"YOU'RE AN IMPOSTOR HERE ... EVENTUALLY THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE YOU OUT"
INARRITU GIVES US ROBERT DOWNEY JR ...
BUT UNDERNEATH ... IT'S PURE CARVER
MULHOLLAND DRIVE - INLAND EMPIRE - LOST HIGHWAY - ENEMY - THE PRESTIGE - BIRDMAN
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REALLY ABOUT?
A COMPLETE ... RATIONAL ... OBJECTIVE BREAKDOWN OF THE CLEVEREST FILMS IN HISTORY
THIS BLOG IS HARD-HITTING AND I MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR THAT ... IT HAS HAD TO BE ...
I RECENTLY APOLOGIZED TO AN ACADEMIC WHO SEEMED TO BE OFFENDED BY MY BLOG ... AND HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE DECENCY TO RESPOND ... AND I REALIZED ... THERE IS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR ... HE IS OFFENDED BY THIS BLOG BECAUSE OF HIS OWN FAILINGS ... NOT MINE ... AND HE, OF ALL PEOPLE, SHOULD REALIZE THAT ...
IF SOME FILM ACADEMICS ARE UPSET BY THIS BLOG ... THEY SHOULD BE TAKING A LONG, VERY HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES ... IN A MIRROR ...
(AND A LOT OF THEM NEED TO COME DOWN FROM THE CLOUD THEY LIVE ON)
IF THEY THINK THEY ARE GETTING THEIR ARSES KICKED (I THINK THE AMERICAN TERM IS "SPANKED") - AFTER 15 YEARS OF ABSOLUTE DRIVEL ABOUT MULHOLLAND DRIVE AND INLAND EMPIRE FROM "MASTERS OF FILM" - THEY WOULD BE RIGHT ... AND IT'S ABOUT TIME
"NO ONE IS MORE HATED THAN HE WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH"
PLATO
"GREAT SCREENWRITERS, SAY SOMETHING ...
WITHOUT SAYING IT ..."
"WATER FOR (INTELLIGENT) ELEPHANTS"
SOME FILM CRITICS AND FILM ACADEMICS WOULD RATHER THIS BLOG JUST QUIETLY WENT AWAY ... SO AS NOT TO UPSET THE STATUS QUO ... RE ALL THE SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL THAT'S BEEN PUBLISHED ABOUT DAVID LYNCH FILMS IN THE LAST TWO DECADES ...
(IT WOULD FILL A SMALL LIBRARY)
BUT HERE'S THE THING ... SUBJECTIVE DRIVEL JUST ISN'T GOING TO CUT IT ANYMORE IN FILM ANALYSIS ...
FILM ANALYSIS JUST CHANGED ... FOREVER
(I AM SURE THERE WILL BE A DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF "DRIVEL" WRITTEN ABOUT DAVID LYNCH FILMS IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE ... AND A LOT OF WEB PAGES AND BOOKS WILL QUIETLY DISAPPEAR)
 |
Jousse describes the Rabbits in Inland Empire as donkeys ... just how much did he understand? ... zilch! |
PLISSKEN BOON
JANUARY 2016
(A FEW PEOPLE HAVE TWEETED CALLING ME A REAL BAD-ASS FILM CRITIC ...
I KINDA LIKE THAT TITLE ... BRING IT ON!)
(YOU ARE PROBABLY SO USED TO READING SUBJECTIVE RUBBISH ABOUT THESE FILMS (ELABORATE DREAM INTERPRETATIONS OF "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" OR "INLAND EMPIRE" ... OR HOW THE FILM "ENEMY" IS A NEW TAKE ON "INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS") ...
THIS BLOG WILL SHOCK YOU)
(IF YOU WOULD RATHER KEEP BELIEVING "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" AND "INLAND EMPIRE" ARE DREAMS ... AND NOT FIND OUT WHY THEY ARE, WITHOUT DOUBT, THE CLEVEREST SCREENPLAYS IN HISTORY ...
PLEASE KEEP YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND ...
AND DO NOT READ THIS BLOG)
(NOT ONLY IS "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" THE CLEVEREST SCREENPLAY IN HISTORY ... IT IS ALSO THE BIGGEST MIDDLE FINGER SALUTE IN HISTORY ... ONE DAY SOON HOLLYWOOD WILL WAKE UP ... AND "GET" THE MESSAGE ... THAT WAS DELIVERED 15 YEARS AGO)
(WHEN LYNCH TALKED OF "CATCHING THE BIG FISH" ... NOBODY REALIZED ... JUST HOW BIG THOSE "FISH" WERE)
FOR THOSE THAT SEEK ... AND CAN UNDERSTAND ... THE TRUTH
... PLEASE READ ON ...
YOU ARE ABOUT TO FIND OUT JUST HOW CLEVER
LYNCH ... INARRITU ... NOLAN ... AND VILLENEUVE ... REALLY ARE ...
...AND IT'S MIND-BLOWING!
 |
"MULHOLLAND DRIVE" |
"MULHOLLAND DRIVE" ... "INLAND EMPIRE" ...
"LOST HIGHWAY" ... "THE PRESTIGE" ... "ENEMY" ... "BIRDMAN"
"ONE GUY OBJECTIVELY DECODED THEM ALL
AFTER EVERY FILM CRITIC AND ACADEMIC IN THE WORLD
... GOT THEM SO WRONG"
"BOON WILL CHANGE THE WAY YOU WATCH MOVIES"
PLISSKEN BOON TAKES ON "BIRDMAN"
"THE ONLY THING THAT'S REAL ... IS THIS CHICKEN"
If you would like to skip my long rant sticking it (literally, believe me) to film critics for their negative reaction to my blog ... feel free to scroll down to the next "Birdman" heading
Some film critics don't like this blog ... some have read it recently and followed me ... some of them have just blocked me without reading it
(To their credit, none of the big, reputable broadsheet critics have blocked me ... only small-fry ones that I've never heard of before ... (going by my followers, it would appear the less intelligent they are ... the more likely they are to block me) ... I don't lose any sleep over it ... we have a good laugh about it in my office in Burbank ... my blog has become a bit of light relief for us all ... because, being fans of these films, we are all so sick (to death) of the thousands of column inches of "utter stonking drivel" that has been published about them)
My blog has offended some people (no doubt some of those responsible for the "intense" drivel that has been written about these films over the last two decades or so) ... but as you can see by my followers on Twitter ... only people with small minds take offense ... this blog isn't about followers ... it's about stimulating minds ... and after 15 years or more ... it's about time
Some critics have treated me absolutely appallingly ... for no other reason than I sent them a tweet about my blog ...
(I am a very friendly, easy going person ... and to be treated in this way saddens and perplexes me ... but I've just had to deal with it ... the "nasty" side of social media is not a world I'm used to ... or ever want to be used to)
"Money for nothin' ... Flicks for free!"
With a lot of them taking a "sour grapes" attitude, totally ignoring, blocking me, or being very negative about this blog ... all they are proving ... is that they are ...
"The Sultans of Mediocrity" ...
To tell you the truth ... I think a lot of them are just used to dismissing people in the "self important world" they create for themselves ... (I know the world of Hollywood and movies and people who have actually "made it" don't feel the need to do this)
I don't think they can bring themselves to look past the end their self-important noses and acknowledge the fact that someone has actually objectively and rationally worked these movies out ... so they try to write me off as a nutter ... but by doing that ... they just ultimately make themselves look stupid (and out themselves as dilettantes ... I'm questioning the integrity of some of them ... the rest of the world is already questioning their relevance and credibility as more and more of them are forced to become "freelance") ... because eventually ... the truth will come out anyway
(It seems it is too much for them, on their pretentious perches, to consider that a "layman" (read "lower form of life" from the way they have treated me ... they actually have no idea who I am) could have a valid opinion - oh how their ill-founded perception of their wafer-thin power of influence, corrupts them as human beings ... maybe being a professional film critic fosters an inherent insecurity, rather than a confident sense of social responsibility ... because at the end of the day ... it's all about what filmmakers actually say with their films ...
not the subjective drivel anyone may write about them)
"A thing is a thing ... not what is said about that thing"
(The half-dozen or so RogerEbert.com critics that have blocked me is sad ... because I'm sure Roger Ebert would have been one film critic ... that would have appreciated this blog)
(It probably wasn't a film critic that told you about this blog!)
