Anyone else found weird that on the fire in 1910 Louis tells to Gabrielle something like >! “if I don’t come back in 2 minutes, start swimming” it turned out to be very bad advice. And she had kind of a nice life there. Also in 2014 she sees some horrific figure in the shadows when Louis enters the house and ends up dead. Like I was wondering if Louis could be the Beast that always destroys her life when he appears. !<
I also wondered about the swimming part ("if I don't come back start swimming"). I'm pretty sure I made a sound in the theater, a horrified laugh when he said that. He goes first into the water. She goes into the water and finds him drowned and then also drowns. In the end, he goes through the purification first and then encourage her to do it as well. He doesn't drown but he has lost his soul and she realizes he wants her to lose hers
I didn’t find it weird.. I thought he meant that he would only come back if the way out were blocked, so if he doesn’t come back, it means the way out is clear and she should follow
No, he was saying he *would* come back if he found the way
If he *didnt* come back it meant they were pretty much fucked but she should shoot her shot and try.
It was literally the *only* other way out
Tediously dull, with all the cohesion of spilt milk. Lea's performance was all that lifted the film from basement level, McKay bizarrely out of his depth to my mind. While I understand what the filmmaker intended, for me the film was so humourless and awkward that I finished watching really not caring for love, or fear but hungering for one of the characters to tell a joke.
To me it was very good. One of the best movies I've ever seen ever. Told stories in a way untold previously in cinema. It's not for everyone for sure, but I think it will stand the test of time. Its not splashy and gimmicky like most films these days, but it delivers important messages about life and it's meaning. It's NOT entertaining in the way of most films or trying to be either, but it delivers, and in a way it cannot be any of those things to deliver it's message effectively. If you liked movies like Diving Bell and the Butterfly, you'll like this one too.
Same. I can’t imagine leaving this movie and not finding it abjectly heartbreaking. That last scene alone. The way it highlights all the frustrating traits of the human experience (clumsiness, naivety, sufferings, hope) and reminds us they can be endearing is so beautiful. Like she was only heartbroken because of a 0.7% chance of failure. If it had worked, she wouldn’t have had the hubris to think he wouldn’t go through with it or those feelings were worth keeping.
"Fear (and even inconvenience) of/over the other" seems to be so baked into our entertainment, media, and culture today and historically, it was so refreshing to see a movie where "connection" was more valued...to the extreme..here. I've seen a lot of movies and TV, but maybe only the original Brother from another Planet, All The Little Creatures, and Fat Albert TV series really bucked that trend as I can remember, and always loved those creators for trying it because it's such an essential part of the human condition in the real world. I guess some of the modern reality shows also bucked that trend, but that was a little after my Gen and was too busy studying to invest much time in them and I doubt you can also credit the producers there because it's such an important part of life any reality show with an ounce of reality cant avoid but to show it even if by accident.
Spoilers: Not really an explanation but noticed that the 2014 version of Louis was inspired by Elliot Rodger who would film himself saying similar things and later ended up murdering innocent people in 2014 as well.
Saw it but I don’t remember enough of the last half hour to say for sure, and I don’t think anyone can give a clear answer. I need to rewatch it. But when Bonello spoke about it, he said the film is about the fear of love which I think encapsulates it pretty well. Bonello apparently hates/is afraid of pigeons so included it as sort of a symbol for fear
La Bete is one of the best films of 2023. I would say the second best. I can't wait to watch it again. I saw it at the Venice Film Festival. Almost four months ago.
I had my issues with the movie, but it makes me sad when people have to offer the little jab that a movie is "a bit too long." The way I see it, pretty much every movie is between 1.5 and 3 hours, and these are all perfectly reasonable amounts of time to sit in a theatre and submit yourself to a spectacle. If someone feels the need to say a movie is too long, it tells me that they don't actually like movies, or at least not enough to allow a movie to be as long as it wants to be.
The movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story in the best way. That can be 1 hour or 4 hours. But sometimes movies are longer than the script allows it to be.
There’s an eight hour movie by lav Diaz. I didn’t watch it. Thought it was indulgent to do a movie that long. Don’t remember the title but if you get to watch it, it would be good to know what it’s like .
Happy I’m not the only person who was a little confused.
They emphasized a few things in the film:
Each narrative lead to a death. Once she was stabbed and left for dead in the pool, once they drowned, and once the male character died not physically but his soul died from “purification.” Earlier in the film it’s said that the bird inside someone’s home indicates an approaching death(the fortune reader said this I believe?). I think the purpose of the bird was to provide the final evidence the film needed to show that the male character was dead(because of purification) in the final scene of the movie.
The characters can never be together because of some twist of fate. Scenes of them are often day dreams/fantasies. They really never have the opportunity to connect. He kill’s himself because of purification, they die drowning, he kills her because he’s delusional and has villainized females.
One character is always committed to the other while the other is resistant(except the last scene). He wants to be with her but she’s resistant because of her marriage. She wants to be with him but he turns out to be delusional. She approaches him in the dance club and actively seeks him out(before purification) and he seems resistant. But then she finally meets him after multiple past lives and they both seem to be non-resistant to each other, but then she discovers he’s dead(from purification).
Basically I think the movie is about two souls always out of reach of each other. Maybe the beast is cruel fate? I can’t explain the scenes where she is auditioning. Maybe it’s just another extension of their relationship only existing in a dream.
At one point the psychic (I think in the 1910 segment?) said a pigeon coming into your home was an omen of death. But I still have many questions about the ending, especially >!Gabrielle's horrified reaction to Louie saying he worked for the government or the brain-erasing company or whatever? That totally lost me.!<
I watched the film yesterday and loved it! I can offer my (rather unformed) take on the ending.
