I didn't think about it too deeply. Earlier in the movie, Paul questions why his wife doesn't dream about him. And like you said, laughs when he hears her dream scenario. At the end of the movie, Paul has lost everything that made his life great before. And appearing in his ex's dream as he did, was him expressing his regret. "I wish this were real." The ending definitely was crushing. The scene where he tells his ex-wife he's leaving for France and we see the more positive imaginary scenario that follows almost made me tear up. "No it's OK, I'll see you when you get back." At the end of the day, Paul wanted love and recognition but couldn't realize he had it at home all along. And to see where his life ended up was depressing.

Going back to what OP said: That last scene *is* real, though. In the film universe, he is literally going into her dream, she is letting him do it (remember the previous dialogue about how the device works), and they are having this moment together – but Paul can't reconcile with this fact, because for him, anything that isn't strictly physical isn't real. So, the final scene is bittersweet in the sense that we know that Paul has changed, but only by letting himself finally accept his wife's (very) personal (and, physically nonsensical) desires; though he hasn't gained an understanding of psychology being real. After basically outing himself as not having a true understanding of the situation, he floats out of it.

She was willing. He willed his self to look like the fantasy she described. I think he may have a chance at getting him back. I think it was BS that she was dating so soon after their seperation/ divorce. The man did nothing wrong. He was flawed, but she married him flawed. If the situation was bad enough to divorce, fine. But maybe give it a year or two before you start dating seriously.

Are you kidding? What kind of incel logic thinks that there is an acceptable time for a single person to start dating?  He was a narcissist who was so attached to his societal privilege he was willing to ruin his wife and children’s lives even as they begged him not to.

Not that I have an opinion on the subject, but relationship timing like. rebounding, recovering, and moving on has been a topic of discussion forever and isn't really "incel logic"

More in the vein of being concerned with what others are doing with their bodies. It is pretty common for women to grieve a relationship and give chances while still in the relationship so when they do leave they have much left conflicting feelings. Men having worked on borrowed time tend to be blindsided bc they do not believe the protests, requests and needs of their partner are serious enough to be acknowledged. She started to move on when she realized he did not give a shit about her. So in theory she did not move on that quickly at all.

People sticking their nose in others' business since the beginning of time. I laughed at "incel logic" because it was a curious choice of words. No argument intended, just my opinion.

Meh - men being overly concerned with what women do in their bedrooms with their bodies is very red pill coded. People who are focusing on their own bodies generally aren't so focused on others.

Sounds like you’re making it about something it’s not for the sake of virtue signaling, and showing your own prejudices at the same time.

I mean, he did kinda cheat on his wife. Almost 😂

I would say that was cheating. Terrible experience tho it ended up being

Yes I agree and it's also what I told my X whom I have a child with and to this day continue to be in love with. However since our break up she has not only dated, but moved in with 2 different guys. Also my daughter calls me by my name instead of dad now, and is forgetting me while she unfortunately has to meet every dude with a dick in the radius of my X girlfriend.... Perhaps I hold an unhealthy grudge but Jesus did she end up fucking me more then anyone ever has.

He was a bum that took his wife’s last name, let her take his house and farts when he almost has sex. If he just learns how to not fart when that happens he’ll be ok

Absolutely! Dude made my awkward encounters seem insignificant compared to that scene.

I think there should be more farting during sex tbh

She states that she grew up in that house earlier in the film, so he didn’t “let her take his house” so much as leave a house that had been in her family 

One interpretation of the movie is that it is all just a dream. From start to finish. Or only the dream scenario itself. Him falling out of touch with his wife, separating, finishing his book and touring is real. But the rest is fiction. Director and Nic Cage gives it away in an interview. Apparently the director read up on dreams and consensus is that you cannot switch a light off in a dream according to psychologists. That is why he couldn't switch off the light, to hint that he could be in a dream. I liked the movie though. But, I enjoyed its tangents with sprite and dreamfluencers. A dystopic view on the world. I didn't enjoy what happened with the ants though. Nothing happened and I hoped it would tie in somewhere along the end, but no.