(Every time I come across a film critic who has blocked me ... I just have a laugh ... I can feel their insecurity, their irrelevance ... clinging to their life-raft of self-importance)
(The latest - Odie Henderson of RogerEbert.com (I've never heard of him - have you?) - retweeted me - then blocked me - what are they scared of? - this "puppet" proving they aren't interested in any views other than their own - (Chaz Ebert hasn't blocked me) - they can block me all they like (it reflects badly on them) - ultimately the truth will come out)
(Another one to block me - Glenn Kenny - for simply sending him a tweet about my blog - the fact of the matter is - I decoded these films - they didn't have a clue - and they're shitty about it because it shows them up as "light-weights" - sour grapes (and lack of character and integrity) on their part - simple as that - no amount of hiding their heads in the sand and blocking me on Twitter will change the facts of the matter)
I am definitely "Shaking the Tree" and "Shocking the Monkeys" as Peter Gabriel would say ... I have been told in no uncertain terms to "Get Off Our Cloud" (or leaky life-raft in this case ... not that I ever got on it) ... but they are responsible for their credibility ... not me
It seems fine for them to critique the work of others ... ("just don't ever look too hard at the drivel we churn out")
(By trying to suppress this information to preserve their "credibility" - they're actually destroying the precious little credibility they have left - imagine feeling so insecure in your profession that you collaborate with others in your profession feeling equally insecure ... to suppress the truth ... which is exactly what is happening)
If Roger Ebert was still alive, he would be celebrating analysis of these films - not blocking it ... and sticking his head in the sand
 |
| BEFORE he blocked me - "Mr Pretentious" |
 |
| AFTER he blocked me - "Mr Insecure" (Does anybody know who this nasty Muppet is?) (Why would he block me? - why is he so insecure?)  (My latest batch of film critic Voodoo dolls has arrived from the ever-helpful Missoula Eagle Scouts ... but I've run out of pins ... for now) (Movie Nerd from Tulsa reckons he has spotted Alison Willmore, Sheila O'Malley, and Alonso Duralde, (and another very famous critic I won't mention because he hasn't blocked me yet ... those Eagle Scouts are on the ball aren't they!) ... but I can't confirm or deny ... I just stick the pins in) (No ... I haven't heard of those three either ... but my blog might make them famous (in Tulsa anyway) ... I can be magnanimous) |
The key to understanding movies ... is understanding the art of storytelling within the medium ... screenwriting ... and I feel that a lot of film critics and academics just don't get screenwriting - as has been proven by "Mulholland Drive" over the last 15 years
GREAT SCREENWRITERS ... SAY SOMETHING ... WITHOUT SAYING IT ...
"Mulholland Drive" was decoded over a year ago ...
(film critics are keeping stum - suddenly all the (way off the mark) theories they have been publishing for the last 15 years ... don't look so hot ... not a peep ... out of any of them)
(Mulholland Drive is the cleverest screenplay in history ... and film critics, that have read this blog, either don't get it ... or are deliberately suppressing that knowledge at present ... you make your own mind up as to how that reflects on them)
(The "utter stonking rubbish" that has been written about "Mulholland Drive" over the last 15 years is embarrassing ... and it is obvious ... that the art of screenwriting has been largely overlooked for way too long when it comes to film analysis)
(My analysis of "Mulholland Drive" is already being discussed in university lecture theaters - yet even so, for any of the movies I've analyzed... it's taking a while for "light bulbs" to go on for those that don't have a good grasp of screenwriting)
Film critics have been trying to figure it out for fifteen years ... shooting their mouths off promoting a lot of pretty ridiculous, far from objective theories (Google them) - and some of them are still doing it, even in 2016 - it's going to take a while for the penny to drop
(Sort of gives me the same quiet chuckling satisfaction that "Mulholland Drive" must have given David Lynch for the last fifteen years:)
(film critics are keeping stum - suddenly all the (way off the mark) theories they have been publishing for the last 15 years ... don't look so hot ... not a peep ... out of any of them)
(Mulholland Drive is the cleverest screenplay in history ... and film critics, that have read this blog, either don't get it ... or are deliberately suppressing that knowledge at present ... you make your own mind up as to how that reflects on them)
(The "utter stonking rubbish" that has been written about "Mulholland Drive" over the last 15 years is embarrassing ... and it is obvious ... that the art of screenwriting has been largely overlooked for way too long when it comes to film analysis)
(My analysis of "Mulholland Drive" is already being discussed in university lecture theaters - yet even so, for any of the movies I've analyzed... it's taking a while for "light bulbs" to go on for those that don't have a good grasp of screenwriting)
Film critics have been trying to figure it out for fifteen years ... shooting their mouths off promoting a lot of pretty ridiculous, far from objective theories (Google them) - and some of them are still doing it, even in 2016 - it's going to take a while for the penny to drop
(Sort of gives me the same quiet chuckling satisfaction that "Mulholland Drive" must have given David Lynch for the last fifteen years:)
But for those that do get screenwriting ... welcome to this small, exclusive club for people who love and appreciate great films ... this is a celebration of film and great directors ... and, guess what ... thank goodness they make films for us ... people who do get it ...
(This blog is for nice, friendly people who are enthusiastic about great movies ... not pretentious, negative types who want to preserve the status quo for their own agendas)
I'm not a cinephile or a movie buff ... but I always try to understand a director's creative vision ... and that's my point ... these directors ... the ones that give us these great movies ... aren't given enough credit ... enough respect when we watch these movies ... for being ... wickedly creative ...
Don't just use your eyes ... use your mind ...
Don't ever take them for granted ...
take a bow ...
Villeneuve - Nolan - Lynch - Inarritu ...
(This blog is for nice, friendly people who are enthusiastic about great movies ... not pretentious, negative types who want to preserve the status quo for their own agendas)
I'm not a cinephile or a movie buff ... but I always try to understand a director's creative vision ... and that's my point ... these directors ... the ones that give us these great movies ... aren't given enough credit ... enough respect when we watch these movies ... for being ... wickedly creative ...
Don't just use your eyes ... use your mind ...
Don't ever take them for granted ...
take a bow ...
Villeneuve - Nolan - Lynch - Inarritu ...
In October 2014 I watched the movie "ENEMY" ... it resonated with me ... reading up on the film I noticed that no one seemed to know what it was about ... I sent half a dozen emails to some famous film critics, but got no response whatsoever ... so I started my own (very) part-time blog about movies ...
At the time, I felt that "ENEMY" was the cleverest screenplay I had ever come across ...
In early 2015, due to requests, I watched "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" and "INLAND EMPIRE" ... and I feel they may have proved me wrong ... although I hate putting any of these wonderful movies in front of the other ...
In early 2016, I watched "BIRDMAN" due to requests I have received to analyze this movie ...
Am I glad I did ...
The links for: INLAND EMPIRE ... LOST HIGHWAY ... MULHOLLAND DRIVE ... THE PRESTIGE ... ENEMY ... are on the upper right ... if you thought you understood these movies ... you may want to think again ...
(yes ... even The Prestige ... will shock you)
If you take everything at face value ... and don't appreciate that these great directors are geniuses that are way, way cleverer than that ... then maybe this blog isn't for you ...
This blog is for people who want, and can understand ... rational and objective analysis ...
"BIRDMAN"
OR
(THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE)
OR
OR
(THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE)
OR
(IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD ... HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A SUPERHERO USE THE BATHROOM?)
I don't think anyone will take my analysis of "Birdman" seriously if I follow my normal routine of giving you my conclusions, then following it up with my reasoning ...
... so, this time, I'm going to give you the clues first
(some of them) ...
(some of them) ...
THE CLUES IN "BIRDMAN"
(Birds have beaks)
(Birds have very good eyesight)
(Birds have beaks)
(Birds have very good eyesight)
The quotation at the start:
"And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so?" ...
The meteor
Jellyfish (seen on the beach twice)
Roses
(Alchemillas? - Really?)
Jellyfish (seen on the beach twice)
Roses
(Alchemillas? - Really?)
Riggan levitates, moves objects without touching them
Birdman talks to Riggan
"A thing is a thing, not what is said about that thing"
Raymond Carver's short story
(Raymond Carver wrote about ordinary people)
(Raymond Carver wrote about ordinary people)
It's all shot in one "continuous" take
Riggan talks about Woody Harrelson, Michael Fassbender, Jeremy Renner
Robert Downey Jr
References to Barthes
References to Icarus
Pig semen
(Do baby pigs even produce semen?)
(Do baby pigs even produce semen?)
Reference to Jason Robards
Reference to George Clooney
Reference to "American Pie guy" (Jason Biggs)
Reference to George Clooney
Reference to "American Pie guy" (Jason Biggs)
Ed Norton's character, Mike Shiner, knows all the lines in the play
"You don't know the guy"
How many times they mention the term "self conscious"
(Notice how many times Mike Shiner isn't self-conscious)
How many times they mention "self respect"
(Notice how many times Mike Shiner isn't self-conscious)
How many times they mention "self respect"
"You don't look anything like each other"
"Hothouse at the Geffen"
Sam's toilet roll "project"
Sam's toilet roll "project"
Riggan plays Nick, Ed, and, at times, recites Mel's lines from Carver's story
"Your performance is fake" ...
... "The only thing that's real on this stage, is this chicken" ...
"I'm going to work with the chicken" ...
(chicken would be the last thing you would have on stage, that would be real)
(chicken would be the last thing you would have on stage, that would be real)
Sylvia keeps appearing out of nowhere
Riggan talking of refinancing his house
Reference to Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson
Slyvia says ... "Because you threw a kitchen knife at me ..."
"Just because I didn't like that ridiculous comedy you did with Goldie Hawn"...
Riggan getting his photo taken with fans
Reference to Flaubert (in relationship to the "opposition" ... Tabitha Dickenson)
The Majestic Theater
The street performers we see at various times
The street performers we see at various times
That's enough clues for now ... enough to make my point ...
ROLAND BARTHES
The first thing we need to discuss ... Roland Barthes
Roland Barthes was a French philosopher ... 1915 - 1980
Barthes quote from "BIRDMAN"
"The cultural work done in the past by gods and epic sagas is now done by laundry-detergent commercials and comic-strip characters"
Barthes best known work is a 1967 essay "Death of the Author"
"Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a thorny problem: how can we detect precisely what the writer intended? His answer is that we cannot"
"Barthes' articulation of the death of the author is a radical and drastic recognition of this severing of authority and authorship. Instead of discovering a "single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God)", readers of a text discover that writing, in reality, constitutes "a multi-dimensional space", which cannot be "deciphered", only "disentangled"
Using this "definition" of Barthes, it would seem BIRDMAN is meant to be "indecipherable", (but possibly able to be "disentangled") with multiple meanings and interpretations dependent on the audience, not the creator of the the work ...