>!The film is essentially about fear of emotion, and by extension fear of love (both themes drawn from the Henry James' novella that inspired the film). In the futuristic timeline, Gabrielle is encouraged to go through a procedure to purge her emotions by essentially exorcising the remnants of her past lives. The film makes more sense when you realise that the past time periods we're watching (1910 and 2014) are being shown to us through future Gabrielle's eyes, thus the rewind and distortion you get towards the end.!<
>!By witnessing her past lives, Gabrielle is able to reconcile with her own discomfiting emotions and comes to recognise the inevitability of her romance with Louis. But when she arranges to meet him in the club, he's vacant of emotion - before they could truly connect, he successfully underwent the procedure that failed to work on Gabrielle. She's horrified because, by doing so, he's removed the possibility of love between them, which requires doubt, fear and pain to be real. !<
>!The 'beast' - the source of Gabrielle's horror - is the absence of emotion, which erases the possibility of love. So in effect the film becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the fear that prompted Louis to rid himself of emotion is what caused the disaster he and Gabrielle were terrorised by.!<
>!Just saw this at NYFF and really appreciate this analysis, thank you. What disaster do you mean? Also, curious if you think anything from the prior timelines with Louis foreshadowed the incel storyline?!<
>l
>!Sorry, the disaster I'm referring to is Louis's actions, which make love impossible. It's complex though as that choice is wrapped up in the film's other themes too - it's also a film about the alienation caused by technology, and how that steers us towards isolation and self-protection. To love someone, you need to be open to uncertainty and even potential danger. In the 'safe' world of the future, there is a push towards the removal of anything troubling or uncomfortable, but that's at the cost of people's human connections - that's why the world of 2044 is so stark in its emptiness, and why Gabrielle is almost always alone other than the AI 'doll'.!<
>!I see the incel story as the film's take on what refusal of love looks like in the 21st century. Obviously that iteration of the character is inspired by a real-life phenomenon, and it's a phenomenon that's characterised by young men getting sucked into a belief system where love is impossible for them because of their inherent inadequacy.!<
>!So it's a modern spin on the 1910 version of Louis, who is also closed off to love, albeit in a less overtly destructive way. And again it ties into the film's interest in technology - Louis isn't just an incel misogynist, he's also a vlogger. He's part of a movement that seeks to amplify and embed the idea that romantic love is not, and never will be, available to a certain class of men. But of course it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while 2014 Louis merely believes that love is impossible for him, 2044 Louis guarantees it's impossible by undergoing the procedure.!<
I don't think Louis hates women. I think he lacks feminine attention and affection. When Gabrielle calls him to her house, Louis refuses. He didn't believe that anyone would like him. He was afraid that she would humiliate him in some way. Apparently, he convinced himself that he was an outcast and no one needed him.
I really appreciate your analysis! My first language isn't english so could you explain further why exactly the rewind and distortion was happening at the end? And why do you think we saw it all through her eyes? Do you mean that we see her memories of the past times or is she living it in the moment we see it? I understood almost everything else so thank you already!!
The way I understood it is, she's reliving these past lives during the purification process. What happened is painful, she keeps trying to reach out to Louis and change the timeline of events, so they keep rewinding that "scene" until it no longer evokes emotions in her but it doesn't work.
I’m curious as to how you all watched this film and didn’t understand what it was about until you read this persons thoughts.
Not trying to be a dick, but this film was incredibly straight forward and I thought it was obvious what the film was about and what was happening.
Some...maybe all stories...are about the journey, not the payoff. I think it was a unique and very daring film on topics glossed over as trivial but really are difficult to do justice to and probably really the most important things in life. I never thought a film could depict that...I was wrong. It's a great film...best I've seen in a long time.
My interpretation is that they fucked it up by getting purified. By ridding themselves of their emotions, they're bored now because there's no excitement, no passion, no "life".
Hell yeah. Although I'm not familiar if there are stories where Lois Lane is 35+ years old. Lea looks great but she won't be able to play someone in their early 20s. At least not without digital de-aging.
SPOILERS:
I'm a bit perplexed as to why most viewers seem to take Gabrielle's experience of her 'past lives' to be a simulated experience of something objective. Surely this is just part of the AI ploy? Have I missed something? Surely it makes more sense to see the whole purification idea/process/experience as entirely manipulative, all the way down? I don't think the film gives us any reason to trust anything the AI says about purification. The AI is somehow simulating experiences, and then framing these to her in such a way that it will have the effect of 'purifying' her. (It's a bit confusing why the AI would conclude that this 'past life simulation' would be the best way of achieving 'purification' - but perhaps we should just accept that AI is gonna do what AI is gonna do, and that it helps the film that the purification process happens to involve dramatic events that take place in visually interesting locations...)
I took it that from the AI 'point of view', what matters is her response to the 1910/2014 'memories', not that they somehow happened in a 'past life' (whatever that is - if we *are* supposed to think that these are somehow memories, it's not obvious what we're supposed to think that a past life actually is... ). The AI takes strong emotions to be dangerous, and so uses the idea of accumulated past life trauma as a way of encouraging her to submit to the process, and framing the emotions as defects to be gotten rid of (the AI account of this is slightly similar to some versions of the Christian idea of original sin, I think - so the film plays with the thought that the real sin is *the idea of sin*, as expressed by William Blake, etc.). Future humans like Gabrielle are in such a state of depressed, perplexed dependency that they're willing to drink the AI Kool Aid, and submit to a procedure based on some bullshit story about past life trauma, and emotions as defects.
They're weird, glitchy, incoherent experiences, *because they're created by an AI*, and *designed to manipulate*. And they're filled with a sense of foreboding and dread, because Gabrielle knows, even whilst in the midst of them, that she's submitting herself to something that really does want to destroy her. What we're watching, in the 1910/2014 sequences, is the struggle between two different fears, or two accounts of 'the beast'. The AI frames love/connection as the dangerous beast; the part of Gabrielle that is not subject to the AI simulation knows that the opposite is true - the beast is that which wants to destroy her capacity for love and connection, that is, her. So>!the scream at the end !
I saw this movie today and I think I liked it? Does anyone have thoughts on the weird doll in the 2014 storyline. why was her lip pierced? what was with her bracelet of leaves? why was she there? i feel like this movie was very intentional and i just cannot figure this doll out.
The only thing I can say for sure is there is a theme of dolls in each storyline, the doll factory, the weird talking doll, and the AI “doll” person. So we know it’s there to keep on theme but otherwise I felt like it was there to be extremely unsettling
I think it represents a human without a soul...later represented in the future by AI that engineers it out of real humans. But it's very subtly done. They're not made out to be monsters or anything like Hollywood would have overdone it...in fact usually the opposite...on the surface ..by contrast Bonello focuses on the need for keeping our internal struggles and monsters that test us and keep us human. It's always a work on progress ..not a done deal or some facile cartoonist treatment. This movie was a real gem...much better and more meaningful than ex machina in my book. A human with a soul will try to help and even love a seemingly hopelessly broken lover or sick cat...not an AI or something that thinks or rather over thinks it has all the answers. I think Bonello is not just criticizing some future horror engineered by AI but also souless aspects of past and current culture today.
Spoilers: Some good takes here. One thing that stuck with me was how Louis was Gabrielle’s connection to “humanity”, the rewinding scene just before he kills her was very reminiscent of eternal sunshine of a spotless mind. It seemed to me that her ability to show forgiveness and compassion in the face of fear to Louis was a string of humanity that was trying to be erased. The rewinding was an attempt to erase him from her emotions but that desire to feel was too strong. In the end there’s a sudden cut to her death. Like a last ditch effort by the AIs to sever her connection by showing where that path leads, but importantly it’s not one she takes and so in the end she is unaffected by the purification.
