Відео

9/10 times it's always the spouse

I believe snoop was a metaphor for samuel. At the end, sandra is holding him as if holding her husband. Also, the scene where is Snoop staring at Samuel's photo. Samuel and snoop overdose together. I believe in some way, snoop is supposed to represent Samuel even in the afterlife.

I am now 100% convinced that my dog is trying to murder me, as he keeps leaving his toys on the stairs. Like, at first I thought it was funny, but now I know he's got it in for me, thanks to this video. Thankyou @CinemaDetective for opening my eyes to how evil my cute little chihuahua x jack russell actually is.

She did such an excellent job!!! I cried just seeing her distress 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Anatomy of a FALL. Not Anatomy of a Jump, or anatomy of a Push, Anatomy of a Fall. When someone is pushed out of a window, we say they were pushed; not that they fell. If they committed suicide, we say they jumped not fell. We use the term "fall" for accidents. I think the director was hiding the truth in plain sight on purpose to prove a point. She could have titled this anything else, but she chose to emphasize how the story is about people "dissecting" a "fall"; and "fall" is a term used when describing an accident. We were immediately given two purposeful, binary choices: Samuel's death as a suicide or murder; when accidents are the leading cause of "falling". We and the characters are assigning fault to something that was an accident; that's why none of the intentional theories perfectly fit!

Great analysis! Thanks for sharing 🙏

The title of this video is a spoiler 😑

5:39 - "He falls backwards" then shows video of him "falling" forward. If you look closely you can see his right foot PUSHING off the balcony. I still don't think it's suicide I just think the filmmakers shouldn't have included that clip, or maybe it was included to just inject more confusion.

If you go back and watch the movie again, you never heard the ball bounced until it reached the stairs, the ball rolled from the top and bounced on the first step, it's pretty simple Samuel wasn't happy with his life, so he took his life and this court proceedings was just to show, how they'll twist things to make someone innocent looks guilty. And it focused too much on the dog, in movies like these the most obvious thing is never the answer.

The audio was to show us how manipulative Sandra was. I think she killed him. Samuel wouldn’t commit suicide near his son cuz he knew how traumatizing that would be for the son. He loved his son too much

The audio was to show us how manipulative Sandra was. I think she killed him. Samuel wouldn’t commit suicide near his son cuz he knew how traumatizing that would be for the son. He loved his son too much

This reminds me more of what happened to Freddy Kruger that got him thrown in the furnace. Kids dreaming of him.

A brilliant movie about life.

fek kardi kii?

Love your view on this ❤

Praise. I could list and articulate all the individual aspects of this critique that make it brialliant. Vut anyone reading this already knows. congrats, you have grown my appreciation and enjoyment of this film. Well done.

nailed it. thank you

And yet this means nothing with the ultimate message which is: No one knows for sure what happened and everyone had to especulate with the available evidence. And I have another take on the movie: Is not about who is to blame, who is guilty, is about how to diminish the amount of evil or suffering. If the mother did it due to whichever reasons she would have ended in jail and fractured and already fractured family creating more suffering. The loss of a father then the loss of a mother and what leaded to that? Missunderstandings among 2 humans that got together and found themselves drenched in regret trying to stay afloat however they could. I think the true message is that it doesn't matter what happened, it matter what you do to make it less worst after it happened. Everyone is to blame so no one is to blame. No one knows all the truth of the universe, no one will ever be able to know, we are blind just as Daniel. So if no one knows the entirety of truth no one can be sure of anything. No one can know which butterfly's wings provoqued the tornado. So, if we are all blind in this existence we shouldn't place so much value on evidence or the truth, we should better place value on how to reduce the amount of suffering. Just my opinion.

In the end the dog shows unconditional love even to a killer. Dogs love you unconditionally.

I think Sandra was manipulative throughout the movie. She won't answer questions properly. She has to be in control at all times. This is one clue something isn't right. She was caught in lies several times. In court during that argument she's very controlling. She doesn't seem to care to spend much time with her son. Doesn't want or care about finding time to be with son. Samuel wouldn't commit suicide due to his love for his son. In the end the son lied so that at least he wouldn't lose another parent

Great! Thank you for your analysis! Please, make more videos for us! 🙏🏽

The best analysis I saw so far! I went that way, but couldn't reach that deep. Congratulations! And thank you very much!