But I have too much faith in directors egos ... and their creativity ... to listen to logic like that ...
(I think that Inarritu is subtly misdirecting us)
The quotation in BIRDMAN is taken from another work of Barthes - "Mythologies"
"In writing about the process of mythologisation, Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalized" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture"
This is about Semiotics, the study of "meaning making", - which includes the study of analogy, metaphor, and symbolism - and I believe the paragraph above is talking about "taken-for-granted realities"
I believe Inarritu is showing us a "reality" that we are taking for granted, but not necessarily the reality that is actually or "really" being portrayed ... so I'm going to have a go at deciphering and disentangling it ...
ROLAND BARTHES
The first thing we need to discuss ... Roland Barthes
Roland Barthes was a French philosopher ... 1915 - 1980
Barthes quote from "BIRDMAN"
"The cultural work done in the past by gods and epic sagas is now done by laundry-detergent commercials and comic-strip characters"
Barthes best known work is a 1967 essay "Death of the Author"
"Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a thorny problem: how can we detect precisely what the writer intended? His answer is that we cannot"
"Barthes' articulation of the death of the author is a radical and drastic recognition of this severing of authority and authorship. Instead of discovering a "single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God)", readers of a text discover that writing, in reality, constitutes "a multi-dimensional space", which cannot be "deciphered", only "disentangled"
Using this "definition" of Barthes, it would seem BIRDMAN is meant to be "indecipherable", (but possibly able to be "disentangled") with multiple meanings and interpretations dependent on the audience, not the creator of the the work ...
But I have too much faith in directors egos ... and their creativity ... to listen to logic like that ...
(I think that Inarritu is subtly misdirecting us)
The quotation in BIRDMAN is taken from another work of Barthes - "Mythologies"
"In writing about the process of mythologisation, Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalized" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture"
This is about Semiotics, the study of "meaning making", - which includes the study of analogy, metaphor, and symbolism - and I believe the paragraph above is talking about "taken-for-granted realities"
I believe Inarritu is showing us a "reality" that we are taking for granted, but not necessarily the reality that is actually or "really" being portrayed ... so I'm going to have a go at deciphering and disentangling it ...
BIRDMAN
One of the first things you notice about BIRDMAN ... is that it's not real ... Riggan levitates (and flies later in the film) ... he moves things without touching them ... Birdman talks to him throughout the movie ... Sam impossibly spits on a bald man's head ...
The reason it's shot in one continuous take ... is because it's a DREAM
I don't know how to break this any more gently than I'm already doing, by listing some of the clues first ...
... just as Lynch fooled you with Mulholland Drive (it's not a dream) .... Inarritu is fooling you here ...
You see ... the only theater going on ... is in an operating theater ...
BIRDMAN isn't Riggan Thomson ...
("You're an imposter here ... eventually they're going to figure you out")
... Birdman suffers from depression ... he's an alcoholic ... and his name ... is
MR NOBODY
... Birdman suffers from depression ... he's an alcoholic ... and his name ... is
MR NOBODY
He's in an operating theater undergoing facial reconstruction because he is disfigured
(stay with me here, because this is exactly what's going on)
(stay with me here, because this is exactly what's going on)
For the last few decades, incredibly self-conscious MR NOBODY has hidden his disfigured face from the world ... hiding behind a mask ... a BIRDMAN costume ... standing on street corners in Hollywood ... as a street performer ... having his photograph taken with tourists ...
(Icarus puts on wings to escape)
(Look out for the "Spiderman" street performer when Riggan loses his robe, and the scene with all the street performers on stage (notice the superheroes?) - they are big clues)
(Icarus puts on wings to escape)
(Look out for the "Spiderman" street performer when Riggan loses his robe, and the scene with all the street performers on stage (notice the superheroes?) - they are big clues)
He is finally making a transition ... from a man who hides ... to one who "comes out" ... he wants his self respect back, something he lost a long time ago ... but he's finding it difficult ... letting go of BIRDMAN
"BIRDMAN" IS THE DREAM HE IS HAVING WHILE UNDERGOING RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
The clues explained:
The meteor represents a life changing event
Jellyfish saved his life when he tried to commit suicide
(The jellyfish are now dead on the beach - he doesn't need them anymore, he is not going to attempt suicide again - he is starting to "get his life together")
The opening scene with Riggan levitating (he's "floating" before he goes completely "under") has cues to an operating theater (listen to the sounds going on) - they are "ready" for him - then he goes downstairs ("going under") - even the stage area itself has several cues to an operating theater
The meteor represents a life changing event
Jellyfish saved his life when he tried to commit suicide
(The jellyfish are now dead on the beach - he doesn't need them anymore, he is not going to attempt suicide again - he is starting to "get his life together")
The opening scene with Riggan levitating (he's "floating" before he goes completely "under") has cues to an operating theater (listen to the sounds going on) - they are "ready" for him - then he goes downstairs ("going under") - even the stage area itself has several cues to an operating theater
One of the biggest clues is at the end - we see BIRDMAN sitting on the toilet in Riggan's hospital room - he flushes it - when, in the history of the world, have you ever seen a superhero use the bathroom?
BIRDMAN IS REAL (but this is still the dream ... Inarritu is just dropping us a clue) ... he uses the bathroom ...
The Majestic Theater across the road from the St James theater ... throughout the movie we are bombarded with images of ...
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA
(count how many times we see Phantom of the Opera posters - they are even (deliberately and artificially) reflected in the glass doors of the St James theater)
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA
(count how many times we see Phantom of the Opera posters - they are even (deliberately and artificially) reflected in the glass doors of the St James theater)
MR NOBODY is THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA ... he's disfigured ...
(Birdman's mask is similar to some older movie representations of
The Phantom of the Opera)
WOODY HARRELSON is the odd-man-out ... he starred in a movie as a
REAL-LIFE SUPERHERO ...
(someone who dresses up as a superhero)
(FASSBENDER - X-Men : RENNER - Avengers : DOWNEY JR - Ironman :
NORTON - Hulk : KEATON - Batman)
REAL-LIFE SUPERHERO ...
(someone who dresses up as a superhero)
(FASSBENDER - X-Men : RENNER - Avengers : DOWNEY JR - Ironman :
NORTON - Hulk : KEATON - Batman)
MICHAEL JACKSON was dangerously dissatisfied with his appearance ... and had facial reconstruction ... he also wore a mask at times ... and the deliberately designed mask Riggan is wearing in his hospital bed ... closely resembles the mask worn by
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA ...
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA ...
Sam's reference to "American Pie guy" - is about actor JASON BIGGS - a guy that complains he is always given "Jewish" roles because of his nose (he's not Jewish)
JASON ROBARDS was in a car accident and had extensive facial reconstruction
HELEN HAYES had a hospital named after her - The Helen Hayes Rehabilitation Hospital for people with disabilities
MARLON BRANDO had one of the most famous broken noses in Hollywood
GERALDINE PAGE, widely considered one of the greatest actresses of all time ... came to personify the vulnerable, the neurotic, the tormented ... abandoned by society, or life itself ... in the characters she played
MIKE SHINER is the (plastic) surgeon operating on MR NOBODY
(take a look at the anagrams appearing in his name - start with "skin")
(Take a look at the anagrams appearing in RIGGAN THOMSON)
(IRONMAN) (GHOST) (IGNORANT - as in dream)
(I believe Riggan is based on an older, retired version of Robert Downey Jr ... some not-so-subtle parody going on)
When Riggan says "Farrah Fawcett died on the same day as Michael Jackson"
Sylvia says "You're not Farrah Fawcett" - the inference is "You're not dying of cancer, you're only having facial reconstruction" - Mr Nobody is terrified (and paranoid) about having surgery
(Sylvia isn't Riggan's ex-wife - she's Mr Nobody's ex-wife - that's why Mike Shiner says Riggan "looks nothing like" his "daughter" - Sam is Mr Nobody's daughter)
The conflict between Riggan and Mike Shiner represents Mr Nobody's apprehension and paranoia about his surgery and his surgeon - and the story represents that he was once an attractive man, who became alcoholic, depressed and ill, and shot himself in the face due to the breakdown of his relationship - which seems to have coincided with the conception and birth of his daughter Sam - his story somewhat mirrors that of Raymond Carver's character Eddie - the play we see is embellished with Mr Nobody's story
(Raymond Carver's short story is only a few pages long - it wouldn't support a full-length stage play)
(Without mentioning any names, I think Mr Nobody's paranoia about plastic surgeons may be based on real life events and scandals involving celebrity plastic surgeons)
(Note - in the full page newspaper article, Mike Shiner is made to look EXACTLY like Raymond Carver - a pun on "Carver" - and maybe the reason Mike Shiner knows all the lines in the play - Mr Nobody is paranoid his surgeon is also an alcoholic)
MR NOBODY flies to New York, at great expense, to enlist the services of a plastic surgeon - however, paranoid Mr Nobody has serious reservations (anxieties) about his surgery and his surgeon - he ditches his surgeon, and then hires "rock star" surgeon Mike Shiner - that's why he needs to refinance his house
(An actor that had starred in three successful "tent-pole" superhero movies would not need to refinance his house - even decades ago, Jack Nicholson made well over $50 million playing The Joker in Batman)
He tells a story of being on a plane with George Clooney - the point being the juxtaposition between him, disfigured, and one of the most attractive men on the planet ... and that it would be Clooney's face on the front page if the plane crashed ... not his ... he's a nobody ...