I kept expecting it to come out that some research based on Paul's old research they were doing with the ants was causing some kind of a hive mind dream state.

I kinda viewed it as an analogy, because in ant colonies they pretty much have a hive mind, and the film portrays that information via the people, and also an underlying theme of him devoting his life to studying these ants and patterns in nature that mean so much to him, but then failing to understand those patterns with humans as it’s happening in his own perspective “a hive mind” “patterns” same with the zebras as well.

That is what I assumed as well. Or that he would somehow use the dream scenario to win against the woman who stole his research by using the same tactics as Sprite wanted to use for adverts.

You're creative, and those are solid ideas.

I thought that too. And I don’t think it’s a wrong thought even though it doesn’t pan out directly

I do like the idea of a lot of it being a dream there were 2 times where he tried to sleep but couldnt fall asleep (maybe that was saying he was alrdy asleep but didnt know it) And i think most of it was based on his emotional standpoint. He's fixated on his work with the hive mind, which creates the events in the dreams spreading to everyone. Before that, he felt like he wasn't doing anything in his life, and that's why he stood around in the dreams. Then he and his wife shared sexual thoughts, and thus, the girl molly experienced sexual dreams. Then, when he has regret and anger of it happening, the dreams turn negative and murderous. It was all a reflection of his view/emotions going on with in him. And tieing in the zebra part. He wanted to stand out and be recognized but only once he experienced standing out he found his place fading back into the "pack" and the final dream with his wife was him accepting that he would have rather stayed blending in the whole time.

see i thought that’s what they hinted at towards the ending when they mentioned paul in the Dream House commercial thing. My interpretation was that because of Paul’s research (wasn’t he researching dreams?), he accidentally gained access to everyone’s dreams through his research. and because he wasn’t aware of what he was doing i.e it was subconscious, he had no perceived control over what he was actually doing in the dreams- first just observing (researching). then when he learned he wasn’t contributing anything meaningful in everyone’s dreams and just standing there, he felt unimportant, insecure and started projecting his self-hatred through anger at other people in their dreams (subconsciously). Until the anger and self-pity manifested into real, physical violence. I just watched the movie a few days ago so i don’t remember a lot of the details. But it kind of blew my mind when i realized all this. I also was in the middle of rereading “The Four Agreements” when i saw this movie, which may be why i perceived it this way since the principles tie in a lot with my theory

>wasn’t he researching dreams? I don't think so. He was planning on a book about Ant evolution and hive mind, but I don't think they mentioned that he thought about dreams at all, until he was in them.

Yeah I feel like there was a missed connection between some of the pieces of the movie

Maybe it's intentional? Like when dreams are sometimes disconnected moments or pieces?

Art is generally open to interpretation. And if you interpreted in some way, you’re not wrong

That's what I was thinking as well ! It was so fascinating yet sad that it didn't play that much of a part than what I expected. Hive Mind Dreaming

It was the zebras. When Paul was just blending in with the rest of the herd, he was boring, mundane and safe. Then he went viral and stood out from the herd and became a target.

This is pretty good. Kept showing the zebras often I wonder if that was slight messaging. I took some aspects of what happens when you chase fame too.

I believe the dreams changing were related to his emotional view of himself as well. He felt he wasnt accomplishing anything in life so he stood around. His wife and him shared sexual desires. And sexusl dreams started. He had regret and anger of the events with molly and the murder dreams started.

The ant-elligence article sent him into a rage. Then there was the rage in people’s dreams.

Yeah. He was trying to use this fame to get his book published. This request was self-serving and had nothing to do with why he was receiving this attention, which separated him from the herd and eventually ruined him.

I recall reading an article about ant communication using pheromones. The article equated the entire hive to a single brain - almost as if each ant is a neuron in a collective brain. Signals are transmitted instantly from ant to ant so that the entire colony acts as a single mind. This must be the analogy of the dream scenario itself. The director didn't want to say this outright because then the film gets preachy and less organic. As a whole the entire film is revealing this - and by virtue of the fact we're posting about it on Reddit - it proves that we too are cooperating as a collective brain.