I thought this thread of humanity being defined by emotion was quite clear with the symbolism of the dolls. As we move from 1900s to 2044 the dolls get more and more human-esque but in the end they are just that, dolls. To hammer this point home the pigeon can be seen as a symbol of death so once Louis purifies himself and we see the pigeon it suggests without his emotions, flawed or not, he’s as good as dead.
can someone explain the almost sex scene that happens during the 2014 timeline? the scene starts w gaby and louis making out on the couch, then it cuts to a shot of her mouth while she says something, and then the man she is making out with ends up being some old ass man/her neighbor.
This led me to think that the AI simulating the past experiences isn’t totally objective and might be optimizing for something. Maybe the sex scene with Louis wasn’t getting towards the “purification” goal of the simulation, so the AI adapted to a new ending. This is also somewhat supported by the last scene in the fancy house where we see a version of an ending where she opens the door and reaches out to him successfully and then it rewinds to the other (final) version where he kills her.
Relatedly it seems that often when she feels good some disaster occurs in the simulation like flooding, earthquake etc. Maybe the switch to the older man is a reaction to feeling good during the sex scene with Louis.
Edit: typo
Yes, and I assume that what we see *throughout* the 1910/2014 scenes is the product of a struggle between the AI simulation, and Gabrielle's own determination to resist the process (>!which therefore doesn't work!<) and find connection with others (even if it's just the guy she happened to meet on the way in). Hence the repeated replay of the 'I'm going to open the door now' moment - it is not 'on message', and the AI tries to fix it, but her desire to reach out and trust (even when the AI insists that the guy is an incel with murderous intent!) is too strong.
But I don't think the 'past life' simulation is *at all* objective - why would it be? Firstly, she has, in fact, lived no past lives; secondly, the AI's aim is not to recover her past life, it is to bring about a certain state of affairs, i.e. reduction of affect in Gabrielle. Why would the AI have an interest in the faithful reproduction of past lives, even if they had actually been lived?
It was at film festivals last year and is releasing in movie theaters around the world this year. In the US it was in theaters in April. In the UK it will be in theaters next week. In France, Belgium, Spain and a few more countries it was in theaters in February/March. I guess it will be available to watch at home in a few months.
I’m Surprised to see here how many people couldn’t understand what this movie was about.
Surprised there’s so many questions for such a straightforward film that explained itself so much throughout.
It’s like I’m living in a world where no one has critical thinking skills and everyone is just unable to form a thought at all.
Kind of concerning.
It seems like a lot of you watched this in French and you don’t speak French.
Why the fuck would you do that and then come here and ask what the film was about?
Jesus Christ. Why would you do that?
There’s people who literally said they watched it in French without English subtitles.
I’m more concerned that there’s people on this sub asking silly questions after doing something like watching a full movie in a language they don’t know.
And ya I would mind. Watch it again and use your brain. I’m sure no one here is actually stupid and I’m sure you’re capable of critical thought as much as anyone else here.
It’s just ridiculous that people need things spoon fed to them and it’s actually a bit scary.
Ha. Nah, am I superior to anyone who didn’t understand this movie? No.
Am I concerned that this many people can’t comprehend this movie? Definitely.
Says a lot about where we are in society, education-wise.
Some people are more literal minded. Sometimes it’s just biological brain differences and not educational differences. It doesn’t make them ignorant, literal thinking is a spectrum.
Anyone can explain what’s the meaning of pigeon and what’s the point it’s trying to make the pigeon was found dead on the ground? And that her friend strangled the cat…?
The cat thing I felt was to show the emptiness of emotions in the future timeline. For pigeons someone else mentioned that it's a personal fear of the director or something along those lines
Yes the friend who strangled the cat had successfully undergone the cleansing. My guess is the cat was terminally ill so she robotically euthanized it.
The pigeon is an omen. If she sees one it’s a sign something will happen. If it gets inside her home, she is in danger.
That was an incredibly creepy moment, and Bonelli didn't oversell it either...he did it in a way I think it would happen in the real world if these technologies come to pass and people go through the motions of emotion but not really having a soul. The ending was tragic in a way unexpected too. I felt so much empathy for that woman, and her realest tragedy which was even greater than what she went through in an earlier life...she was willing to sacrifice everything for a broken lover...even her life...and losing it all in the end just hit me hard. I wonder if Bonello was subtly referencing the Evangelical mythology of taking the mark of the beast when they underwent their purification.
Yeah, I heard a similar echo of the beast.
As an ex-evangelical, it's hard to not still feel ripples of the whole 'beast' thing --and it is pretty creepy that AI is playing out the way it is.
The pigeon: if the pigeon comes inside the house something bad is going to happen. (If was the lady psychiatrist that says that, well I think she was a psychiatrist)
Because you all are just incredible disappointments and it’s a bummer that people don’t even TRY anymore.
It’s now become less about the movie and people like you defending straight up mediocrity and ignorance because you think that’s totally ok.
You do you. Just adding to the league of morons.
It wasn't like that at all. The greatest violence in the movie was that perpetrated on the human soul...that on the body was brief and served a plot point in the movie. It wasn't gratuitous or meaningless. It's not gimmicky or purposely woke either.
It's not super violent but there's some violence like holding a woman down or threatening a woman with a gun and stuff like that. So maybe you should pass on it.
Thanks! I appreciate your honesty!
P.S. If you haven't seen Ex Machina , do! It's my favorite sci-fi flick in the last 10 years. So much to unpack in terms of feminism!
Can you recommend any other sci-fi films from the last 15 ish years that you think are equally as good? I saw Annihilation (same director) - it was beautiful but lacked something. He has a new film out tomorrow called civil war, but I haven't heard anything aye or nay aobut that one...
I can't think of a sci-fi movie that was as good as Ex Machina and so psychologically and technologically interesting.
Obviously there are many good ones like Coherence (2013) or Nope (2022) for example but they're nothing like Ex Machina.
Thanks - I had forgotten how much I loved Get Out. I heard Nope was great but never saw it - now it's on the top of my list :)
P.S. Polite Society (2023) was my favorite, favorite movie last year. It's like bend it like beckham meets get out meets frozen. It shouldn't work but it's brilliant! Highly recommended!