(He hates roses because they represent beauty)
"He's a Hollywood clown in a Lycra bird suit"
(Tabitha Dickenson is telling us exactly what Mr Nobody is ... he literally is a "Hollywood clown" - that stands on street corners in a Lycra bird suit - and gets his photo taken with tourists - we're given another clue when Riggan gets asked to have his photo taken with people in the bar)
When Tabitha Dickenson says she is going to kill his play - it represents that Mr Nobody is so paranoid, he thinks he is going to die on the operating table
(Tabitha Dickenson = Death (The Grim Reaper) - that's why she's dressed in black ... see the pun ... "Theater critic")
(When "Birdman" was released, theater critics said Tabitha Dickenson was an unrealistic portrayal of a theater critic ... now you know why she was "unrealistic" - she's really a subtle portrayal of "The Grim Reaper")
When Tabitha Dickenson says to Mike ... "Don't you worry I'll give you a bad review?" ... Mike says ..."If I ever give you a bad performance" - Mike Shiner has never lost a patient on the operating table (probably one of the reasons paranoid Mr Nobody has chosen him ...)
Note: After Riggan confronts Tabitha Dickenson, he can't resist drinking the drink she left behind ... then he puts the empty glass down ... on the napkin he got from Raymond Carver ... one of the most famous alcoholics in history ...
He significantly leaves his treasured napkin behind ... he's lapsing, but, ultimately, he's trying to beat his alcoholism
(Note - in his dream, Mr Nobody uses Mike Shiner as an excuse to enter the bar ... for coffee ... but they drink alcohol - notice also, that when Riggan replaces the alcohol on stage,with water ... he then fills his own glass with alcohol - all subtle clues (there are more, less subtle, clues later) that Mr Nobody is an alcoholic)
MR NOBODY was an EXTRA in a ridiculous comedy starring GOLDIE HAWN ... he has always wanted to be an actor, and has fantasized (and dreamed) about being an actor
(and a superhero)
When Riggan loses his robe - it represents the awkwardness MR NOBODY feels giving up his Birdman costume - he feels naked, but he's determined to go through with his surgery and change his life
(An actor that had starred in three successful "tent-pole" superhero movies would not need to refinance his house - even decades ago, Jack Nicholson made well over $50 million playing The Joker in Batman)
He tells a story of being on a plane with George Clooney - the point being the juxtaposition between him, disfigured, and one of the most attractive men on the planet ... and that it would be Clooney's face on the front page if the plane crashed ... not his ... he's a nobody ...
(He hates roses because they represent beauty)
"He's a Hollywood clown in a Lycra bird suit"
(Tabitha Dickenson is telling us exactly what Mr Nobody is ... he literally is a "Hollywood clown" - that stands on street corners in a Lycra bird suit - and gets his photo taken with tourists - we're given another clue when Riggan gets asked to have his photo taken with people in the bar)
When Tabitha Dickenson says she is going to kill his play - it represents that Mr Nobody is so paranoid, he thinks he is going to die on the operating table
(Tabitha Dickenson = Death (The Grim Reaper) - that's why she's dressed in black ... see the pun ... "Theater critic")
(When "Birdman" was released, theater critics said Tabitha Dickenson was an unrealistic portrayal of a theater critic ... now you know why she was "unrealistic" - she's really a subtle portrayal of "The Grim Reaper")
When Tabitha Dickenson says to Mike ... "Don't you worry I'll give you a bad review?" ... Mike says ..."If I ever give you a bad performance" - Mike Shiner has never lost a patient on the operating table (probably one of the reasons paranoid Mr Nobody has chosen him ...)
Note: After Riggan confronts Tabitha Dickenson, he can't resist drinking the drink she left behind ... then he puts the empty glass down ... on the napkin he got from Raymond Carver ... one of the most famous alcoholics in history ...
He significantly leaves his treasured napkin behind ... he's lapsing, but, ultimately, he's trying to beat his alcoholism
(Note - in his dream, Mr Nobody uses Mike Shiner as an excuse to enter the bar ... for coffee ... but they drink alcohol - notice also, that when Riggan replaces the alcohol on stage,with water ... he then fills his own glass with alcohol - all subtle clues (there are more, less subtle, clues later) that Mr Nobody is an alcoholic)
MR NOBODY was an EXTRA in a ridiculous comedy starring GOLDIE HAWN ... he has always wanted to be an actor, and has fantasized (and dreamed) about being an actor
(and a superhero)
When Riggan loses his robe - it represents the awkwardness MR NOBODY feels giving up his Birdman costume - he feels naked, but he's determined to go through with his surgery and change his life
Have a look at Sam's toilet roll in the scene when Riggan finds her joint - it's a supersize toilet roll, and she's filled in about half of it with ... dashes!
Who would do that ... think about it ... (what adult anyway) ...
It represents how insignificant and "irrelevant" Mr Nobody feels ... Inarritu shows us the toilet roll twice ... even explains her project ... she would have to write 6 million dashes to represent 6 billion years ... think about that ... (how long would it freaking take?)
I would think that rehab would endeavor to boost someone's self-esteem ... not make them feel insignificant ... it's another clue that this is all a dream ...
(Note Sam also mentions - "If you want the face stuff ...")
The "previews" represent Mr Nobody running through the scenario of his surgery over and over in his mind (dream) - when he shoots himself with a real gun (multiple stories, and timelines, are "overlapping" here) it represents he has finally, bravely, gone through with his surgery - the audience applauds - Tabitha Dickenson (Death) walks out in disgust because she has failed to "claim" him
(He has overcome his paranoia to go through with his surgery (his play) ... and it has been successful ... he has survived)
(Remember, Tabitha Dickenson (and everything else) is a creation of his (paranoid) mind)
We then see the meteor again - representing a life changing event has just happened - and the street performers on stage (another clue this is all a dream) - we have some super heroes, and, significantly, a "Transformer" (complete with number plate - so there is no doubt)
Mr Nobody has just "transformed" his life
...
Leslie perplexes me ... I think she is the patient in the next bed ... she's someone who has recommended Mike Shiner as a surgeon (we actually see her do this) ... who has / had her own anxieties about her cosmetic surgery ... Mike Shiner is also her surgeon ... except he won't be working on her face ...
(Leslie has had cosmetic surgery before ... Mike Shiner has been her surgeon for five years ... that is why they have an "intimate" relationship)
(In his paranoid mind, Mr Nobody thinks that Mike Shiner is "getting off" with everybody ... including his daughter Sam)
(This is almost light-hearted ... Mike Shiner is going to work ... on Leslie's vagina ... she feels she is being "fucked in front of 800 people" ... her anxieties about her surgeon working on her most intimate place ... include her surgeon "getting a hard-on" ... and not treating her with the respect and dignity that he should)
(I think they are in an 800 bed hospital ... a typical "model" for a reasonably sized Metropolitan hospital)
(Leslie could be a parody "trophy wife" that some plastic surgeons practice "their best work on")
(The two "characters" looking to have plastic surgery - Mr Nobody and Leslie - are looking for "self-respect")
(All the characters seem to "blur"... in and out of Riggan himself (Mr Nobody) at times)
THE STORIES AND THE CHARACTERS
We actually have four stories going on
We have Mr Nobody's story (subtle)
We have the main characters in the three "dream stories"
Riggan
Mike Shiner
Leslie
(Laura?)
Sam
Jake
Sylvia
then some of these characters perform Carver's story (adapted) as a play
Riggan as Nick
Mike as Mel
Leslie as Terri
Laura
then a reenactment of Terri / Mel's story with
Mel
Terri
Nick as Eddie
Note the "odd" one out - Laura
Laura is a character from Carver's story - how does she fit into the Riggan Thomson / Mike Shiner / Leslie universe of the dream?
Riggan, Mike, and Leslie aren't from Carver's story - so how does Laura fit into this sub-universe?
Who is Laura? ... when she kisses Leslie ... she's not Laura - but she talks about two years with Riggan / or Mr Nobody?
(Mulholland Drive connection: Lynch put a very subtle Inarritu reference in Mulholland Drive - partly as a clue ... and partly as a "dig" at Inarritu - they seem to have some sort of friendly rivalry - and here Inarritu returns the favor with a girl on girl scene - I can't see this scene having any other significance other than a nod to Lynch)
(obviously it's all a dream ... but what's the connection with these characters?)
We can work out Riggan Thomson is an actor who used to play a superhero - we can work out Mike Shiner is a plastic surgeon
This leaves Leslie as the patient in the next bed - or Mike Shiner's "trophy" wife or nurse
But we have very complicated clues to identify Laura's role in this universe
She doesn't seem to be associated with Riggan Thomson as such - because she interacts with Sylvia at one stage - but who is she?
Does Mr Nobody have a girlfriend? - I don't think so - but she does seem associated with Mr Nobody as she mentions "the previews" and is later worried about his well-being
(The "blurring of all these characters is a very big clue that this is all a dream)
Is Laura a representation of a younger Sylvia?
Is she the woman Sylvia caught him in bed with?