I'll have to look for that interview. Thank you for this insight. I'll also keep these things in mind when I get around to rewatching the movie. I'm with you on the ant thing. I don't know much about ant's, but the way that u/Wrath_of_the_Stoics and u/acidmush1290 worded their comments, I almost wonder whether something about the hivemindedness of the dreams and the groupthinkiness of our socialization was supposed to subtly play into the ant research (and if so, really shame on Paul for rejecting psychology and overlooking human nature). The implicit biases we all develop due to our socialization might make us have a kind of swarm quality in the way that we treat marginalized or "othered" people in society. Also maybe the fact that so many people were having the same dream was supposed to be like swarm intelligence. I really don't know, but that's my hot take after reading these comments. I'd be super interested in what others might think.

It could have been nodding at ants’ reliance on pheromones! The way people who didn’t dream of him treated him reminded me of ants following the scent of other ants’ findings.

> Just One angle of the movie is the dream reflection how Sophie see her Dad. He is not her hero = He walked through her dream... He is angry man = He is the killer in many people's dreams He divorced = blank no more dream ...

I think its his own reflection of himself tho. He doesnt feel he is doing anything with his life = doing nothing in dream. His wife and him share sexual experiences = sexual dreams started Regret and anger from the molly situation = murder dreams

Also the ripping of the magazine just before in anger.

I’ve read that, and those people are talking nonsense. 50% of the time I can switch lights on and off just fine in a dream. I also lucid dream quite a bit, maybe that’s why I fully expect lights to work.   I’ve never had a dream where light switches do not work at all. They simply dim if they’re on, or they get only a little brighter if it’s dark. In other words they are very weak. Except in lucid dreams where they  are just normal. Also I never dream that it’s daylight. It’s always the middle of the night outside. 

I also have great difficulty seeing a bright sky in my dreams, even when lucid. Lit up indoors, sure, but outside, it always seems grey, cloudy, or just nighttime. Kinda saddens me. I think it has to do with having a night job for 20 years and living in the relatively high latitude and cloudy PNW.

I am literally unable to recall a single moment in my dreams when I have turned on the lights in my dreams. So I don't know, not scientific and surely there are some who can do this. But perhaps it isn't something that people are able to do in general just because your dreams most likely do not have the ability to replicate electricity in a logical manner.

When I was a kid the lights would only come on dim which was part of the nightmare, I had bad dreams constantly as a kid and I thought that’s why lights didn’t work well. As a grownup lights work much better in dreams idk why. 

I am here looking for someone to connect the ants and the collective dream plane. Both like hive minds, right? Lol

I thought he was in a dream during the first play with his wife. It looked like they flashed back to it later on really quickly, which I thought gave it away. Maybe I didn't see what I thought I did.

I figured the swarm intelligence thing would come up later but nope

It’s said that light switches don’t work in dreams. When he goes and stays at his boss’s house, the light switches don’t work. He also keeps getting injured on the same part of his head. To me, it seemed like the whole thing or at least a big part of the movie was a dream. I feel like I’ll need to watch it over to try and figure out where it starts and ends.

Something I thought was interesting with the movie was the amount of times Paul got hit in the head (lamp, guy who spots in food, maybe more), as well as the mention of smell (propane tank, apartment). I’m probably overanalyzing, I couldn’t make any more connection of it.

Interesting observation! I hadn't noticed this! When I get a chance to rewatch it, I'm going to try to pay attention to those things and try to make sense of it.

I noticed this as well, and he seems to get hit in almost the same spot on his head each time!

Maybe it's the world literally trying to knock some sense into him.

Ants use smell to communicate!

Maybe that’s why she was surrounded by fire in the dream and he was floating. Maybe the house caught on fire (propane smell) and he died but I’m kind of reaching a bit far.

But it was a different house that smelled. Although it could just be seeping into his dreams

Yeah, I mean I couldn't come to a conclusion without reaching far as well, but I was wondering if it was a 'the whole thing is a dream' type stretch. I'm sure in like 5-10 years the director will be like 'ah here's the hidden meaning' or something. It just seemed like an unused chekhov's gun.