It was the dog all along!

I also consider this

No way man, you’ve acc cracked this film in my opinion. I know there’s not really supposed to be an answer but wow all of this went right over my head and all of it adds up perfectly. Great video man!

The repeated showing of the staircase is nodding to the staircase story in the US. Also, the way she took the idea from her bf, and made into a story of her own, the writer of this movie took the idea from staircase built his own story around it.

Upon being introduced to the dream technology at the end of the film, I half expected the ending to be that multitudes of resentful strangers end up tormenting Paul in his dreams, bit of poetic justice so to speak. I think I would have liked this ending more personally.

His taking of his wife’s last name and living in her childhood home was also a sign of his inaction and weakness. He’s moved out at the end and hopefully changed his own name back.

Its about entitled and confused coddled minds , who just follow each other's BS. It shows how reality is being run by the stupid out of fear. They are easily influenced and think they are something they are not. The best line in the film explains it, they think they have trauma but they just need to grow up.

I just wish there was an explanation as to how or why Paul just started appearing in everyone's dreams or why his dream self became malevolent or why it all stopped. They do imply that everyone's dreams are all connected through a shared subconscious or something like that, but for a random everyman like Paul to just suddenly appear in their dreams without any control over it whatsoever nor have any clue of what he's doing in them, you would think that Paul has some kind of dream-walking powers without realizing it. Though, I now think that the dreams are a sort of metaphor. Him just being there and just standing idly by and doing nothing while the dreamer's in some sort of dangerous peril represent both his clinging desire for fame and recognition and his failure to obtain it, because nobody besides his family actually cares about him. And I think his dream self's sudden violent and murderous behavior represent his anger at not getting the credit he fells he deserves and is taking those frustrations out on the dreamers.

This is an incredible good film. It has depth with one superb actress. Should of won best film.

Thanks for the great analysis! Do you have a profile on Letterboxd I can follow?

I think that the choice of a red leash is not insignificant either. Thank you for this good analysis.

Such a great film and analysis! Daniel was the star!!!

If it's a suicide, how did he hurt his head? He could hurt his legs or any part of the body. And how's the part of the house where he hit, is exactly straight from the window he fell from?