(I don't think Laura is a (present) girlfriend of Mr Nobody, as she's not present later in his hospital room - she seems more likely to be someone who he dallied with, but doesn't / didn't really care about - he still loves his ex wife)
Did Mr Nobody play around with her around the time of his daughter's birth? - is Laura the reason Mr Nobody's marriage failed?
Is Laura actually Sam's mother? Is she the reason that Mr Nobody's wife committed suicide? ... or did Sylvia die at the hands of Mr Nobody??
Either way, it seems that Sam has been estranged from her father ... for many years ... and they have recently reconciled
Ultimately ... I think, in some ways, Laura is a "red herring character" - deliberately blurred across all four stories (she had to be there, because she is a character in Carver's story) ... as a further clue that this is all a dream
It is obvious that Mr Nobody never fully committed to Laura ... he has always really loved his wife
....
RIGGAN THOMSON IS THE ACTOR WHO PLAYED BIRDMAN IN THREE MOVIES
Who would do that ... think about it ... (what adult anyway) ...
It represents how insignificant and "irrelevant" Mr Nobody feels ... Inarritu shows us the toilet roll twice ... even explains her project ... she would have to write 6 million dashes to represent 6 billion years ... think about that ... (how long would it freaking take?)
I would think that rehab would endeavor to boost someone's self-esteem ... not make them feel insignificant ... it's another clue that this is all a dream ...
(Note Sam also mentions - "If you want the face stuff ...")
The "previews" represent Mr Nobody running through the scenario of his surgery over and over in his mind (dream) - when he shoots himself with a real gun (multiple stories, and timelines, are "overlapping" here) it represents he has finally, bravely, gone through with his surgery - the audience applauds - Tabitha Dickenson (Death) walks out in disgust because she has failed to "claim" him
(He has overcome his paranoia to go through with his surgery (his play) ... and it has been successful ... he has survived)
(Remember, Tabitha Dickenson (and everything else) is a creation of his (paranoid) mind)
We then see the meteor again - representing a life changing event has just happened - and the street performers on stage (another clue this is all a dream) - we have some super heroes, and, significantly, a "Transformer" (complete with number plate - so there is no doubt)
Mr Nobody has just "transformed" his life
...
Leslie perplexes me ... I think she is the patient in the next bed ... she's someone who has recommended Mike Shiner as a surgeon (we actually see her do this) ... who has / had her own anxieties about her cosmetic surgery ... Mike Shiner is also her surgeon ... except he won't be working on her face ...
(Leslie has had cosmetic surgery before ... Mike Shiner has been her surgeon for five years ... that is why they have an "intimate" relationship)
(In his paranoid mind, Mr Nobody thinks that Mike Shiner is "getting off" with everybody ... including his daughter Sam)
(This is almost light-hearted ... Mike Shiner is going to work ... on Leslie's vagina ... she feels she is being "fucked in front of 800 people" ... her anxieties about her surgeon working on her most intimate place ... include her surgeon "getting a hard-on" ... and not treating her with the respect and dignity that he should)
(I think they are in an 800 bed hospital ... a typical "model" for a reasonably sized Metropolitan hospital)
(Leslie could be a parody "trophy wife" that some plastic surgeons practice "their best work on")
(The two "characters" looking to have plastic surgery - Mr Nobody and Leslie - are looking for "self-respect")
(All the characters seem to "blur"... in and out of Riggan himself (Mr Nobody) at times)
THE STORIES AND THE CHARACTERS
We actually have four stories going on
We have Mr Nobody's story (subtle)
We have the main characters in the three "dream stories"
Riggan
Mike Shiner
Leslie
(Laura?)
Sam
Jake
Sylvia
then some of these characters perform Carver's story (adapted) as a play
Riggan as Nick
Mike as Mel
Leslie as Terri
Laura
then a reenactment of Terri / Mel's story with
Mel
Terri
Nick as Eddie
Note the "odd" one out - Laura
Laura is a character from Carver's story - how does she fit into the Riggan Thomson / Mike Shiner / Leslie universe of the dream?
Riggan, Mike, and Leslie aren't from Carver's story - so how does Laura fit into this sub-universe?
Who is Laura? ... when she kisses Leslie ... she's not Laura - but she talks about two years with Riggan / or Mr Nobody?
(Mulholland Drive connection: Lynch put a very subtle Inarritu reference in Mulholland Drive - partly as a clue ... and partly as a "dig" at Inarritu - they seem to have some sort of friendly rivalry - and here Inarritu returns the favor with a girl on girl scene - I can't see this scene having any other significance other than a nod to Lynch)
(obviously it's all a dream ... but what's the connection with these characters?)
We can work out Riggan Thomson is an actor who used to play a superhero - we can work out Mike Shiner is a plastic surgeon
This leaves Leslie as the patient in the next bed - or Mike Shiner's "trophy" wife or nurse
But we have very complicated clues to identify Laura's role in this universe
She doesn't seem to be associated with Riggan Thomson as such - because she interacts with Sylvia at one stage - but who is she?
Does Mr Nobody have a girlfriend? - I don't think so - but she does seem associated with Mr Nobody as she mentions "the previews" and is later worried about his well-being
(The "blurring of all these characters is a very big clue that this is all a dream)
Is Laura a representation of a younger Sylvia?
Is she the woman Sylvia caught him in bed with?
(I don't think Laura is a (present) girlfriend of Mr Nobody, as she's not present later in his hospital room - she seems more likely to be someone who he dallied with, but doesn't / didn't really care about - he still loves his ex wife)
Did Mr Nobody play around with her around the time of his daughter's birth? - is Laura the reason Mr Nobody's marriage failed?
Is Laura actually Sam's mother? Is she the reason that Mr Nobody's wife committed suicide? ... or did Sylvia die at the hands of Mr Nobody??
Either way, it seems that Sam has been estranged from her father ... for many years ... and they have recently reconciled
Ultimately ... I think, in some ways, Laura is a "red herring character" - deliberately blurred across all four stories (she had to be there, because she is a character in Carver's story) ... as a further clue that this is all a dream
It is obvious that Mr Nobody never fully committed to Laura ... he has always really loved his wife
....
RIGGAN THOMSON IS THE ACTOR WHO PLAYED BIRDMAN IN THREE MOVIES
(I think Riggan may be based on a projected, older version of Robert Downey Jr ... so therefore Mr Nobody's "impersonation" is based on Robert Downey Jr)
(Birdman says to Riggan "You're an impostor here ... eventually they're going to figure you out")
MR NOBODY IS FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO COME OUT FROM BEHIND HIS "MASK", AND HIS DREAM INVOLVES AN "INTERMEDIARY" TRANSITION TO RIGGAN THOMSON, UNTIL ... HE LEAVES BIRDMAN BEHIND, CLIMBS OUT OF THE HOSPITAL WINDOW, ... AND BECOMES ... MR NOBODY ... A MAN WHO CAN NOW "FLY" WITHOUT BIRDMAN
(WHEN RIGGAN FLIES EARLIER, HE IS, EFFECTIVELY, REVERTING TO HIS "BIRDMAN" STATE (REMEMBER HIS "SQUAWK") - NOW HE FINALLY MANAGES TO GO TO THE OTHER, AND OPPOSITE EXTREME OF HIS INTERMEDIARY STATE (WITHIN HIS DREAM), AND BECOME ... MR NOBODY ... HE'S FREE OF HIS OVERWHELMING DISFIGUREMENT (IN HIS PARANOID, OVERLY SELF-CONSCIOUS EYES), AND IS REASONABLY SATISFIED WITH HIS NEW NOSE)
(he's still dreaming)
HE LEAVES "BIRDMAN" - THE PART OF HIS MIND THAT HAS BEEN TELLING HIM TO KEEP HIDING BEHIND THE MASK - SITTING GLUMLY IN THE BATHROOM
(Lilacs represent "spring" - a new beginning ... notice how they take "center stage" (amidst all the other flowers) before Riggan goes through to the hospital bathroom to remove his dressing)
(WHEN RIGGAN FLIES EARLIER, HE IS, EFFECTIVELY, REVERTING TO HIS "BIRDMAN" STATE (REMEMBER HIS "SQUAWK") - NOW HE FINALLY MANAGES TO GO TO THE OTHER, AND OPPOSITE EXTREME OF HIS INTERMEDIARY STATE (WITHIN HIS DREAM), AND BECOME ... MR NOBODY ... HE'S FREE OF HIS OVERWHELMING DISFIGUREMENT (IN HIS PARANOID, OVERLY SELF-CONSCIOUS EYES), AND IS REASONABLY SATISFIED WITH HIS NEW NOSE)
(he's still dreaming)
HE LEAVES "BIRDMAN" - THE PART OF HIS MIND THAT HAS BEEN TELLING HIM TO KEEP HIDING BEHIND THE MASK - SITTING GLUMLY IN THE BATHROOM
(Lilacs represent "spring" - a new beginning ... notice how they take "center stage" (amidst all the other flowers) before Riggan goes through to the hospital bathroom to remove his dressing)
IN HIS MIND (HIS DREAM), ... WITH THE HELP OF HIS LOVING DAUGHTER, ... HE'S GOING TO BE OKAY ...
WE DON'T FIND OUT ... BUT WE LEAVE SMILING TOO ...
(the whole movie ... is a dream ...)
After I had completed my analysis ... I realized that...
THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE = DREAM
THANK YOU
ALEJANDRO G. INARRITU ...
(the whole movie ... is a dream ...)
After I had completed my analysis ... I realized that...
THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE = DREAM
THANK YOU
ALEJANDRO G. INARRITU ...
(P.S. There are certain clues (quite a few) in this movie that haunt me - Riggan and Mike Shiner seem to be interchangeable at times, throughout the movie, and a case could actually be made that Mr Nobody is blind as well as disfigured (remember that he is only using Riggan Thomson (actually all the characters) as a "vehicle" in his dream) - but I feel it doesn't quite fit The Phantom of the Opera theme (and it makes it seem a little weird) - are they just accidental? - I don't think so - look out for these clues, and watch right till the end of the credits (people are talking (on a street corner?), yet it's pitch black)... and make up your own mind ... there are many levels overlapping in this movie)
We're bombarded by drums (emphasizing sound) - is there a "tapping white stick" overlaid sometimes?
(listen to the end credits)
Note Riggan mentions smells a lot - and he smells Sam's joint (but I don't think he can smell - he shot his nose off - he seems to be dreaming about his fantasies - acting/being in charge/winning against the odds/being a superhero/seeing/smelling/his ex-wife/being SOMEBODY rather than NOBODY - there are cues that maybe he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia)
(His dream seems to emphasize the "opposite" of his reality (except for sound, which is his main "interface" with the world in reality) - so in his dream, he can move things without touching them - in reality, he has to touch things to "see" them)
Mike Shiner wants Sam's eyes - to view the world as he used to
(I think the relationship between Mike Shiner and Sam represents Mr Nobody's paranoia that the "rock star" surgeon will make moves on his daughter whilst she "hovers around" at the hospital - Mr Nobody appears to be a paranoid schizophrenic)
Is Jake Mr Nobody's carer?
When Jake mentions "nuns in diapers" (porn) ... he says "What do you care? ... you shouldn't have any knowledge of that anyway" ...
Is Mr Nobody a blind street performer?
Why does Jake pronounce Scorsese wrong?
They lie to Riggan about a full house, and seem protective of him
(is this more than just reassuring him to go through with his operation?)
Riggan/Nick talks about an old man not being able to see his wife (but Mel is the surgeon in Carver's short story - these are Mike/Mel's lines)
Mike tells the newspaper that Carver was the reason he became an actor ... lines straight out of Riggan's mouth
Can Mr Nobody only differentiate between light ... and dark?
Jake flew with him to New York ... that's how he knows George Clooney was on the plane ... he felt the turbulence ... he heard the crying ... blind people are often calm in such situations
He's still in love with his ex-wife ... that's why she keeps popping up in his dream ...
He regrets video taping his daughter's birth ... because he can no longer view the tape ... and he regrets not having had a more physical experience at the time ...
The man on the roof when Riggan flies, treats him like a blind person ...
Is the irony that Mr Nobody is paranoid and self-conscious about his disfigurement ... but he's blind?
I'm going to stick my neck out ... and say that the gunshot left him blind ... as well as disfigured ...
Since when are dreams not allowed ... to be a little weird? ...
Thanks for reading ...
(I had never heard of Raymond Carver before I watched "Birdman" ... I went out and bought a book of his short stories .. it's now one of my favorite books)
The taxi fare
The taxi driver and the fare scene ... just as Lynch used techniques in Lost Highway to bring the audience back to "reality" after an "extreme fantasy" scene ... Inarritu is doing the same here ... letting the audience "reconcile" the fantasy element, so as not to completely give the game away (that it's a dream) ... notice we don't see who pays the taxi fare ... there are lots of taxis in the flying scene ... the people crossing the road are oblivious to any approaching taxi ... Riggan lands on the ground before the taxi arrives ... the camera has gone too far forward to see if anyone actually alights from the taxi and enters the theater behind the camera "POV" - we can't see the taxi door or the theater doors at this point (then the camera pans both ways to show us the open taxi door and the theater doors) ... see how clever directors trick us! ...
(Riggan also says "Stop the music" ... which is another little trick Inarritu is using ... to make us think this is the "end" of a "dream sequence" within reality ... misdirecting us (along with the taxi) ... from the "reality" ... that the whole movie is a dream)
(Inarritu is taking a liberty here ... but that's what directors do ... when they can get away with it)
Sylvia
I also get the distinct impression that his wife is dead - she seems a "ghost" in the movie - perhaps it was she who committed suicide after catching him in bed with another woman (she locked herself in the bathroom) - (or he killed her - she says he threw a knife at her - pretty extreme) - she "didn't give a shit" when he tried to commit suicide, because she was already dead - he then shot himself in remorse at some stage, but failed to kill himself - she is another "voice" in his head (schizophrenia) - hence his conversations with her - he has been living with the consequences and guilt for twenty years or so - but has now found the strength to move on with his life ... with the help and support of his daughter
(Mr Nobody is now trying to "draw a line under" his remorse and depression, and rebuild and move on with his life - for his daughter's sake, as well as his own)
The Macbeth soliloquy
We hear this when "Riggan" is at his lowest (just like Macbeth ... it's after his wife has died ... another clue perhaps that Mr Nobody's wife is dead) and is reverting to alcohol again ...
It seems to represent insignificance (a theme throughout the film) and depression
I think it also represents the "insignificance" of the dream itself ... it doesn't change anything ... it's just a brief candle (dreams are just brief, flickering "candles") ... a walking shadow (again, a dream) of a poor player (in his own eyes, Mr Nobody is an insignificant "loser") ... who struts and frets his hour on the stage (his operation / but in his mind it seems to be his "15 minutes" of "fame") ... but then will be heard no more ... it is a tale ... told by an idiot (referring to himself ... he is responsible for all this) ... full of sound and fury (the "drama" of his "play" ... the drums ... his neurosis ... his 'fights' with Jake and Mike Shiner ... him shooting himself) ... but it has no actual significance ...
(It's just a dream!)
It represents Mr Nobody reverting to his depressive, alcoholic state ... which he is bravely trying to battle ... as well as "Birdman" ... but, ironically, the next scenes show us ... that it's actually "Birdman" that has kept Mr Nobody alive ... and has pulled him out of the depths of his despair ...
It shows us "Birdman" is a movie of "redemption" ... rather than "escape" ...
(Enemy - Lost Highway - Inland Empire - The Prestige - are all films of "escape" - in one form or another)
POSSIBILITIES
It's possible - because dreams are "allowed" to be weird - that Mr Nobody is just an extremely paranoid man having a nose job ... thinking that he may end up blind - and that his "dream" is highlighting all "possible" scenarios (anxieties) that have been running through his mind
(We certainly have "anxieties" with Leslie)
Maybe it's even supposed to be Jason Biggs himself ... having a nose job ... (this would be more likely if Biggs had ever played a superhero ... but I am not familiar with his filmography)
(I understand Inarritu assured Michael Keaton, when he cast him in the film, that he wasn't taking the piss out of him ... but he could be taking the piss out of someone else (I think Riggan is based on Robert Downey Jr) ... could anyone ever prove it?)
THE SCREENPLAY
It would be interesting to find out the TRUE history of the screenplay ... and what input Inarritu actually had ... because I get the impression that this screenplay may have been "adapted" at the last moment by Inarritu ... perhaps seeing the opportunity the St James / Majestic theaters offered ... to take the screenplay to another level ... and I wonder if all the writers were actually "on the same page" as far as a "dream" went ... we will probably never find out ... but it's my guess the screenplay was "adapted" at a fairly late stage ... by a genius director ...
THE FLAK I GET!
Today ... a Ph.D. Professor ... Peter Kuling ... a researcher in theater and film, rubbished my analysis that Birdman is a dream (with absolutely no argument to back it up), saying that his Ph.D. credentials proved he was right ...
All it does prove, as I've said all along ... is that some (I've stopped being polite - it's "most") film critics and academics ... actually have no idea when it comes to film and filmmakers, and, in particular, "deep" movies ... they live on their own self important clouds, and hijack the artistic and clever work of others to fit self-serving ideologies - their world is full of pretentious, meaningless drivel
(They should hang their heads in shame)
Filmmakers like Inarritu only have two hours or so for their masterpiece ... they're spending upwards of $20 million ... sometimes a lot more ... filming for weeks, months ... post production, editing, for months after that ... every second is carefully constructed and articulated ... into a tight, richly woven tapestry ... nothing is random ...
the clues are there ... it's a dream ...
Plissken Boon Ph.D. (Plissken Boon University)
(my credentials ... and credibility ... for rationally decoding movies ... speaks for itself)
(Thank you for all the job offers ... (I didn't know the very famous critic at The Guardian was due to retire) but due to present commitments I am unavailable to take up any film studies lecturing positions until at least 2018)
It represents Mr Nobody reverting to his depressive, alcoholic state ... which he is bravely trying to battle ... as well as "Birdman" ... but, ironically, the next scenes show us ... that it's actually "Birdman" that has kept Mr Nobody alive ... and has pulled him out of the depths of his despair ...
It shows us "Birdman" is a movie of "redemption" ... rather than "escape" ...
(Enemy - Lost Highway - Inland Empire - The Prestige - are all films of "escape" - in one form or another)
POSSIBILITIES
It's possible - because dreams are "allowed" to be weird - that Mr Nobody is just an extremely paranoid man having a nose job ... thinking that he may end up blind - and that his "dream" is highlighting all "possible" scenarios (anxieties) that have been running through his mind
(We certainly have "anxieties" with Leslie)
Maybe it's even supposed to be Jason Biggs himself ... having a nose job ... (this would be more likely if Biggs had ever played a superhero ... but I am not familiar with his filmography)
(I understand Inarritu assured Michael Keaton, when he cast him in the film, that he wasn't taking the piss out of him ... but he could be taking the piss out of someone else (I think Riggan is based on Robert Downey Jr) ... could anyone ever prove it?)