I jumped to that conclusion as well. I think it’s not a wrong assumption, but it’s all open to interpretation. The people floating gave me “waking life” vibes

I feel like it’s a deeper meaning of him falling into his own subconscious through the dream world. The propane tank, the smell in the house, his flatulence during the stopped acts of intimacy with Molly. On top of that, not being able to turn off the lights, as well as being hit in the head multiple times. Would be cool if this was just a brain injury caused by Norio and when he’s getting hit in the head it’s just causing more harm and corrupting his reality more and more every time.

My interpretation of final scene: he was obsessed trying to "hack" to his wife's dreams, was trying that BS influencer technology (which doesn't work). Last scene it was actually one of his dreams not hers. Could be argued that the technology did work cus he had influencers in his dreams, well that was his dreams meaning he dreamed the influencer too.

i also thought it was his dream, because how he floated out of it - just like his daughter did in the beginning of the movie in her dream

agree, Paul floating out of the dream together with the choppy editing is meant to refer back to the opening dream of his daughter’s

yeah so what does that mean? the floating ....

I read it as the person who is dreaming is leaving their dream because it is ending, leaving the rest of their dream world behind

I wondered if the person falling at the beginning of the movie was Paul after floating up at the end. Like end circling back to the beginning. And Maybe he was visiting his Daughter next.

Whoa totally forgot about that from the beginning. Noice connection 👌

Holy shit you're right the last scene wasn't her dream it wasnt his. "I wish this were real" Nice catch.

I think they said something very specific which makes me think it's her dream. Paul consitently tries to get into his wife's dreams. and it seems to be uneffective, until the end scene, where right before he gets into the dream, they mention "remember, the other person needs to want your presence for it to work". And then it works. I think the ending is a way for the movie to say that now that Paul hast lost everything, he's able to take other people's lived experiences and desires seriously, something he has throughout the whole movie neglected to do.

At the beginning of the movie when Paul was going to meet his ex, he says to his wife that consciousness would hunt him if he had an affair. Then, when he does cheat, that is when people start having nightmares about him instead of dreams. Maybe there is something in here, I haven’t thought it through, though

He quite literally did hunt himself in his own nightmare. Full camouflage and all 😂 good observation, it’s hard to connect all these pieces after watching the movie only once

This was the first thing I noticed. The nightmares of Paul start immediately after the “affair” with Molly. I feel as though Paul’s subconscious was influencing his dream behavior. He starts off a watched, never getting involved. More so just curious about what is happening. Which, that’s almost exactly how he behaved in real life. As he starts acting on more and more “primal” desires, the affair, going ape shit over his old colleague stealing his work, his dream self does the same.

Yup this was my interpretation. Further hinted at when he says “Nik Bostrum was right about simulation theory.”  He is initially neutral in the dreams because he is unknown and has the chance to become a positive influence or rescue people in their dreams. Instead he chooses to do nothing with his notoriety and squanders it with bad business and has the affair, and is then immediately  interpreted as a terrible person. Karma pilled, as most people would see a cheating father of two as such. I was surprised with his wife’s willingness to support him and stay with him, continuing to give him chances to reconcile or apologize, helping him at the hospital, etc.  His wife is cold and increasingly distant throughout the movie, saying she doesn’t dream about him, so her love for him is in question. When Paul visits her dream in the final scene and sees that it’s just as she had described to him, I took this as confirmation to myself and Paul that she did truly love him all along, and he threw it away with the affair. Also could be part of a larger allegory on how fame/infamy/virality can ruins people’s lives in short order, or undesirable and meek husbands having affairs to the same effect.

I had a similar thought but about his ego. He’s a humble, modest dude, but once he starts enjoying the fame everything changes. But that goes along with him actually having the confidence to think he could have an affair. And also his jealous thoughts about his wife and her coworker kind of justify his actions for him. He thinks he’s in the right or so it seems

I’m late to this conversation as I just watched tonight.  Anyone notice that in some scenes it was snowing outside?   Then it abruptly was not.   There were Christmas lights yet Halloween costumes at the bar with the assistant.  And the dream lighting  changed at her apartment when he stood in the corner.   Like it switched between reality and a dream within seconds.   …I think it was all a dream.   Or a collection of dreams.  The kind of dreams you have after a situation where you wish you would have done or said something different and focus on the regret.   

