up and reunite in the bar, and they do. Michael fails miserably in achieving sex, and the aftermath he trails himself to that "toy store" that the taxi driver told him about at the beginning of the movie. It turns out Michael was recommended to a sex shop...could this have been a misunderstanding on the taxi driver's part, or could it have been where Michael wanted to go all along?

In the sex shop Michael gazes up at a Japanese sex doll, and he's mesmerized by its rustic imperfections. The most prominent and important detail about this doll Michael finds most beautiful is the cracks on the right side of its face, next to its eye. Michael gasps and says "it's so pretty", the first time we caught Michael in the entire film to be taken away by something he finds beautiful. He buys this doll.

Michael goes back to his hotel room and takes a shower to prepare himself for a hot one with the doll he just purchased. He looks into the mirror and goes into a mode of hysteria and runs around the hallway causing a ruckus to all the other guests.

Lisa shows up for the first time.

Michael is taken away by Lisa's imperfections, and especially that scar on the right side of her face next to her eye, the same position of the crack on the sex doll's face. Michael exclaims one more time how beautiful he finds its imperfections to be.

Michael lets her sing, and while most of the song Lisa sings is about how girls want to have fun, Japanese lyric was squeezed in between her lines as well.

Lisa explains to Michael how she likes the word "anomaly" and how she feels like she herself is one, and that's because she most certainly is one and not someone that actually exists.

An anomaly is a deviation away from something that is considered normal, and Michael's way of creating one is deviating away from having normal sex with another human being to devising a his ideal woman onto a sex doll, whom of which Lisa also has striking similarities to Bella.

This is Michael's perfect woman, and it's something that does not exist. His perfect woman is a combination of past relationships and his fascination to something as cold and mechanical as a Japanese doll.

The next morning Michael's face falls off and soon he's ready to be back to reality, he goes back to the room which he recalls meeting Lisa and her other friend is no longer infatuated by him but calls him a freak.

Michael goes up for his speech, and he has terrible execution...it's almost like he did not properly prepare the way he was supposed to for talking in front of people, and he fumbles miserably. He was too distracted by his own sexual fantasies to do anything remotely productive on his business trip.

Michael flies back home to his family and he realizes his delusional fantasies are not going to fix his problems. The sex doll which he gave to his son as a gift contains semen - his semen.

His wife resents this site with disgust and yells at Michael that he can do better than that and that he has family that actually care for him.

Michael sits back on the stair steps looking back at the doll one last time as it sings its Japanese tune. The sex doll is the only other thing in the entire film besides Lisa to have a female voice, and that's because that sex doll was Lisa.

As the doll's lullaby comes to a close Michael imagines Lisa's voice one last time, and in a bright dreamlike reality, Lisa explains how amazing her time was with Michael and writes on the same parchment of the letters Michael held from Bella.

Plot revelation: a man has a wet dream of the perfect woman while having sex with a pleasure doll.

*beep*

reply

Holy *beep* dude. Although I don't necessarily think this is what happened, it's a really interesting theory. If this is what happened then why did Lisa get her monologue at the end seeing Emily as a real person instead of Michael's view of everyone else?

That Really Rustled My Noonans

reply

I believe that Lisa's monologue at the end might have been in Michael's head, making his last role-play with the perfect woman with the perfect romantic goodbye. This is after all the very struggle of Michael's psychological problem, as it's been elaborated he'll just leave a woman with no cause. He did the same thing to Bella, yet he still romanticized her even after ten years of being separated. Michael savors that romantic goodbye, and the one with Lisa was perfect to him. Her voice also went back to feminine even after her voice previously faded to a man's voice.

There is no way Michael could have read that letter. They never exchanged contact information and Lisa did not write it before he left because she was writing it in a car. But here was Michael thinking of it anyways.

I suggest a dreamlike reality during the last shot because the only times in the film where there was a deliberate distinction between dream and reality were the times Michael had Bella's energy haunt him with her glowing presence. Bella's dream-self had a drastically sharper light contrast than anything else in the movie, and because she was just in his head. The ending we find the same lighting contrast as Lisa writes her monologue.