THE SCREENPLAY
It would be interesting to find out the TRUE history of the screenplay ... and what input Inarritu actually had ... because I get the impression that this screenplay may have been "adapted" at the last moment by Inarritu ... perhaps seeing the opportunity the St James / Majestic theaters offered ... to take the screenplay to another level ... and I wonder if all the writers were actually "on the same page" as far as a "dream" went ... we will probably never find out ... but it's my guess the screenplay was "adapted" at a fairly late stage ... by a genius director ...
THE FLAK I GET!
Today ... a Ph.D. Professor ... Peter Kuling ... a researcher in theater and film, rubbished my analysis that Birdman is a dream (with absolutely no argument to back it up), saying that his Ph.D. credentials proved he was right ...
All it does prove, as I've said all along ... is that some (I've stopped being polite - it's "most") film critics and academics ... actually have no idea when it comes to film and filmmakers, and, in particular, "deep" movies ... they live on their own self important clouds, and hijack the artistic and clever work of others to fit self-serving ideologies - their world is full of pretentious, meaningless drivel
(They should hang their heads in shame)
Filmmakers like Inarritu only have two hours or so for their masterpiece ... they're spending upwards of $20 million ... sometimes a lot more ... filming for weeks, months ... post production, editing, for months after that ... every second is carefully constructed and articulated ... into a tight, richly woven tapestry ... nothing is random ...
the clues are there ... it's a dream ...
Plissken Boon Ph.D. (Plissken Boon University)
(my credentials ... and credibility ... for rationally decoding movies ... speaks for itself)
(Thank you for all the job offers ... (I didn't know the very famous critic at The Guardian was due to retire) but due to present commitments I am unavailable to take up any film studies lecturing positions until at least 2018)
(Maybe WLU should check this guy didn't buy his degree off the internet (wherever he got it (out of a cereal packet?) - it makes no difference - (a boy Scout badge has more credibility than his Ph.D) - this guy does not "get" film) ... because this is only two, of many, really dumb tweets... SuperProfessor = SuperDickhead)
(Who's getting "schooled"?)
 |
| They say a picture speaks a 1000 words - one will do: DICKHEAD |
I'm sick of some film critics and academics (and morons in general) being negative about this blog, for no good reason - it is always condescending and arrogant people - who think they know better and shoot their mouths, without even reading my blog - it only shows them up as lacking any sort of decent character or backbone - because they always go scurrying away once they realize they have picked the wrong argument (with the wrong guy) ... a lot of them deleting their tweets as they go ... funny that ...
(I just love the smell of napalmed morons in the morning ...it's never a good idea to go "shooting your mouth" on the internet without knowing what you're talking about ... or the "armory" you're up against ... any good courtroom lawyer will tell you ... always do your homework ... before running your mouth)
(Voltage is fine ... but "Amps" always wins)
(Recently a moderator on the CriterionForum.org banned me - calling the very abridged explanation of Birdman I posted "moronic" - 99.999999% of the population probably said the same thing about the guy that stood up and said the world was "round" - sometimes you can't even lead a horse to water ... let alone get it to drink ... as I said earlier ... it's going to take a while for the penny to drop ... and the "light bulbs" to go "on"!)
To date (over 18 months) ... no one has seriously challenged any of my analysis ... all six movies ... not even the smallest detail ... There's US$2 million to anyone who can prove my analysis is fundamentally wrong ... on any of the six movies I have analyzed so far ... yet no takers whatsoever)
It may seem like I have been harsh towards film critics - but if you look at my blog in chronological order, you will see that my contempt for (some of) them has only grown in proportion to the surprising level of negativity I have encountered from them ... and there was no need for it whatsoever if they had extended even a modicum of common courtesy to a fellow human being
(They have treated me like something you would wipe off your shoe ... yet if it were one of their own they would be shouting it from rooftops (as they did with the Enemy = Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory ... at least that does give me a laugh ... they're very quick to spout their own rubbish)
(But - I suppose ... the positive thing is that this blog only came about because film critics ignored me when I contacted them about the film "Enemy" ... and that led to me subsequently getting requests to analyze another five films - something that I have really enjoyed)
Here is another couple of typical examples of the unfair and nasty flak I have encountered
(I have put forward a "proof" - in my blog - "A lot of pages of amazing analysis!" as someone tweeted me)
(To be fair ... I've had a look at many of Burton Fisher's tweets ... and he is a horrible Troll ... to everyone)
(Actually - I've looked all over the internet ... websites, forums, books, anything ... and so have others on my behalf ... for two years ... and guess what? No one else has done it ... no one (zilch) has come up with any of the six solutions I have ... sort of just leaves me (by logical definition) ... some Universities are now discussing my work in lecture theaters ... none of them are discussing my paranoid narcissism)
(well ... I hope they aren't ... now I'm paranoid)
Professor Russell Brant also made "disparaging" comments about my "idolization" of David Lynch - the fact of the matter is ... I wasn't even a fan of David Lynch's work until I analyzed "Mulholland Drive"
(Haters will always be haters)
Thank you Professor Burton Fisher and Professor Russell Brant (and company) - it's always nice to make new friends on Twitter - you are welcome to come and actually read my blog anytime ...
I have been treated appalling by some film critics and academics ... just because I am (at "face value" anyway) a "layman" ... not some ("pat each other on the back club") "published" academic etc.
(They haven't got a clue as to my real identity)
(History will tell (if any of them actually have any integrity) ... whether the "small library" of "Mulholland Drive" explanations (books, newspaper/web articles, and University theses) that have been published over the last fifteen years ... or the solution I put forward in my blog (and the five solutions I put forward for the other five films here) ... stand up to scrutiny - although they are desperately hanging on to their libraries of drivel ... now "fake and useless versions of history" ... many want to keep living the lies that they have written ... even with viscous egg slowly dripping from their faces ... on to their pretentious texts ... as long as they possibly can)
(So much for professional integrity)
Well ... I do have character ... and I do have backbone ... and I push back against condescending nasty "bullies" who don't have the decency to respect others
Here's another "put down" from a way-too-full-of himself, jumped-up, immature little upstart with no respect for someone else's opinion - promotes his very light-weight Youtube channel - (his presentation / video editing skills aren't bad, but it's not exactly deep and meaningful insight - just another personality disordered can't-get-a-girlfriend "attention-seeking nerd" on Youtube) - so his reaction to me is incredible hypocrisy - attempts to "assert" his self-asserted "superiority" with a quick-fire put-down with no attempt at rational argument - then runs away like a cowardly kid, who hits - then runs for his life ...this is a "real-boy" ... failing miserably at being ... a "real-man"
(morons tend to do this - because they can't put up a rational argument ... good luck to him and his 4K subscribers on Youtube (I fell asleep!) and his paid for followers on Twitter)
But the one that really takes the cake is this guy
He calls himself a screenwriter ... but I suspect he's a librarian who wants to be a screenwriter
When he "liked" a mindless tweet one of his equally moronic and insecure associates, Emanuelle Arson, sent me ... I politely suggested ... that as a screenwriter, he would do well to read my analysis (all the films on my blog are master classes of screenwriting)
He immediately blocked me ... which has bemused me ever since
His profile says it all (I can't stop chuckling) ...
It's when I realized just how "super-saturated" Twitter is with morons, prats, and personality-disordered weirdos
With the closest thing to a girlfriend being his cat, somehow I doubt this guy will ever make it as a screenwriter
It has also been a very sobering learning curve on social media - realizing just how many people there are out there that are just so full of themselves and their own opinions, that they won't entertain (or even read) anyone else's opinion, no matter how rational it is - a sad indictment on today's "look at me" egotistical culture on the likes of Youtube and Facebook - in fact, on several occasions, these people and their followers have "ganged up" on me like bullies in a playground - none of them having read my blog - some of the staff at "Birth, Movies, Death" magazine a particularly memorable nasty bunch of morons
Few film critics or academics have commented on my blog, acknowledged my analysis, or even said "Well done" - but some have ignorantly shot their mouths off in some sort of misguided indignation (are they really that insecure in their worlds?) ...
I don't get it ... but I'm glad about that ... it's just not the way we treat fellow human beings in my circles ... and I'm proud of that ...
Writing this blog has been a sad lesson in humanity
It's sad how people can develop into beings with no soul and not realize it ...
(Unfortunately, judging from the flak I have encountered, it seems there are far more morons and haters in this world (from more demographics and walks of life) than I realized ... ghastly, nasty people that I am usually lucky enough not to have to interact with)
At the end of the day, I analyzed these movies for me, and I thoroughly enjoyed it
Thank you to the few who have appreciated it, left comments here or on Twitter, or followed me ...particularly all the film industry people ...
For me, it will continue to be a celebration of great films and great directors
Respect is earned ... by common human courtesy and decency ... anybody can have a valid opinion
This blog IS a celebration of great cinema, and the people who make it ...
Thank you ... to the people that appreciate it ...