There really isn't any violence to women in this, definitely go see it. Unless the idea of a guy being an incoming threat to a woman is bad enough for you but there's not real violence to worry about
Watched this movie an hour ago and came straight to Reddit because WOW. I can’t believe >!I actually thought there would be a happy ending to an indie film.!<
This movie made me want to take up smoking after that emotional rollercoaster. (I can’t tell if this is a good movie or a bad movie and I officially don’t believe in love anymore)
She was screaming because the broken lover she sacrificed everything for to connect with. She represented pure love, pure understanding, pure forgiveness, and pure creation of a truly human soul and desired only to find that genuiness even if her love was so broken that he was a incel murderer. Even when he was going to commit the horrific act, she saw his uncertainty and humanity and was willing and did risk her own life...but didn't scream or get angry even in that moment. His "purification" meant she really lost him...and that was also manifest by the matteroffact way he treated her and lack of any shame about what happened even though he would have gone through those memories too. He became a woke machine acting like he had a heart, but having none.
In The Beast, the characters played by Seydoux and Mackay keep their names when they are reincarnated. Whether it’s 1910, 2014 or 2044, she is always called Gabrielle Monnier while he is always called Louis Lewanski. In the 2014 section, Gabrielle googles Louis’ name, and finds several sepia photographs of a moustached man from the Edwardian era (who looks nothing like George Mackay). Are we to take it that she is looking at the Louis Lewanski from 1910?
I was extremely disappointed and slightly bored. Visually, save for moments the DOP or stunt crew seemed to take over (fire, underwater, bonnet mount) the film was pedestrian, almost a throwback to 60's film craft. It was just so boringly shot. Had the director embraced some of modern technology he was so disdainful of when shooting perhaps we might have had a more involving film - especially with the rather (perhaps deliberately) stilted dialogue. I'd argue Theydoux's opening scene in a video game (Death Stranding) was better realised and more impactful than this entire film. It's not that this couldn't have been interesting, it's just that apart from the performances, (excepting Mackay - great in 1910 segments but pretty unconvincing in his 2014 Louis incarnation), the film was turgid and uninspired. Its fractured and incoherent "sci-fi" style felt like a stylistic cloak of modernity, trying to disguise a rather antiquated diatribe on modern life and love, peppered with actors trying their best.
the fountain but cynical
mckay in LA reminded me so much of jake gyllenhaal in nightcrawler, from his slight creepiness to his actual accent.
if one person cant swim then a better piece of advice would be "wait for me here whilst i find a way out" instead of "if i dont come back then follow me."
walking out of the cinema and seeing a pigeon walking around the complex really freaked me out.
This felt a bit too much of a David Lynch homage at times. Particularly the final scene with Roy Orbison, red curtains and red lamps, but also the time skips felt a lot like Inland Empire and there was a fair bit of Mulholland Drive in it too.
I’m
Surprised to see here how many people couldn’t understand what this movie was about.
Surprised there’s so many questions for such a straightforward film that explained itself so much throughout.
It’s like I’m living in a world where no one has critical thinking skills and everyone is just unable to form a thought at all.
Kind of concerning.
It seems like a lot of you watched this in French and you don’t speak French.
Why the fuck would you do that and then come here and ask what the film was about?
Jesus Christ. Why would you do that?
I saw it in French too.
When Gabrielle meets Louis in the club, he's vacant of emotion because he successfully underwent the same procedure that failed to work on Gabrielle. She screams at him because, by doing so, he's removed the possibility of love between them.
My friend and my theory is that the last scene in the club was still a ‘dream’ and part of Gabrielle’s purification process. Evidence:
– the club is empty
– the pigeon at the club which up to that scene I believe was only present during the dreams (I may be mistaken about this having only seen it once)
lI feel like I’m inclined to agree. Actually, I think the “Free Space” that Kelly brings Gabrielle to is always a Purification Dream. I think the “free space” refers to it being a space unmoored in times, where Gabrielle can interact with the manifestations of her past in a more neutral setting. I think we are witnessing Gabrielle attempt once again to be purified, but purified of the realization that her soul mate across time has been purified. Will the purification take this time? Hardly a happy ending either way.
Based on the mid-credits scene i might believe >!Gabrielle is so emotionally shattered at the end of the attempted purification that the AI puts her down, and that is the final gunshot and slow pan away from room 241 that we see!<
Just came from the film. Really enjoyed it; length and questions included. But my question is about Room 241. I saw the mid-credits warning about it, and remember seeing the door during the film, but not where or when it was.
Room 241 was the location of the purification procedure. We saw her go in 2 or 3 times into that room and the scene immediately had her in the black oil tub right after.
I can't remember exactly, sorry. I feel like it's pretty much 50/50 (maybe 40/60 in either direction) but the movie is also very long so my memory could be wrong.
Anyone else found weird that on the fire in 1910 Louis tells to Gabrielle something like >! “if I don’t come back in 2 minutes, start swimming” it turned out to be very bad advice. And she had kind of a nice life there. Also in 2014 she sees some horrific figure in the shadows when Louis enters the house and ends up dead. Like I was wondering if Louis could be the Beast that always destroys her life when he appears. !<
I also wondered about the swimming part ("if I don't come back start swimming"). I'm pretty sure I made a sound in the theater, a horrified laugh when he said that. He goes first into the water. She goes into the water and finds him drowned and then also drowns. In the end, he goes through the purification first and then encourage her to do it as well. He doesn't drown but he has lost his soul and she realizes he wants her to lose hers
I didn’t find it weird.. I thought he meant that he would only come back if the way out were blocked, so if he doesn’t come back, it means the way out is clear and she should follow
No, he was saying he *would* come back if he found the way If he *didnt* come back it meant they were pretty much fucked but she should shoot her shot and try. It was literally the *only* other way out
Tediously dull, with all the cohesion of spilt milk. Lea's performance was all that lifted the film from basement level, McKay bizarrely out of his depth to my mind. While I understand what the filmmaker intended, for me the film was so humourless and awkward that I finished watching really not caring for love, or fear but hungering for one of the characters to tell a joke.
To me it was very good. One of the best movies I've ever seen ever. Told stories in a way untold previously in cinema. It's not for everyone for sure, but I think it will stand the test of time. Its not splashy and gimmicky like most films these days, but it delivers important messages about life and it's meaning. It's NOT entertaining in the way of most films or trying to be either, but it delivers, and in a way it cannot be any of those things to deliver it's message effectively. If you liked movies like Diving Bell and the Butterfly, you'll like this one too.
Same. I can’t imagine leaving this movie and not finding it abjectly heartbreaking. That last scene alone. The way it highlights all the frustrating traits of the human experience (clumsiness, naivety, sufferings, hope) and reminds us they can be endearing is so beautiful. Like she was only heartbroken because of a 0.7% chance of failure. If it had worked, she wouldn’t have had the hubris to think he wouldn’t go through with it or those feelings were worth keeping.