That last shot only came after Michael sat down contemplating his night staring at the Japanese doll, and listening to her voice one more time in his head - then it fades to that car shot.

reply

That makes sense. I just wanted to add (even though I did state it before in this thread): one of the things I love about the film so much is that it feels dreamlike. The animation, the surreal moments and the visuals in general make the movie feel very dreamlike. This is one of the main reasons I love Eyes Wide Shut (my 2nd favorite movie) so much. I hope Kaufman continues making amazing films such as this, and I would definitely like if he made more stop-motions with Starburns Industries.

That Really Rustled My Jimmies

reply

Yeah, I agree with ya on that one.
I think Anomalisa might just be one of those films that will never have a 100% explanation confirmed by the artist, and due to the allowance of the audience member making an interpretation. This is going to be in the league of speculation with classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey where even to this day people speculate, or one of my personal favorite psychological films Mulholland Drive by David Lynch.

These films are your ultimate puzzle boxes and they leave open-interpretation that lends to different theories based off what will satisfy you.

What I find fascinating about Anomalisa is you can watch the film and all you get is an intimate love-story set over the course of a one-night stand, or a man's disassociation with humans, and maybe it can be a testament human connection in general.

I feel like all these explanations are satisfied if that's as far as you want to go into the subtext.

But this is Charlie Kaufman we're talking about here, and he is better than just ending things here. Charlie is the king of bringing out our morbid, dark and twisted reputations and his ways are always cryptic they take time to understand.

I think that Japanese sex doll is a reminder to we as an audience that we are after all witnessing something that is cold, mechanical and ultimately fake as the dolls that are displayed on screen - yet we are tricked emotionally to believe that Anomalisa is one of the most human things you'll see on screen, completely forgetting the fact none of it is real.

This is a very suiting trickery that fits with the very Fregoli that Michael is going through, except now this delusion has rubbed off on you.

To realize our own emotions being led by a deceptive and cryptic plotline to be anything but what we originally thought is only something I can imagine a brilliant Kaufman would do.

reply

Now, you're getting somewhere.

*Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance*

reply

Very interesting theory, you caught a lot of small details there! This is the reason I always go to IMDB boards after watching a movie, so cool to read different takes that open your mind and make you think the whole movie again.

The internet thanks you! :)

reply

The meaning of Anomalisa in Japanese, "Goddess of Heaven", is from the Japanese writings on the doll (as pointed out by his son). Michael has looked it up in the Japanese-English dictionary.

reply

I agree with some of your thoughts, but "it was a dream" opinion for any movie really is a last resort for me to pin my ideas on. It's such a cop out.

I absolutely think Lisa's letter was real...as it was read by her voice. Also, you can see that both girls in the car had unique faces - no longer the same one as Michael.

To me...that was the point of the movie - to show us that the people were indeed real, it was just his perception of them as boring and the same, that was the issue.

reply

I really liked how you pointed out the Fregoli and the Bella Amorousi wordplay and how they fit into the movie - I totally missed out on that. The dream theory you suggest seems plausible enougth but somehow I don't buy into it. The letter he reads in the end is one reason why I don't think it's a dream reality at all. When he is reading the letter we are shown an image of Lisa in the car and for the first time we see her friend Emily's face as she really is - not the simulacrum of everybody else that Michael perceives others to be, which suggests there is a full functioning existing world outside of Michael with which he interacted actively. He perceived people as virtually identical (both in voice and facial features) except for Lisa and we are shown reality through his eyes - or rather, as he emotionally perceives it, as it were. However that reality does seems to exist outside himself.
Either way, i think the film is a metaphor and should be pondered mostly as just that: a metaphorical play on human relationship, social interaction and the innability to cope with live's many dissapointments and unwillingness to cater to our every desire and the dissilusionment that that causes. I view the characters mostly as archetypes that are meant to fuel a metaphorical representation of human behaviour and other themes the movie broaches.

reply

I'm not sure it's worth thinking too deeply about whether Lisa was real, but, if we must, I have to admit that's an interesting theory. Michael masturbating into the Japanese doll, which he imagines is Lisa. It's compelling (1) because their blemishes are almost identical and (2) because there's semen in the doll when he gives it to his son Henry. [Now, why he'd even consider that an appropriate gift for a small boy is hilarious. Henry is a complete *beep* if you ask me.] A third point is that Lisa at one point says she likes languages and "of course Japanese." Why would she use the expression "of course"?