The movie Dream Scenario is about the ego and the collective unconscious, two things awakened individuals should probably try to avoid. Put differently, it’s a masterpiece about destroying the ego and awakening from the nightmare dream state that is society. There are layers and layers of brilliance. . . and Easter eggs throughout. Huge, hearty bravos go to Kristoffer Borgli, the writer/director, Nicolas Cage, Ari Aster, Tyler Campellone, Lars Knudsen, Louisa Carey and everybody else who allowed this movie to happen. I’m guessing it will be one of those timeless mind-benders, like After Hours (Martin Scorsese, Griffin Dunne, Joseph Minion), The Matrix (Keanu Reeves, Wachowski), Out of Breath (A Bout De Souffle or Breathless to Americans - Jean-Luc Goddard, Francois Truffaut, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg - Q: “What is your grand ambition?” A: “To become immortal, and then to die.”), Palm Springs (Max Barbakow, Andy Siara), and The Menu (Mark Mylod, Seth Reiss, Will Tracy). Just a few that came to mind. The ego has to be eliminated, then one can wake up either within the dream state or from the dream entirely. Paul, the protagonist, is forced into a nightmare because of what others think of him. So, for starters, what does Paul think of himself? His ego thinks he should be a respected, published academic. That’s his starting character. His colleague strips that away. He’s powerless and full of lies about his identity. His fantasy is that he has a famous or important academic theory that’s original to him. But it’s empty hope, because it doesn’t seem he’s written any of it down. The ideas were his, but he didn’t claim it or publish it. Who knows if they were even his? It’s all derivative academics, anyway. Ants, bees, zebras - all kinds of biologists study all kinds of animal behaviors. His colleague published before he could or would. Next, Paul appears in the dreams of others. What does that mean? He exists in some important way. He’s validated because he exists in the minds of others. To the others, that amounts to fame and an opportunity to make money. To Paul, it’s an opportunity to be validated for the things he’s dedicated his ego to. He can be the published, respected author and be a dinner guest at the right parties if he achieves something like that. No matter what the method for achieving it is. That’s what his ego rationalizes. He will become himself by being some role or character associated with his role in the eyes of the other characters. He’s allowing the perceptions of others, the collective others, the minds of the unknowns, to define who he is. He gives them the power to define him. And who is he in those original dreams? He’s someone who stands by and does nothing while the others have pressing issues in their dreams. He is not a participant in their dramas or dream activities, the imaginations of their minds. As his emotions and feelings kick in, his dreamscapes are similarly colored. His anger and frustration turn him into a villain character. He has envy, pride, greed, wrath, lust, sloth and gluttony. He doesn’t want to be associated with the Sprite consumer brand - pride. He envies the woman who he thinks stole his idea. Wrath ensues during the midway point. As he follows the temptation of the young siren Molly of the PR agency, he displays lust. His fame can become a sexual realization, but he blows his wad and farts. He becomes despicable and incapable. He can’t even please the fantasy woman character. His body betrays him in real life. He tries to explain that away like some academic scientist-biologist. He’s a grotesque human within a dream within a dream. It’s like Inception (Christopher Nolan). The bar in New York City has people in costume there. We can assume Molly is in costume as a phony fronting for the agency. She maintains that the agency is like a cult and that a thinker academic could see through the bullshit. She appeals to his ego. The advertising PR marketing world is definitely a cult. Aside: Paul is manipulated by women. The colleague woman steals his idea or so he perceives. The siren Molly in the bar tries to convince him to go with the good idea of Sprite sponsorship. When Molly tells him about her sexual fantasy in her dream, Paul replies “we don’t get to decide what happens in dreams do we?” She orders her martini dirty. It’s Halloween and a guy is dressed as Paul. A skeleton-dressed couple record him with their phones. They look like day of the dead characters. This is about ego death. Think of how “antelligence” and beehives and zebras form herds. They communicate as a group story - group unconscious. They share behavior and dream like the professor and all of those in his life. His behavior affects that of the others. So when the nightmares ensue, he tries to explain the dream psychosis away to his daughter. He becomes increasingly isolated. The happenings in real life start affecting his relationships. For example, the siren Molly becomes an object of jealousy to his wife. Being called a loser provokes his meltdown wrath. “Loser” is written on his car. A car is an important extension of the ego in America. In the climax, the self attempts to kill the ego. Paul takes the final killing arrow to his throat (his voice, his words). That’s no accident of directing choice. He’s on a stage with a huge audience watching. His daughter’s play - which is another stage, another dream in real life - is imposing exiles him. He’s effectively thrown out of real life by a woman teacher who is a master of arts (M.A.) not a PhD. This continues the humiliation for his ego. His wife says, “don’t make us all die on your hill.” During Paul’s apology, he says he speaks from lived experience, but he’s talking about a man who looks like him . . . killing himself in a dream. How is that “lived experience?” He’s vilified because people imagine he’s done things. Imagination is what counts? Collective imagination? Does that matter to the man who studies zebras blending in? He must be the zebra that blends in if he wants to clear his ego or have his ego make good with the herd. His wife calls it insincere and self-serving. His daughter says she’s going to have to kill herself. Paul sleeps in a basement at the dean’s house and there’s a gas smell propane tank. Is he being gaslit? Is gas a throwback to his earlier fart? He cannot be part of society. Earlier his wife turned out the light and he couldn’t see. He took off his glasses and couldn’t find the lamp. No visual clarity. In the basement of the dean’s house, he can’t find the light switch. He can’t go into dreamland or sleep. The light keeps him awake. He tries to block out the light with his hand - his self character. Fluorescent or artificial light also hits him in the head and cuts him at some point later. He’s not Paul Matthews when he goes to his daughter’s play. He has shed his character name, his ego, with a simple denial at the front desk. He wants to see the play of his progeny. The M.A. teacher cuts her hand as he tries to get through the door. “Respect our boundaries,” she says. The boundaries between the dream state and the dreamer? His daughter is a white rabbit in the play - a nod to Alice in Wonderland. The dream state (PR companies, the nightmare) take the idea of collective-consciousness/dream-visitation and monetize it. The Hollywood people say Paul harnessed the power of his dreams to terrorize people. He’s not dreamed of anymore. The house he gets has a smell of animals (gas?). The real estate agent acts out a scene of strangulation. Who was strangled earlier? Paul is worried that he’s been replaced by Chris. Why can’t the awakened man go back to his old life - his old house and wife? Is Paul trying to get into his wife’s life with the technology? Does he dream that he says something loving and funny to her? The bookstore is called Rue Morgue or morgue Street. Paul embraces his role as Freddie Krueger and wears the hand-knife costume prop for the photo shoot. He still wants fame for his book. The book is released in the basement - a thin paperback with shortened length. It’s called I Am Your Nightmare. It was supposed to be Dream Scenario. The title works better for the horror film demographic. It works for the nightmare dreamers. For Paul, it’s just a matter of him crafting either a negative nightmare or a positive dream out of his experience. He’s ultimately the dreamer - I AM. Paul accepts the book and is clubbed by the light of ultimate clarity. He gains a purpose or singular intent. He wants connection with his wife’s dream. For it to work the dreamer on the other end has to welcome Paul’s presence. He must be welcome in her dream (a technical point, I guess, but perhaps metaphorical as well). Apparently his wife accepts his presence and he enters her dream. She is a damsel in distress in a ring of fire. He’s made larger by a shoulder-padded blazer - a bigger man character, but in a costume no less. Paul wishes the dream was real. He goes upwards and the screen fades to black. He wishes life was real. But merrily it’s just a dream.