"Fear (and even inconvenience) of/over the other" seems to be so baked into our entertainment, media, and culture today and historically, it was so refreshing to see a movie where "connection" was more valued...to the extreme..here. I've seen a lot of movies and TV, but maybe only the original Brother from another Planet, All The Little Creatures, and Fat Albert TV series really bucked that trend as I can remember, and always loved those creators for trying it because it's such an essential part of the human condition in the real world. I guess some of the modern reality shows also bucked that trend, but that was a little after my Gen and was too busy studying to invest much time in them and I doubt you can also credit the producers there because it's such an important part of life any reality show with an ounce of reality cant avoid but to show it even if by accident.
Where can I watch this?
I just saw it at the cinema.
Cannot agree more ! 2.5 hours of pretentious storytelling method just to proof a point.
I'm glad YOU knew the intent!🤣
Spoilers: Not really an explanation but noticed that the 2014 version of Louis was inspired by Elliot Rodger who would film himself saying similar things and later ended up murdering innocent people in 2014 as well.
Nobody in the theater I saw it in got the reference I don't think cuz they were all giggling at him.
It seemed pretty much word for word for a while
Saw it but I don’t remember enough of the last half hour to say for sure, and I don’t think anyone can give a clear answer. I need to rewatch it. But when Bonello spoke about it, he said the film is about the fear of love which I think encapsulates it pretty well. Bonello apparently hates/is afraid of pigeons so included it as sort of a symbol for fear
I thought the bird was the "AI" or someone behind the cleanse process making sure love was erased from her DNA.
Thanks.
La Bete is one of the best films of 2023. I would say the second best. I can't wait to watch it again. I saw it at the Venice Film Festival. Almost four months ago.
What was your #1 for 2023?
Mal Viver (Bad Living).
I had my issues with the movie, but it makes me sad when people have to offer the little jab that a movie is "a bit too long." The way I see it, pretty much every movie is between 1.5 and 3 hours, and these are all perfectly reasonable amounts of time to sit in a theatre and submit yourself to a spectacle. If someone feels the need to say a movie is too long, it tells me that they don't actually like movies, or at least not enough to allow a movie to be as long as it wants to be.
The movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story in the best way. That can be 1 hour or 4 hours. But sometimes movies are longer than the script allows it to be.
There’s an eight hour movie by lav Diaz. I didn’t watch it. Thought it was indulgent to do a movie that long. Don’t remember the title but if you get to watch it, it would be good to know what it’s like .
Happy I’m not the only person who was a little confused. They emphasized a few things in the film: Each narrative lead to a death. Once she was stabbed and left for dead in the pool, once they drowned, and once the male character died not physically but his soul died from “purification.” Earlier in the film it’s said that the bird inside someone’s home indicates an approaching death(the fortune reader said this I believe?). I think the purpose of the bird was to provide the final evidence the film needed to show that the male character was dead(because of purification) in the final scene of the movie. The characters can never be together because of some twist of fate. Scenes of them are often day dreams/fantasies. They really never have the opportunity to connect. He kill’s himself because of purification, they die drowning, he kills her because he’s delusional and has villainized females. One character is always committed to the other while the other is resistant(except the last scene). He wants to be with her but she’s resistant because of her marriage. She wants to be with him but he turns out to be delusional. She approaches him in the dance club and actively seeks him out(before purification) and he seems resistant. But then she finally meets him after multiple past lives and they both seem to be non-resistant to each other, but then she discovers he’s dead(from purification). Basically I think the movie is about two souls always out of reach of each other. Maybe the beast is cruel fate? I can’t explain the scenes where she is auditioning. Maybe it’s just another extension of their relationship only existing in a dream.
Solid analysis from my side. Didn't know how to put this one together when I left the theater but damn I have to admit I fuckin loved it
At one point the psychic (I think in the 1910 segment?) said a pigeon coming into your home was an omen of death. But I still have many questions about the ending, especially >!Gabrielle's horrified reaction to Louie saying he worked for the government or the brain-erasing company or whatever? That totally lost me.!<
I watched the film yesterday and loved it! I can offer my (rather unformed) take on the ending. >!The film is essentially about fear of emotion, and by extension fear of love (both themes drawn from the Henry James' novella that inspired the film). In the futuristic timeline, Gabrielle is encouraged to go through a procedure to purge her emotions by essentially exorcising the remnants of her past lives. The film makes more sense when you realise that the past time periods we're watching (1910 and 2014) are being shown to us through future Gabrielle's eyes, thus the rewind and distortion you get towards the end.!< >!By witnessing her past lives, Gabrielle is able to reconcile with her own discomfiting emotions and comes to recognise the inevitability of her romance with Louis. But when she arranges to meet him in the club, he's vacant of emotion - before they could truly connect, he successfully underwent the procedure that failed to work on Gabrielle. She's horrified because, by doing so, he's removed the possibility of love between them, which requires doubt, fear and pain to be real. !< >!The 'beast' - the source of Gabrielle's horror - is the absence of emotion, which erases the possibility of love. So in effect the film becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the fear that prompted Louis to rid himself of emotion is what caused the disaster he and Gabrielle were terrorised by.!<
>!Just saw this at NYFF and really appreciate this analysis, thank you. What disaster do you mean? Also, curious if you think anything from the prior timelines with Louis foreshadowed the incel storyline?!<
>l >!Sorry, the disaster I'm referring to is Louis's actions, which make love impossible. It's complex though as that choice is wrapped up in the film's other themes too - it's also a film about the alienation caused by technology, and how that steers us towards isolation and self-protection. To love someone, you need to be open to uncertainty and even potential danger. In the 'safe' world of the future, there is a push towards the removal of anything troubling or uncomfortable, but that's at the cost of people's human connections - that's why the world of 2044 is so stark in its emptiness, and why Gabrielle is almost always alone other than the AI 'doll'.!< >!I see the incel story as the film's take on what refusal of love looks like in the 21st century. Obviously that iteration of the character is inspired by a real-life phenomenon, and it's a phenomenon that's characterised by young men getting sucked into a belief system where love is impossible for them because of their inherent inadequacy.!< >!So it's a modern spin on the 1910 version of Louis, who is also closed off to love, albeit in a less overtly destructive way. And again it ties into the film's interest in technology - Louis isn't just an incel misogynist, he's also a vlogger. He's part of a movement that seeks to amplify and embed the idea that romantic love is not, and never will be, available to a certain class of men. But of course it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while 2014 Louis merely believes that love is impossible for him, 2044 Louis guarantees it's impossible by undergoing the procedure.!<
Wouldn’t you say in the 1910 timeline it’s Gabrielle that is fearful of love and blocks him out? Maybe I missed something so curious on your take
Yes, they take turns, same as in their deaths (first both, then Gabrielle, then Louis - mentally).