That said, if pressed to take up this discussion, it still seems unlikely Lisa was his wet dream. For one thing, she's not very attractive (her body is hardly masturbatory material). Second, the sex struck me as very complex and emotional; hardly the stuff of masturbatory fantasies. The post-coital stuff likewise and it's hard to imagine the breakfast conversation about moving to L.A. and not eating with your mouth full would be like a continuation of his wet dream.

There's clearly meant to be some connection between Lisa and the doll. I'm not sure I entirely understand it, but as one person put it, they're both anomalies. Both are "originals" surrounded by phonies. That's why the doll appealed to him and Lisa the same.

reply

Hmmm. I was sure Lisa was real, but the part about the semen and the Japanese, I didn't think of before. Those are good points.

There might be a connection between Lisa and the doll, but I don't think they're one and the same.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

Last night at a Q&A Charlie stated Jennifer Jason Leigh voiced the doll at the end.

reply

Just one more detail that further supports this theory. :D

At this point I am convinced the sex doll is the most likely story to the entire film, completely decoded.

I know my theory is not perfect yet, I know there's still a few grey areas that are not entirely clear to me yet, but so far absolutely every observation I've made in the film makes complete logical sense that supports the sex doll wet dream. I have yet to run into a detail that challenges the logic of this theory. Everything fits perfectly in place when they become clear.

reply

I'm loving your theory - it's fascinating. Although I understand that Kaufman said at some point that naming the hotel the 'Fregoli' was an afterthought. They wanted to call the hotel the Millennium but couldn't - another hotel with same name, perhaps? He apparently didn't intend us to see Michael as suffering from the syndrome - but he liked 'Fregoli' as a name for the hotel because the whole idea of the syndrome interested him.

That may be a bit disingenuous, of course. Quite often an author - any creative person - is not always fully aware of why they do things or select one thing over another. I really need to see this film again and check it all out : )

reply

That's pretty interesting, but I also think that whether or not naming the hotel The Fregoli was an afterthought, it certainly was not for the theme to go along with the movie. I know Kaufman thought about it enough knowing that people will ultimately think about it and how it ties in with the rest of the film. I find The Fregoli as one of the first and most obvious details in the film that starts good lead at unraveling its secrets. I think that's where most people are starting when they analyze the film, is the consideration that Michael has fregoli delusion and that the hotel somehow represents his own sanity. I feel that had the title of the hotel not been that way, people would have a lot harder of a time cracking the film, and maybe that's the afterthought Kaufman had, to throw a larger bone to the audiences allowing them a slightly more inviting entry into analyzing the film.

I also consider what someone else wrote in another thread that Michael did not have fregoli delusion in the first place, and that mental illness is something Kaufman likes to play with in general. A delusion, afterall, is something that's usually temporary and a host only really holds onto it for as long as they can, but a delusion is most generally a temporary thing and not a permanent mental instability.

I believe this can support the whole fregoli being and afterthought thing because when we think it, most of the events Michael goes through are just magnified nasty habits and thoughts that most people go through and don't share with others. Everyone experiences a "fregoli delusion" at some points when they're so lovestruck by someone maybe they can't have. Ever been so attached to someone that you start to look less in everyone else and all the qualities they possess because you're so caught up believing the other person is perfect? It happens to the best of us, really.
Even when we are in a relationship, we have those thoughts that there might be a better person out there. It does not mean people are just going to cheat on another person, but it's sentiment that those thoughts that are not shared can be just as detrimental. Hell, even Inside Out, a Pixar movie of all movies, tapped up on this. During the dinner scene when the mom holds onto a memory orb of a Brazilian helicopter pilot whom she at times regrets not running away with.

reply

"...most of the events Michael goes through are just magnified nasty habits and thoughts" - not really. No sale.

Michael is a particularly nasty piece of work by any standards. If you are referring to his bad manners to people in general and his impatience - okay - anyone can have a day like that. But the film gives a strong impression that he was always a creep who saw other people as 'things' to be used. Even 10 years ago he treated Bella appallingly. I won't even get into his treatment of his wife etc - but there is a strong implication that he is a serial sex pest (to put it mildly) and a total nuisance to women. And it's never ok - in film or reality - to hold out the possibility that abuse or use of others is (even partially) softened/excused by a mental health condition.