(To date - 160K page-views on this blog)
(I just love the smell of napalmed morons in the morning ...it's never a good idea to go "shooting your mouth" on the internet without knowing what you're talking about ... or the "armory" you're up against ... any good courtroom lawyer will tell you ... always do your homework ... before running your mouth)
(Recently a moderator on the CriterionForum.org banned me - calling the very abridged explanation of Birdman I posted "moronic" - 99.999999% of the population probably said the same thing about the guy that stood up and said the world was "round" - sometimes you can't even lead a horse to water ... let alone get it to drink ... as I said earlier ... it's going to take a while for the penny to drop ... and the "light bulbs" to go "on"!)
To date (over 18 months) ... no one has seriously challenged any of my analysis ... all six movies ... not even the smallest detail ... There's US$2 million to anyone who can prove my analysis is fundamentally wrong ... on any of the six movies I have analyzed so far ... yet no takers whatsoever)
It may seem like I have been harsh towards film critics - but if you look at my blog in chronological order, you will see that my contempt for (some of) them has only grown in proportion to the surprising level of negativity I have encountered from them ... and there was no need for it whatsoever if they had extended even a modicum of common courtesy to a fellow human being
(They have treated me like something you would wipe off your shoe ... yet if it were one of their own they would be shouting it from rooftops (as they did with the Enemy = Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory ... at least that does give me a laugh ... they're very quick to spout their own rubbish)
(But - I suppose ... the positive thing is that this blog only came about because film critics ignored me when I contacted them about the film "Enemy" ... and that led to me subsequently getting requests to analyze another five films - something that I have really enjoyed)
Here is another couple of typical examples of the unfair and nasty flak I have encountered
(I have put forward a "proof" - in my blog - "A lot of pages of amazing analysis!" as someone tweeted me)
(To be fair ... I've had a look at many of Burton Fisher's tweets ... and he is a horrible Troll ... to everyone)
(Actually - I've looked all over the internet ... websites, forums, books, anything ... and so have others on my behalf ... for two years ... and guess what? No one else has done it ... no one (zilch) has come up with any of the six solutions I have ... sort of just leaves me (by logical definition) ... some Universities are now discussing my work in lecture theaters ... none of them are discussing my paranoid narcissism)
(well ... I hope they aren't ... now I'm paranoid)
Professor Russell Brant also made "disparaging" comments about my "idolization" of David Lynch - the fact of the matter is ... I wasn't even a fan of David Lynch's work until I analyzed "Mulholland Drive"
(Haters will always be haters)
Thank you Professor Burton Fisher and Professor Russell Brant (and company) - it's always nice to make new friends on Twitter - you are welcome to come and actually read my blog anytime ...
I have been treated appalling by some film critics and academics ... just because I am (at "face value" anyway) a "layman" ... not some ("pat each other on the back club") "published" academic etc.
(They haven't got a clue as to my real identity)
(History will tell (if any of them actually have any integrity) ... whether the "small library" of "Mulholland Drive" explanations (books, newspaper/web articles, and University theses) that have been published over the last fifteen years ... or the solution I put forward in my blog (and the five solutions I put forward for the other five films here) ... stand up to scrutiny - although they are desperately hanging on to their libraries of drivel ... now "fake and useless versions of history" ... many want to keep living the lies that they have written ... even with viscous egg slowly dripping from their faces ... on to their pretentious texts ... as long as they possibly can)
(So much for professional integrity)
Well ... I do have character ... and I do have backbone ... and I push back against condescending nasty "bullies" who don't have the decency to respect others
Here's another "put down" from a way-too-full-of himself, jumped-up, immature little upstart with no respect for someone else's opinion - promotes his very light-weight Youtube channel - (his presentation / video editing skills aren't bad, but it's not exactly deep and meaningful insight - just another personality disordered can't-get-a-girlfriend "attention-seeking nerd" on Youtube) - so his reaction to me is incredible hypocrisy - attempts to "assert" his self-asserted "superiority" with a quick-fire put-down with no attempt at rational argument - then runs away like a cowardly kid, who hits - then runs for his life ...this is a "real-boy" ... failing miserably at being ... a "real-man"
(morons tend to do this - because they can't put up a rational argument ... good luck to him and his 4K subscribers on Youtube (I fell asleep!) and his paid for followers on Twitter)
But the one that really takes the cake is this guy
He calls himself a screenwriter ... but I suspect he's a librarian who wants to be a screenwriter
When he "liked" a mindless tweet one of his equally moronic and insecure associates, Emanuelle Arson, sent me ... I politely suggested ... that as a screenwriter, he would do well to read my analysis (all the films on my blog are master classes of screenwriting)
He immediately blocked me ... which has bemused me ever since
His profile says it all (I can't stop chuckling) ...
It's when I realized just how "super-saturated" Twitter is with morons, prats, and personality-disordered weirdos
With the closest thing to a girlfriend being his cat, somehow I doubt this guy will ever make it as a screenwriter
It has also been a very sobering learning curve on social media - realizing just how many people there are out there that are just so full of themselves and their own opinions, that they won't entertain (or even read) anyone else's opinion, no matter how rational it is - a sad indictment on today's "look at me" egotistical culture on the likes of Youtube and Facebook - in fact, on several occasions, these people and their followers have "ganged up" on me like bullies in a playground - none of them having read my blog - some of the staff at "Birth, Movies, Death" magazine a particularly memorable nasty bunch of morons
Few film critics or academics have commented on my blog, acknowledged my analysis, or even said "Well done" - but some have ignorantly shot their mouths off in some sort of misguided indignation (are they really that insecure in their worlds?) ...
I don't get it ... but I'm glad about that ... it's just not the way we treat fellow human beings in my circles ... and I'm proud of that ...
Writing this blog has been a sad lesson in humanity
It's sad how people can develop into beings with no soul and not realize it ...
(Unfortunately, judging from the flak I have encountered, it seems there are far more morons and haters in this world (from more demographics and walks of life) than I realized ... ghastly, nasty people that I am usually lucky enough not to have to interact with)
At the end of the day, I analyzed these movies for me, and I thoroughly enjoyed it
Thank you to the few who have appreciated it, left comments here or on Twitter, or followed me ...particularly all the film industry people ...
For me, it will continue to be a celebration of great films and great directors
Respect is earned ... by common human courtesy and decency ... anybody can have a valid opinion
This blog IS a celebration of great cinema, and the people who make it ...
Thank you ... to the people that appreciate it ...
(To date - 160K page-views on this blog)
PLISSKEN BOON'S NEW PROJECT
Plissken Boon blows the whistle on the most secret place on Earth ...
the "Doomsday Vault" - Level 42 ... 20 stories below ground ...
AREA 51
where, in six, 8 ft tall glass tanks ... float the bodies ... of the Roswell aliens ...
In 13 gripping TV episodes ... Plissken Boon reveals how life as you know it ... the past ... the future ... ceases to exist if the secret of Level 42 ever gets out ...
How the Roswell aliens have been found to have been genetically engineered from human DNA ... and carried communication devices that were manufactured by Lockheed Martin ... in 2047 ...
How one alien, a female ... murdered the other five ... before killing herself by swallowing a battery ... and the billion dollar project to track down her missing communication device ...
How in 2011, CODIS made a Familial DNA match ... with DNA from 10 unsolved murders in continental North America ... and the five murdered aliens
How a young girl is being programmed, at this very moment, to reach out, a thousand years into the future, with the blueprints for a war, that will be fought in the past ... and how the future tried to reach out to the past ... with a warning ... six aliens that could pass through a wormhole, carrying DNA blueprints that will make time travel impossible ...
Can Level 42 solve the puzzle of the Roswell aliens ... can DIANA, the world's first DNA AI computer/robot, with billion dollar technology and synthetic eyes that took over twenty years to develop, discover the secrets deliberately encoded in the aliens DNA? ...
Even POTUS is told that Level 42 holds secrets that are "above her pay-grade" - can Level 42 save the past? ... Can they track down the missing device and decode it's secrets?
Can they implement a genetic modification into the world's population, to make time travel impossible ... before it's too late? ...
Has Level 42 been outplayed? ... Will the terrorists find a message... a solution ... from a thousand years in the past? ... how to beat the genetic modification ... and wage their war ... in an era that can't defend itself against them ... a war where it won't matter how many you kill ... just who you kill ...
Level 42 is the most secure place on Earth ... it has no phones ... no internet ... no data ever leaves ... it has the power to change the future ... and the past ... but, ultimately ... it is inevitable ... that Level 42 will make a mistake ... a mistake that will catastrophically crash fragile timelines ... a mistake that will erase the mistake ... of all mistakes ...
Plissken Boon is going to demonstrate to you ... just how close you are ... to not existing ...
Terrorists are coming ... from the future ... and they're going to kill you ... before you even exist ...
Coming ... in 2020
AREA 51
It will give you nightmares ... there are absolutely no guarantees that you will exist ... in the past ... or the future ...
Human DNA leaves the Solar System in 2063 ...
aboard the USS Gene Roddenberry ...
... and they found it at Roswell ... in 1947 ...
The astronauts parents were murdered ... so they never existed ... but Level 42 has their DNA in it's secret bunker ...
It doesn't know it yet ... but in this timeline ... Level 42 is going to send their DNA ... secretly ... aboard the USS Gene Roddenberry ...
What Level 42 doesn't know ... is that it's endeavors to solve the puzzle of the Roswell aliens ... is going to turn out to be mankind's biggest mistake ....
If the timelines crash ...
The walls are going to melt and dissolve ... and when you look down at your hands ... they won't be there ...
Then there will be ...