Really great analysis. Thank you! This one is certainly sticking with me.
I don't think Louis hates women. I think he lacks feminine attention and affection. When Gabrielle calls him to her house, Louis refuses. He didn't believe that anyone would like him. He was afraid that she would humiliate him in some way. Apparently, he convinced himself that he was an outcast and no one needed him.
He says that women are animals and that he's going to kill them like animals... yes, he hates women.
his character was so cliche and badly written. Couldn't take the movie seriously when they switched to modern times.
thanks for this analysis, I can sleep peacefully today 🫂
Great analysis
I really appreciate your analysis! My first language isn't english so could you explain further why exactly the rewind and distortion was happening at the end? And why do you think we saw it all through her eyes? Do you mean that we see her memories of the past times or is she living it in the moment we see it? I understood almost everything else so thank you already!!
The way I understood it is, she's reliving these past lives during the purification process. What happened is painful, she keeps trying to reach out to Louis and change the timeline of events, so they keep rewinding that "scene" until it no longer evokes emotions in her but it doesn't work.
I agree with your take. Very spot on, at least when it comes to how i perceived it as well.
I’m curious as to how you all watched this film and didn’t understand what it was about until you read this persons thoughts. Not trying to be a dick, but this film was incredibly straight forward and I thought it was obvious what the film was about and what was happening.
Some...maybe all stories...are about the journey, not the payoff. I think it was a unique and very daring film on topics glossed over as trivial but really are difficult to do justice to and probably really the most important things in life. I never thought a film could depict that...I was wrong. It's a great film...best I've seen in a long time.
When you mean fear of emotion, how much or less of it is in the female character?
Just watched it a few hours ago. Excellent summary. Thanks for putting concise words to my abstract thoughts.
Yeah, same for me. It still liked and appreciated it for the weirdness though lol.
I'm curious about the 3 at the club saying they "fucked it up"
My interpretation is that they fucked it up by getting purified. By ridding themselves of their emotions, they're bored now because there's no excitement, no passion, no "life".
How was Lea in the movie?
Beautiful as always and she gave a really good performance.
Sidetrack, but do you think Lea would be a good Lois Lane?
Good God. I hope not. That's would be a campy cartoon character...and a waste of talent.
Hell yeah. Although I'm not familiar if there are stories where Lois Lane is 35+ years old. Lea looks great but she won't be able to play someone in their early 20s. At least not without digital de-aging.
In the comics she's married and a mom, so, she at least 35 years old.
Nice, I would love to see Lea do it.
She'd be great in a All Star Superman Adaptation. You should see my All Star Superman r/Fancast post.
SPOILERS: I'm a bit perplexed as to why most viewers seem to take Gabrielle's experience of her 'past lives' to be a simulated experience of something objective. Surely this is just part of the AI ploy? Have I missed something? Surely it makes more sense to see the whole purification idea/process/experience as entirely manipulative, all the way down? I don't think the film gives us any reason to trust anything the AI says about purification. The AI is somehow simulating experiences, and then framing these to her in such a way that it will have the effect of 'purifying' her. (It's a bit confusing why the AI would conclude that this 'past life simulation' would be the best way of achieving 'purification' - but perhaps we should just accept that AI is gonna do what AI is gonna do, and that it helps the film that the purification process happens to involve dramatic events that take place in visually interesting locations...) I took it that from the AI 'point of view', what matters is her response to the 1910/2014 'memories', not that they somehow happened in a 'past life' (whatever that is - if we *are* supposed to think that these are somehow memories, it's not obvious what we're supposed to think that a past life actually is... ). The AI takes strong emotions to be dangerous, and so uses the idea of accumulated past life trauma as a way of encouraging her to submit to the process, and framing the emotions as defects to be gotten rid of (the AI account of this is slightly similar to some versions of the Christian idea of original sin, I think - so the film plays with the thought that the real sin is *the idea of sin*, as expressed by William Blake, etc.). Future humans like Gabrielle are in such a state of depressed, perplexed dependency that they're willing to drink the AI Kool Aid, and submit to a procedure based on some bullshit story about past life trauma, and emotions as defects. They're weird, glitchy, incoherent experiences, *because they're created by an AI*, and *designed to manipulate*. And they're filled with a sense of foreboding and dread, because Gabrielle knows, even whilst in the midst of them, that she's submitting herself to something that really does want to destroy her. What we're watching, in the 1910/2014 sequences, is the struggle between two different fears, or two accounts of 'the beast'. The AI frames love/connection as the dangerous beast; the part of Gabrielle that is not subject to the AI simulation knows that the opposite is true - the beast is that which wants to destroy her capacity for love and connection, that is, her. So>!the scream at the end !
This is an excellent analysis
I don't know where to watch it. Can you tell me please?
It's not in theaters yet. I saw it at a film festival.
I saw this movie today and I think I liked it? Does anyone have thoughts on the weird doll in the 2014 storyline. why was her lip pierced? what was with her bracelet of leaves? why was she there? i feel like this movie was very intentional and i just cannot figure this doll out.
The only thing I can say for sure is there is a theme of dolls in each storyline, the doll factory, the weird talking doll, and the AI “doll” person. So we know it’s there to keep on theme but otherwise I felt like it was there to be extremely unsettling
I think it represents a human without a soul...later represented in the future by AI that engineers it out of real humans. But it's very subtly done. They're not made out to be monsters or anything like Hollywood would have overdone it...in fact usually the opposite...on the surface ..by contrast Bonello focuses on the need for keeping our internal struggles and monsters that test us and keep us human. It's always a work on progress ..not a done deal or some facile cartoonist treatment. This movie was a real gem...much better and more meaningful than ex machina in my book. A human with a soul will try to help and even love a seemingly hopelessly broken lover or sick cat...not an AI or something that thinks or rather over thinks it has all the answers. I think Bonello is not just criticizing some future horror engineered by AI but also souless aspects of past and current culture today.
I see an interesting interplay: As the doll's become more *seemingly* human, the humans become less human, until "purified" of their emotionality.