"Even when we are in a relationship, we have those thoughts that there might be a better person out there." Only if there is something wrong with the relationship or if we are total creeps. In the first case we deal with it - leave the person or arrange with them that we can both see other people. In the second case - Michael's - he is lying and cheating to everyone and thus infantilising them. Come on - no excuses of a temporary delusion are gonna soften our response to that. His wife (who may actually be incredibly lonely and unhappy herself - we don't really know) is apparently being faithful, denying herself the freedoms that Michael is giving himself (or do we assume that they have an open marriage...?) and is being put at risk of STDs - at the very least. I could go on......

The Fregoli thing is quite interesting - but it's important not to get too hung up on it. I totally believe Kaufman when he says it was not a big issue in the writing of the piece or the direction of the film. It's important that we don't let our rumination on it blind us to other aspects and interpretations and, in particular, to use it to soften our response to the abuse of vulnerable people.

reply

by zuleika-44325 » 3 days ago (Wed Jan 6 2016 15:41:36) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2015
Post Edited: Wed Jan 6 2016 16:23:16
"...most of the events Michael goes through are just magnified nasty habits and thoughts" - not really. No sale.

Michael is a particularly nasty piece of work by any standards. If you are referring to his bad manners to people in general and his impatience - okay - anyone can have a day like that. But the film gives a strong impression that he was always a creep who saw other people as 'things' to be used. Even 10 years ago he treated Bella appallingly. I won't even get into his treatment of his wife etc - but there is a strong implication that he is a serial sex pest (to put it mildly) and a total nuisance to women. And it's never ok - in film or reality - to hold out the possibility that abuse or use of others is (even partially) softened/excused by a mental health condition.

"Even when we are in a relationship, we have those thoughts that there might be a better person out there." Only if there is something wrong with the relationship or if we are total creeps. In the first case we deal with it - leave the person or arrange with them that we can both see other people. In the second case - Michael's - he is lying and cheating to everyone and thus infantilising them. Come on - no excuses of a temporary delusion are gonna soften our response to that. His wife (who may actually be incredibly lonely and unhappy herself - we don't really know) is apparently being faithful, denying herself the freedoms that Michael is giving himself (or do we assume that they have an open marriage...?) and is being put at risk of STDs - at the very least. I could go on......

The Fregoli thing is quite interesting - but it's important not to get too hung up on it. I totally believe Kaufman when he says it was not a big issue in the writing of the piece or the direction of the film. It's important that we don't let our rumination on it blind us to other aspects and interpretations and, in particular, to use it to soften our response to the abuse of vulnerable people.


F$%k the f%^k off with your whole post. Stop. Just stop it. Re-evaluate yourself.

Incredible. Most of the pig slop that ends up on msg boards is easy to overlook and not pay attention to. But people like you actually effect corporate decisions. There's no need for big film companies to take risks on projects if there's going to be backlash. If they're going to offend someone. And people like you have perfected a mindset that scares them sh!tless. So then we end up with Transformers 1,2,3,4,5 and Men in Black 1,2,3,4 and just watered-down trash. (Notice the hundreds of names from the Kickstarter in the credits).

I wasn't a huge fan of this movie, but I appreciated the fact that it asked me to question something. That it asked me to stop and think. I enjoyed trying to relate to Michael. His search for that slice of paradise. What he does when he thinks he finds it and what he does when he realizes it wasn't all that he hoped it would be.

He hates himself so much that when Paradise offers to become part of his eternal life (breakfast scene) he rejects it because then it becomes a part of him - and how can he love it if it's him?

So, Michael agrees with you. He thinks he's a *beep* person too. But... you wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion with your f%#ked view of the world.

reply

I'm so sorry that my post got under your skin. Clearly you have personal issues to deal with here. However, you totally destroy any case you might have by the fact that you cannot communicate coherently and resort instead to verbal violence. This little film does tend to appeal to people like you because - whatever else it tries to say - it makes a plea for pity that just goes too far.

"But people like you actually effect corporate decisions."