Makes sense. Explains the last part of the movie where we see the dream technology now out for the public as well. That he has ideas, but he never do anything about them and others steals them and make it big. Yet, he still dreams of influencers talking about the idea was his. I think the movie is about many things, such as surrounding the zebra idea because it is being mentioned multiple times and the scene in the beginning in the class where he explains it, suggests it's about today's woke and cancel culture. That either you stick your head out and become a target or you stick with the herd like sheep. That scene makes it clear what direction this movie is going. You see it in the scene when all the students went after him at once and published the video to cancel him. Or at the restaurant where he was reading the zebra book that everyone in the restaurant wanted him out. Same with the picture in his office when the agency called him to tell him everyone backed out of projects. That picture was of one zebra. Alone, easy to spot, easy target for predators. He mentions it again with the young woman at the bar when others were staring.

Anatomy of a Ball

What a fantstic anaylasis. I was a little confused about the film but really enjoyed it. and after watching your vid really did make the film even better for me with more understanting. Excellent work

So interesting, love your analysis. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie and especially by Nicolas Cage. I like layered, thoughtful, movies. My favorite movies are Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Arrival; which are similar in that way. Does anyone have any other recommendations for movies like this? I want more!! 😅

I’m sorry, but this theory has me picturing Daniel falling out the window like he’s Inspector Clouseau. I guess he is French though?

But was the window big enough for Samuel to accidentally slip and fall?

Bisexual, not totally gay enough to father his children.....at least he might have been careful with his sexual health. Not knowing about Aids or STD passed on to said couple or lovers? None I know of...but still a very talented couple n family unit. Still love him, even I had a big crush on this guy ha ha ❤❤❤❤❤😊😊😊😊

You solved it!

I agree that the film isn't about "cancel culture," but I think it's about the same issues that lead to the concept of cancel culture. Paul sees all these people in pain and terror, a terror that wears his face. And his only reaction is to feel persecuted, and complain about how inconvenienced he is by it all. He's then mystified when people see him as an asshole, never once acknowledging the pain everyone is going through, let alone that there might actually be a link to him. That sounds an awful lot like what people label "cancel culture." So no, it's not "about cancel culture," but I think it's fair to say it's what this dynamic people call cancel culture is actually about.

It's weird how they dismiss the murder weapon so easily, if she had murdered him they didn't care to look for a weapon even if it could be disposed of easily. Made no sense as I'm sure they could have found it if there was one. So the ball completely disappearing after the dad dying is interesting. No one would suspect that the ball was the 'murder weapon'.

Brilliant.

Totally agree With this

ใจเย็นอิป้า

Why did ALL the adults listen to that lame ass kid?