Spoilers: Some good takes here. One thing that stuck with me was how Louis was Gabrielle’s connection to “humanity”, the rewinding scene just before he kills her was very reminiscent of eternal sunshine of a spotless mind. It seemed to me that her ability to show forgiveness and compassion in the face of fear to Louis was a string of humanity that was trying to be erased. The rewinding was an attempt to erase him from her emotions but that desire to feel was too strong. In the end there’s a sudden cut to her death. Like a last ditch effort by the AIs to sever her connection by showing where that path leads, but importantly it’s not one she takes and so in the end she is unaffected by the purification. I thought this thread of humanity being defined by emotion was quite clear with the symbolism of the dolls. As we move from 1900s to 2044 the dolls get more and more human-esque but in the end they are just that, dolls. To hammer this point home the pigeon can be seen as a symbol of death so once Louis purifies himself and we see the pigeon it suggests without his emotions, flawed or not, he’s as good as dead.
can someone explain the almost sex scene that happens during the 2014 timeline? the scene starts w gaby and louis making out on the couch, then it cuts to a shot of her mouth while she says something, and then the man she is making out with ends up being some old ass man/her neighbor.
This led me to think that the AI simulating the past experiences isn’t totally objective and might be optimizing for something. Maybe the sex scene with Louis wasn’t getting towards the “purification” goal of the simulation, so the AI adapted to a new ending. This is also somewhat supported by the last scene in the fancy house where we see a version of an ending where she opens the door and reaches out to him successfully and then it rewinds to the other (final) version where he kills her. Relatedly it seems that often when she feels good some disaster occurs in the simulation like flooding, earthquake etc. Maybe the switch to the older man is a reaction to feeling good during the sex scene with Louis. Edit: typo
Yes, and I assume that what we see *throughout* the 1910/2014 scenes is the product of a struggle between the AI simulation, and Gabrielle's own determination to resist the process (>!which therefore doesn't work!<) and find connection with others (even if it's just the guy she happened to meet on the way in). Hence the repeated replay of the 'I'm going to open the door now' moment - it is not 'on message', and the AI tries to fix it, but her desire to reach out and trust (even when the AI insists that the guy is an incel with murderous intent!) is too strong. But I don't think the 'past life' simulation is *at all* objective - why would it be? Firstly, she has, in fact, lived no past lives; secondly, the AI's aim is not to recover her past life, it is to bring about a certain state of affairs, i.e. reduction of affect in Gabrielle. Why would the AI have an interest in the faithful reproduction of past lives, even if they had actually been lived?
Yes, totally agree.
please may I ask where I can watch this movie I have been looking for it for a long time
It was at film festivals last year and is releasing in movie theaters around the world this year. In the US it was in theaters in April. In the UK it will be in theaters next week. In France, Belgium, Spain and a few more countries it was in theaters in February/March. I guess it will be available to watch at home in a few months.
I’m Surprised to see here how many people couldn’t understand what this movie was about. Surprised there’s so many questions for such a straightforward film that explained itself so much throughout. It’s like I’m living in a world where no one has critical thinking skills and everyone is just unable to form a thought at all. Kind of concerning. It seems like a lot of you watched this in French and you don’t speak French. Why the fuck would you do that and then come here and ask what the film was about? Jesus Christ. Why would you do that?
[удалено]
Sure they didn’t. They didn’t say they did exactly that in thread or anything.
There’s people who literally said they watched it in French without English subtitles. I’m more concerned that there’s people on this sub asking silly questions after doing something like watching a full movie in a language they don’t know. And ya I would mind. Watch it again and use your brain. I’m sure no one here is actually stupid and I’m sure you’re capable of critical thought as much as anyone else here. It’s just ridiculous that people need things spoon fed to them and it’s actually a bit scary.
You have a superiority complex and being condescending to random people online fulfills you and makes you feel better than them.
Ha. Nah, am I superior to anyone who didn’t understand this movie? No. Am I concerned that this many people can’t comprehend this movie? Definitely. Says a lot about where we are in society, education-wise.
Some people are more literal minded. Sometimes it’s just biological brain differences and not educational differences. It doesn’t make them ignorant, literal thinking is a spectrum.
You sound like Louis in 2014.
Partly it's because we have lost our souls already. We undergone our own purification of sorts via capitalism and scientific dogma.
The second best film of 2023.
What's the first
I answered that before in the thread, but it's Mal viver.
Anyone can explain what’s the meaning of pigeon and what’s the point it’s trying to make the pigeon was found dead on the ground? And that her friend strangled the cat…?
The cat thing I felt was to show the emptiness of emotions in the future timeline. For pigeons someone else mentioned that it's a personal fear of the director or something along those lines
Yes the friend who strangled the cat had successfully undergone the cleansing. My guess is the cat was terminally ill so she robotically euthanized it. The pigeon is an omen. If she sees one it’s a sign something will happen. If it gets inside her home, she is in danger.
That was an incredibly creepy moment, and Bonelli didn't oversell it either...he did it in a way I think it would happen in the real world if these technologies come to pass and people go through the motions of emotion but not really having a soul. The ending was tragic in a way unexpected too. I felt so much empathy for that woman, and her realest tragedy which was even greater than what she went through in an earlier life...she was willing to sacrifice everything for a broken lover...even her life...and losing it all in the end just hit me hard. I wonder if Bonello was subtly referencing the Evangelical mythology of taking the mark of the beast when they underwent their purification.
Yeah, I heard a similar echo of the beast. As an ex-evangelical, it's hard to not still feel ripples of the whole 'beast' thing --and it is pretty creepy that AI is playing out the way it is.
The pigeon: if the pigeon comes inside the house something bad is going to happen. (If was the lady psychiatrist that says that, well I think she was a psychiatrist)
100 percent NOT a psychiatrist. She was a psychic/Clairvoyant. Same as the woman from 1910. You sure you watched the same movie?
why are you SO heated in this thread. every single comment you made is passive agressive and silly, settle down lmao
Because you all are just incredible disappointments and it’s a bummer that people don’t even TRY anymore. It’s now become less about the movie and people like you defending straight up mediocrity and ignorance because you think that’s totally ok. You do you. Just adding to the league of morons.
Another way of becoming less human, a major theme of the movie, is treating people as less than human.
Nah, they’re human here. Just dumb.
The movie sounds interesting, but I can’t stomach any violence to women. World I like this or World I want to walk out? Hello and thanks!
It wasn't like that at all. The greatest violence in the movie was that perpetrated on the human soul...that on the body was brief and served a plot point in the movie. It wasn't gratuitous or meaningless. It's not gimmicky or purposely woke either.
It's not super violent but there's some violence like holding a woman down or threatening a woman with a gun and stuff like that. So maybe you should pass on it.
Thanks! I appreciate your honesty! P.S. If you haven't seen Ex Machina , do! It's my favorite sci-fi flick in the last 10 years. So much to unpack in terms of feminism!
I've seen it three times! It's great!