Really? If I am part of such a minority, why on earth would 'big film companies' listen to to me? Do you honestly believe that studio executives trawl the message boards of IMDb and base their decisions on the posts made there? If so, then surely they will read your excellent post (above) and be persuaded of how wonderful a film Anomalisa is. Won't they?

"And people like you have perfected a mindset that scares them sh!tless. So then we end up with Transformers 1,2,3,4,5 and Men in Black 1,2,3,4 and just watered-down trash.

Weird logic. How on earth does a negative critique of Anomalisa lead to the production of film series like these? Only one thing does that. Box office. It is box office revenue that is the biggest reason for films such as the Transformers series (the kind of film I loathe with a vengeance) being studio funded and Kaufman's superficial attempts at philosophy being rejected.

If you thirst for challenging films that are layered with meaning try turning your gaze away from Hollywood. The average European film outshines most of what is produced in Hollywood. That includes almost anything by Kaufman. I sometimes feel that it is the widespread lack of intelligence in US film-making that makes Kaufman so inappropriately revered by some. He is liked in Europe too but is regarded as much more 'ordinary' than he is in the US. It was a great loss to the US film scene when the awesome David Lynch gave up film-making for photography.

"So, Michael agrees with you. He thinks he's a *beep* person too. But... you wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion with your f%#ked view of the world."

I think that most of us here on the message boards have come to that obvious conclusion. It's not exactly difficult since Kaufman lays it out on a plate. But so what? It's not exactly a Big Message, is it? 'Film character has some insight into his own condition'. Gee wow.

Can I suggest that you maybe look away from the IMDb message boards for a while - it might benefit your blood pressure too - and read some of the more intelligent and balanced critics out there? Try Stephanie Zacharek and David Edelstein for starters. They give all credit where it is due but don't eulogise. If you want a balanced critique of this film read their reviews.

Have a good day : )

reply

Yes, I'm serious. People like you actually effect decisions. It's a loud minority. Things like "HBO's GoT's getting a little too rape-y" or "True Detective S01 was sexist, caveman-ish, and offensive towards all women". Those 2 show's future's were altered because of what I'm talking about.

When the right bloggers, critics, or reviewers dig into a mindset like yours they can unleash an army on a studio/network/prod comp... I imagine you write the way you write due to the people you read. My advice would be to stop reading it.

I'm not defending Kaufman at all. I'm trying to stop posts like yours from ever being posted/thought. The movie was a radio play. The script somehow landed at Starburns Industries, they wanted to make a feature film - so Kaurfman said, "If you can get the money, you can make it".

You just sound like you're trying to knock him down a peg for some reason. For what, for who? He didn't even really push this movie.


Just.... please don't talk about character's manners or their wive's imaginary distress that you concoct. It doesn't end well for any of us.

reply

"Things like "HBO's GoT's getting a little too rape-y" or "True Detective S01 was sexist, caveman-ish, and offensive towards all women". Those 2 show's future's were altered because of what I'm talking about. "

I have no idea what these shows are like as I have never seen them. However, if the comments you cite were in any way true then I can understand a studio perhaps taking note of them.

"I imagine you write the way you write due to the people you read. My advice would be to stop reading it."
Nope. I read just about every critic out there. Clearly you don't. My advice would be to start.

"I'm not defending Kaufman at all. I'm trying to stop posts like yours from ever being posted/thought."
In other words, you are heavily into censorship and have no place on a public forum like this.

"The script somehow landed at Starburns Industries"

FYI: Dino Stamatopoulos was in the audience at one of the original sound play performances. He liked the script and asked Kaufman if he could use it to make a stop-motion version of the play. After several years Kaufman provided him with the script. However, I don't see what on earth this has to do with any individual interpretations of the film's content and value... which is what's under discussion here, right?

"You just sound like you're trying to knock him down a peg for some reason. For what, for who? He didn't even really push this movie."

No. I am offering my interpretations and responses - just like everyone else does here. There are so many people on this forum who are pro or con either the film or Kaufman's work in general (or both) that your singling me out for heavy censure is bizarre and striking. I seem to have stepped on an issue very close to your heart. As for not pushing this movie - Kaufman has been at just about every film festival available and has done god-knows-how-many interviews. Which he is quite entitled to do, as is any film-maker. Good luck to him.