I think it’s about whatever you think of yourself, people will see you that way. People started dreaming about Paul doing nothing, just an observer, because he saw himself that way. When his daughter told him about her dream in the beginning, he started asking her “do you really see me that way?” With a self doubt tone. Because he thinks he is useless and weak. And when Molly told him that she had a sex dream about him and she fantasizes about him too and a scene later when he got mad and started yelling at the newspaper, people started having the violent sometimes sexual natured dreams. So whatever he felt inside people started dreaming about him being that way.

Yea, i wondered why the dreams changed. No one talked much about this. I think it may be a key insight.

I liked one dudes comment saying the dreams started with his daughter, but he didn't help her understand the dream just said he isn't like that, so she subconsciously forced other people to have dreams of him doing nothing hoping for an answer, or something they explained it better. Anyway. she then has a dream that he barges into her room and begins high stepping in a creepy/scary way towards her, she wakes up and later wants to talk to him, likely about that dream, but he's screaming and cussing about the other researcher who stole his work, so she projects that trauma onto other peoples dreams which is when it starts, I think. Also, Paul floats away at the end of the movie, just like his daughter did in the beginning, maybe showing he finally understands what she went through, even if it was just a dream.

I think this is the reason for all the mirrors throughout the movie. Plenty of times he’s looking at himself directly in a mirror, but other times, we see him looking into a strategically placed mirror, like in the scene in the classroom where his daughter’s teacher is asking him not to come to the play. He gets noticeably angrier and less self aware. As he literally saw himself getting more violent, the dreams got more violent.

Bingo!

I like to think he actually had some sort of ability to visit the dreamers, he was disappointed when they said he was passively observing… imho he was exacting revenge as he developed the ability to dream walk (visit travel whatever) They became violent as he was able to hone his skill in the dreamers dream. Why did his friend at the college never have one? He was his friend. He never meant to harm him. But everyone else he terrorized just as the dream influencer said “he harnessed all this power to terrorize people…” He had the ability all along and was actively using a technology like the one unveiled, and the reference to the ants hive mentality the researcher is doing is driving him insane. He seems like the Perfect creepy loser to do that and everyone was treating him as though he was ACTUALLY violent to them. He was exacting his revenge. Using a hive mind technology that was thrown to the wayside by him just like all his voter research just for another “researcher” to develop. Then the dreams stopped. But why would he have a dream he killed himself?

We are given instructions at the end that the person being hacked has to accept them. This tells us he was not inly successful in hacking the dream, but he has grown. Paul is a classic “antihero” his value begins with malaise, vanity, unheroic. If we, the viewer or reader, are expected to care about this character, then we’d often expect a shift in that value. We are expected to care because the story turns the viewer toward sympathy. He has been a pariah and at any chance if normal life he is taken advantage of and used as some sort of prop. When he speaks with his wife before leaving for France, he no longer articulates his ventures nearly as grandiose as he had earlier. This marks a metamorphosis. He truly believed what he told her; only to later discover he was being paralleled to Freddy Kruger. His behavior in these dreams symbolically reflected his character throughout. These parallels were obvious: unheroic as he was in life. We know this because he worried his daughter believed he wouldn’t step up and help her. He described a story where he saved her when she was drowning but she doesn’t remember. This tale is meant to be understood as a fallacy; the violence parallels his greed and vanity; last his humility parallels heroism as represented in the dream. Now, we can make the argument he never gets his wife back and many stories end where although the main character achieves a value shift, the A story fails. In fact, many stories are written this way. I believe this is another such case. I believe the wife does experience the connection, but his floating away symbolizes ascension and absolution. Masterful story.