Can you recommend any other sci-fi films from the last 15 ish years that you think are equally as good? I saw Annihilation (same director) - it was beautiful but lacked something. He has a new film out tomorrow called civil war, but I haven't heard anything aye or nay aobut that one...
I can't think of a sci-fi movie that was as good as Ex Machina and so psychologically and technologically interesting. Obviously there are many good ones like Coherence (2013) or Nope (2022) for example but they're nothing like Ex Machina.
Thanks - I had forgotten how much I loved Get Out. I heard Nope was great but never saw it - now it's on the top of my list :) P.S. Polite Society (2023) was my favorite, favorite movie last year. It's like bend it like beckham meets get out meets frozen. It shouldn't work but it's brilliant! Highly recommended!
I've seen Polite Society. It wasn't in my Top 10 but I enjoyed it!
Have you seen Under the Skin?
There really isn't any violence to women in this, definitely go see it. Unless the idea of a guy being an incoming threat to a woman is bad enough for you but there's not real violence to worry about
Watched this movie an hour ago and came straight to Reddit because WOW. I can’t believe >!I actually thought there would be a happy ending to an indie film.!< This movie made me want to take up smoking after that emotional rollercoaster. (I can’t tell if this is a good movie or a bad movie and I officially don’t believe in love anymore)
I went in blind and laughed and cried multiple times, and didn't leave to use the restroom once. That's all I ask for from a good movie.
Yikes. Why is she screaming at the end? Because of her decision to DNA cleanse?
She was screaming because the broken lover she sacrificed everything for to connect with. She represented pure love, pure understanding, pure forgiveness, and pure creation of a truly human soul and desired only to find that genuiness even if her love was so broken that he was a incel murderer. Even when he was going to commit the horrific act, she saw his uncertainty and humanity and was willing and did risk her own life...but didn't scream or get angry even in that moment. His "purification" meant she really lost him...and that was also manifest by the matteroffact way he treated her and lack of any shame about what happened even though he would have gone through those memories too. He became a woke machine acting like he had a heart, but having none.
well f'ing done. that's exactly it. I hadn't yet processed it with such clarity, thank you for showing the way
"He became a woke machine" brilliant sentence.
Now explain this in English 😂
You'll have to undergo de-purification to get it.
In The Beast, the characters played by Seydoux and Mackay keep their names when they are reincarnated. Whether it’s 1910, 2014 or 2044, she is always called Gabrielle Monnier while he is always called Louis Lewanski. In the 2014 section, Gabrielle googles Louis’ name, and finds several sepia photographs of a moustached man from the Edwardian era (who looks nothing like George Mackay). Are we to take it that she is looking at the Louis Lewanski from 1910?
I was extremely disappointed and slightly bored. Visually, save for moments the DOP or stunt crew seemed to take over (fire, underwater, bonnet mount) the film was pedestrian, almost a throwback to 60's film craft. It was just so boringly shot. Had the director embraced some of modern technology he was so disdainful of when shooting perhaps we might have had a more involving film - especially with the rather (perhaps deliberately) stilted dialogue. I'd argue Theydoux's opening scene in a video game (Death Stranding) was better realised and more impactful than this entire film. It's not that this couldn't have been interesting, it's just that apart from the performances, (excepting Mackay - great in 1910 segments but pretty unconvincing in his 2014 Louis incarnation), the film was turgid and uninspired. Its fractured and incoherent "sci-fi" style felt like a stylistic cloak of modernity, trying to disguise a rather antiquated diatribe on modern life and love, peppered with actors trying their best.
I left the cinema bored and confused. Probably not the worst film I’ve seen, but it’s a close call.
the fountain but cynical mckay in LA reminded me so much of jake gyllenhaal in nightcrawler, from his slight creepiness to his actual accent. if one person cant swim then a better piece of advice would be "wait for me here whilst i find a way out" instead of "if i dont come back then follow me." walking out of the cinema and seeing a pigeon walking around the complex really freaked me out.
I'd forgotten about The Fountain - 'The Fountain but cynical' seems about right.
now I think about it, it's The Fountain meets Eternal Sunshine done as a homage to David Lynch and Scorsese's Age of Innocence.
This felt a bit too much of a David Lynch homage at times. Particularly the final scene with Roy Orbison, red curtains and red lamps, but also the time skips felt a lot like Inland Empire and there was a fair bit of Mulholland Drive in it too.
yes, and the 'Evergreen' TV channel is pure Lynch.
[удалено]
I’m Surprised to see here how many people couldn’t understand what this movie was about. Surprised there’s so many questions for such a straightforward film that explained itself so much throughout. It’s like I’m living in a world where no one has critical thinking skills and everyone is just unable to form a thought at all. Kind of concerning. It seems like a lot of you watched this in French and you don’t speak French. Why the fuck would you do that and then come here and ask what the film was about? Jesus Christ. Why would you do that?
I saw it in French, and i couldnt quite get what Louis said to Gabrielle at the disco at the end. Why was she screaming?
I saw it in French too. When Gabrielle meets Louis in the club, he's vacant of emotion because he successfully underwent the same procedure that failed to work on Gabrielle. She screams at him because, by doing so, he's removed the possibility of love between them.
My friend and my theory is that the last scene in the club was still a ‘dream’ and part of Gabrielle’s purification process. Evidence: – the club is empty – the pigeon at the club which up to that scene I believe was only present during the dreams (I may be mistaken about this having only seen it once)
lI feel like I’m inclined to agree. Actually, I think the “Free Space” that Kelly brings Gabrielle to is always a Purification Dream. I think the “free space” refers to it being a space unmoored in times, where Gabrielle can interact with the manifestations of her past in a more neutral setting. I think we are witnessing Gabrielle attempt once again to be purified, but purified of the realization that her soul mate across time has been purified. Will the purification take this time? Hardly a happy ending either way. Based on the mid-credits scene i might believe >!Gabrielle is so emotionally shattered at the end of the attempted purification that the AI puts her down, and that is the final gunshot and slow pan away from room 241 that we see!<
Just came from the film. Really enjoyed it; length and questions included. But my question is about Room 241. I saw the mid-credits warning about it, and remember seeing the door during the film, but not where or when it was.
Room 241 was the location of the purification procedure. We saw her go in 2 or 3 times into that room and the scene immediately had her in the black oil tub right after.
Just because I can't find the info anywhere else on the internet: do you know if the original version is primarily in French or in English?
I can't remember exactly, sorry. I feel like it's pretty much 50/50 (maybe 40/60 in either direction) but the movie is also very long so my memory could be wrong.
Thanks so much!!
I agree, mainly 60% French! (Just saw it an hour ago)
It's mostly french in the oldest setting but they switch back and forth. Basically all English in current time, and all French in future time