"Just.... please don't talk about character's manners or their wive's imaginary distress that you concoct. It doesn't end well for any of us."

Why should I not talk about the character's conduct? Many others on this forum have passed comment on the behaviour and motivations of the film's character's, why should I refrain? Other people started this thread - and other threads that deal with related issues. Why not pass on similar comments to them? You have no right to police what people may say on this forum nor to try and impose a form of censorship on others. If you feel that anything is really reprehensible then you should report it to IMDb.

The 'wive's imaginary distress' is not concocted or asserted as actual. It is mentioned, in passing, as a possibility. Not an unlikely one either in Kaufman's universe of loneliness and despair. You say 'it doesn't end well for any of us'. I am sorry if life is treating you that badly and/or if this film touches on personal issues that are deeply affecting. However, any views I may or may not have on any part of this film should really have no bearing on that.

reply

zuleika-44325, it's obvious (at least to me) that you are the one being objective and rational in this discussion. I agree with pretty much all of your points, which I imagine comes as no surprise to you. You know you're right - I'm just expressing my support. :)

Nothing against your conversation partner, who is probably just letting personal frustrations cloud his (her?) judgement; which, no doubt, he will realize himself at some point, if he hasn't already - after calling me a 'condescending prick' first, of course, or something to that effect. But I don't mind. I don't take that kind of thing personally, unless he provides some insight into my psyche I won't have expected. But, otherwise, I don't plan on getting involved in this discussion any more after writing this comment.

Again, I just wanted to express my support - and, also, while I'm at it, my thanks to all of the very smart people who have posted explanations here that have been very useful in my understanding this movie better without having to spend hours searching for good explanations elsewhere. Your theories make a lot of sense, OP, and the other people commenting here have also posted valuable contributions...

Cheers!

reply

acmillan03c1 - many thanks. Actually the number of PMs I've had offering similar sentiments has been surprising and heart-warming. Thanks for your support and thanks to all others who have contacted me :)

reply

Another retard that thinks a man criticizing the toxicity of 3rd wave feminism has something personal against women. He is completely right. The PC police is hurting art, film and media. And both of you, are part of that. Congrats morons

reply

zuleika-44325, I will ask you, because I respect and trust your contributions on this board more than the other guy as we have been talking a lot over the week, to not let things get too out of hand?

Don't feed the other guy the fuel to expel him/her into a tantrum, and you don't need to defend yourself either. No need to feed the hate.

I ask this, part because it's my thread, but I also ask because here I am really only interested in talking about the film and the analysis that everyone else can participate in. It's actually fun, and the run so far has been good. I am surprised that this thread has been as successful as it has been, and not a single person came by saying "tl;dr", and I thank each and every one of you for being able to contribute with worthwhile posts that's helping us define a broader picture of the film.

I want this thread to be civil, and I don't want newcomers to this page to turn away because all they see is people now flaming each other. Let's not.

So can we knock it off, guys? I don't want to report anyone for bringing topics off the rail over personal attacks. And by reporting, I mean reporting the other guy for inflammatory rhetoric. So watch your mouth (errrr--fingers--on the keyboard), dvalukis, and participate in the actual topic, or go away.

reply

crazyllamathing: I don't actually plan on responding to him again. I've already blocked one other user and will do so again if need be.

Re staying on topic: I feel that I have been - but I can't control what my respondents post.

I can't agree for a moment that any of my responses could be described as 'flaming' - they are measured, rational responses.

You've described this as 'my thread' therefore could I suggest that perhaps the best thing you might do in future is to monitor more frequently - and to pick up on respondents, like dvalukis, directly and at an earlier stage? When you say 'So can we knock it off, guys?" you are effectively including me with the other person who you describe as using 'inflammatory rhetoric'

I can't appreciate any suggestion that I have not been 'civil', or that any of my responses has 'fed' the other guy. Therefore I think the best thing is for you to message dvalukis - or any other contributor you feel deserves it - and raise your concerns directly with them. And you have the option of reporting to IMDb. I certainly would if I felt as you do.