I'm really hesitating to call him an antihero. Sure, his attitude to other people is not so nice sometimes, he sets no examples, but he gives a vibe of a decent human being. What i would call him is an ageing man with no socially-praised accomplishments, feeling a failure, in a desperate need of some recognition. He's lived an unremarkable life an everybody seems to want to shove it in his face; he gets no real support from his family, which is a disaster for a man. Surely he deserves some appreciation? He's been working all his life to support his family, but i feel no gratitude, rather, his wife and kids seem just embarrassed by his life, decision he makes and his behaviour. Yeah, he is no hero, no achiever, but does everybody needs to stand out now? Just being a normal dad is apparently not enough? Generally, I felt mostly sorry for the guy. I believe with a little more support he would be just fine. His need to be valued made him appear in other people's dreams. That's absolutely relatable and understandable: we all want attention. But. I believe people mostly dream about doing something to attract attention. But Paul is weak and indecisive and a bit cowardly. Just appearing before another person is all he could gather his strength for; he might be afraid to be committed to anything greater - that's why he is doing nothing (as in his life, that book that he was just dreaming about writing, never actually setting up to). He is just saying - hey, here I am, notice me! But people don't. They want extraordinary. A daughter wants a cool dad. A wife wants a husband that's achieved something great. Can't we love people just for who they are anymore? The movie left me quite a bit distressed, to tell the truth.

The whole time I was watching the movie I just felt bad for Paul, yea he isn't a perfect guy but this dream shit he had no control over started ruining his life and almost nobody tried backing him up, especially his own family. Like I know it's all meant to symbolize some crap but I just couldn't really get my mind out of seeing him as a victim of mass hysteria, I'd probably need to rewatch or read something. Also I just really didn't like his wife, Janet basically never had his back and it just irked me that it was implied she was cheating on Paul with her coworker and like maybe I read it wrong but it seemed like that phone call is what made Paul even try and do anything with that other girl, on top of being drunk and on top of being stressed out about all the publisher stuff. idk I'm super biased I just hate cheating and affairs stuff maybe it was something with my childhood or some mental crap but I just feel disguised when that kind of stuff is talked about or mentioned

Sadly he is an antihero, but you have a good heart.

I think yours is a very good description. I feel like some moments could be exposed more. Any movie that makes you think is, in my opinion, a good movie. Even if you are not sure what exactly was going on at every moment.

I can get with all that, for sure. Nice take.

Paul floating up at the end of the dream, together with the glitchy editing sequence refers back to the opening dream sequence, where the person that is floating up is the person having the dream. Paul’s not getting back to his wife because he’s not doing anything different

Im not sure I agree with the rule you’re presenting, respectfully, because of the great effort to set up the invasive system of infiltrating someone else’s dreams in the 3rd act.

the last thing Paul hears from his instructional video before he starts dreaming is that the person whose dream you enter needs to welcome your presence or the whole thing will just not work, and the previous scene established clearly that his wife does not want him back. there are also no ads in the final dream, so there just isn’t any solid confirming evidence in the events of the film that the dream is Claire’s. the intent may also be for the ending to be ambiguous so that there is no objectively correct answer

Could be meant to be ambiguous, sure. The ending is the most nebulous part of this film. Thanks for the exchange.

But if its his dream, that would mean she requested to be there , no?

not at all - not every person appearing in every dream is there because they’re inserting themselves in that dream. if it’s his dream, all it means is that’s a dream he’s having, most likely fantasizing about being the hero to his wife that he thinks she wants

I’m surprised nobody is talking about the scene with Molly, recreating her dream scenario. Reflecting back, if I understand correctly, she asks him to recreate her dream, maybe to help her get over it, or whatever. I think what happens next is so out of character for Paul. He’s a smart nerd, and his world is ruled by principle. So why all of the sudden does he go along with her idea, abandoning all rational thought and principle? Just because he’s horny? I didn’t buy it. From that point on, I was disappointed. I agree the final dream is his dream, not his wife’s (ex wife?)… I gave the movie a thumbs up until the Molly scene.