In the meantime I'll continue to post as normal : )

reply

Alright, I feel bad for hijacking this thread. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman.

reply

Couldn't agree more. Feminazis everywhere... all men are pigs, all men are villains... and all women are victims and innocent creatures. F that feminazi

reply

My thought on why it wasn't important that fregoli was crucial is that the Michael doesn't have the "condition" mentioned. Rather, we the audience are at risk if not have it to a high degree.
I saw it as a guy who repeatedly took for granted what he has in front of him, starts fantasizing of other woman out bad habit, learned compulsive behavior etc, and continues his oblivious, egocentric hunt for ms perfect who will never come to pass- because there is no ms perfect. He can only find them in a sex doll, or porn or whatever today's plagued man uses to get high or numb himself.
Just my opinion. But it played to me like a poetic cautionary tale of what happens when you take for granted what you have- and the downward spiral in every facet that follows.

reply

After Lisa sings in Spanish, she talks about other languages:
"I love Italian, French...don't like German...and I love Japanese OBVIOUSLY..."
Why "OBVIOUSLY"? Because she's the doll!

reply

It does make the most sense that Lisa is the doll....

But at the same time, Micheal pulling off his face to reveal the same mechanical frame that is the doll as well definitely opens up the conversation that the doll is Michael as well.

At the very least, they are all connected. Maybe his view is that women only really serve one purpose...

reply

Emily represents Michael'wife: When his fantasy begins (when he looks in the mirror) the whole scene with Michael, Lisa and Emily is Michael's mind dealing with the fact that he's going to "cheat" on his wife with the doll. When he goes in the room with Lisa, his wife is now out of his mind.

In the dream, Michael is now dealing with his guilt: The hotel manager asking about the "guest" and the philandering; Emily (his wife) now angry at him.

reply

Yes, this more or less strikes a chord with me. Couple of points in favor of this theory are:1) the first time, she also comes out of the shower, and 2) After coming out of shower, when Michael looks into the mirror, something weird happens to him and he almost mechanically imagines himself like a doll?

Even I believe that he found only the Japanese doll to be different from anyone he interacted to and one that gave him the night he had so badly wanted. But the next day, even the doll started to look like any other human being.

reply

'Have any insight into the significance of the name Lawrence Gill? I figure there must be something to it since it's a name he conjured in a dream, but I've been coming up empty.

Science can't explain everything, but religion can't explain anything.

reply

I'm honestly drawing a bit of a blank on Lawrence Gill right now. I find Anomalisa will take a handful of viewings before it truly becomes 100% clear.

I'll keep Lawrence Gill, along with Emily in mind next time I see it because those two are not entirely clear yet to me if we go by this sex doll theory I wrote out.

reply

Great review. I was bothered at first why go through such great detail with the animation and then have the voice gender all wrong with the characters. I could not stand it but your review helped explain what seemed to be a lack of attention to detail was actually an integral part of the narrative.

reply

This is great to hear!

My main intention of writing this analysis thread goes to those of you who have seen the film and yet not know what to think of it.

Anomalisa is an easy film to admire when you think about it but it's also an easy film to dislike if all we look at is what's on the surface. That's what I absolutely love about the film. It truly gives us probably the widest range of intellectual story than any movie that has come out this yet, and yet it's brilliantly hiding under the surface, ready to be discovered. :)

And yes, I am most satisfied to hear you say you realize the reason behind certain design choices, including the voice work. Everything in the film is intentional, and it is incredibly compact. Literally every detail in the film serves some sort of purpose.

reply

Great review, thanks, what about the conference where he goes off track and talks about Illegal wars and brain washed solders? are we the puppets?





reply

That could be a possibility. His speech is not entirely fresh in my head, but what you say I am certain it can fit into theme somewhere. Where do you think it fits under the sex doll theory?

I was also thinking part of the speech just goes to show he really was up all night jerking around and not studying and getting rest for his speech like he should have, and of course he is completely mentally and physically drained to deliver a worthwhile speech.

I think that's part of what it means, or rather the surface meaning of that scene, but of course like most of the film there's the subtext that goes into it that flourishes a larger picture.

reply

Not sure, but the book he wrote and what the speech was supposed to be about was this forced politeness we see predominantly in society now, no room for self expression, so people become puppets, just a thought.






reply