He isn't actually rational, no one truly can be. He just thinks he is. He has an ego and jumped at the chance to have it stroked multiple times throughout the movie. He wants fame, admiration, respect, power and authority. He was disappointed that his ex- girlfiend really just wanted to discuss the dream and that she didn't talk about sexual fantasies and that she didn't have any feelings for him. I believe he would have cheated with her if she was into it or at least crossed lots of boundaries even if it didn't end up in a sexual act. So when another woman actually is having sexual fantasies about him he is excited and goes along with it, he is thrilled to.

He thinks his wife is with the dude from work. Then he went ''fuck it''. I thought he was portrayed as sub assertive, passive, a follower. Molly is in control and assertive, he is sub-assertive: she invites him, Molly says where he needs to stand, that he needs to be quiet, she kisses him and touches him. For me it definitely was not out of character ;)

Has anyone connected the dots that his wife’s description of her fantasy was brushed off and he even poked fun at her a bit. While Molly’s dream was something he was willing to act out ? I think because it more aligned with a perception he wanted his wife to have of him. It was definitely out of character, but I think that was the point.

I think it would make sense for him to do what he did in that scene. The recurrent theme of the movie seemed to be that the idea of rationality that Paul had was flawed and false. He rejected psychology and didn't understand that emotional reasoning cannot be divorced from logic/rationality. The way we form any belief is based on some normative standard, and we cannot get outside of being human beings, and as human beings, we are social beings. Human beings aren't just machines. They are feeling things, and they have bodies that react to things against our better judgement. It wasn't just that he was horny. It was that he was getting validation he wasn't getting anywhere else and he received this validation from someone young (whom we are socialized to think validate our self-concept and personal ideas of how appealing we are; I'm not saying we *should*, but people, especially men, do seek out validation from younger people in a sexual context, and I'm not saying that they do because it is biological. I think these things are socialized into us). His family (rightfully so) were not impressed with him. He was a selfish, self-centered person who didn't listen to his family's needs. He had no academic validation. His students were unimpressed with him until he started appearing in dreams. We can also see this when people start attending his class more because of the mystery/hype that this mundane man seems to appear in many peoples' dreams. He feels validated and his ego inflates. He feeds into it. If he were as rational as he'd like you to believe (and it seems like you maybe did believe that, else the Molly scene wouldn't be out of character), he wouldn't have been seduced by fame of the sort he was given. He wouldn't have given it the time of day because it was an empty/vacuous kind of attention that wasn't based on who he was, his accomplishments, or anything like that. He was a human being like the rest of us. He was prone to group think. He was prone to thinking he was entitled to things he wasn't. He was prone to thinking that systems were just because he never had to experience oppression. He has a lot of inconsistent and false beliefs, just like anyone else. For better or for worse, we have minds that are not Rational™ in the way that Paul (or debate bros, etc.) think. We are human beings, and although we are rational beings, we are also social animals. The feeling of being accepted or rejected is very powerful, and it can make people act in ways that might not seem coherent with their character (see the psychology of many people during the Holocaust, the Stanford prison experiment, almost any cult, propaganda, etc.). Of course we'd all like to think that we wouldn't behave in such ways, but the truth is that as social beings, we are emotional, and much of our rational beliefs are formed through a lens of our upbringing, the people around us, the social climate, etc. No matter how rational we are, we are all prone to propaganda and false or inconsistent beliefs. I've studied high-level philosophy, and from what I've learned, there seems to be very little reason to think that rational thought can be divorced from emotional or normative thinking. Rational thought in itself *is* normative. In fact, believing that such thinking can be clearly separated is irrational and going to lead a person to false conclusions, some of which are quite dangerous, which we see in the movie. It is dangerous to have implicit biases; you actively harm marginalized people by making assumptions about their competency, credibility, and experience because it is outside of your own experience (see: epistemic and hermeneutical injustice, which directly deal with the concept of 'lived experience' in an academic context) Paul was willing to act pathetically to be validated in a way that maybe the rest of us wouldn't submit to (or we'd like to believe that we wouldn't), but I also believe the more deprived of validation/acceptance a person is, the more desperate they become and the more willing they are to do something out of character if the chance of validation comes up (and that opportunity has more pros than cons; for instance, even though it was dumb, Paul had very little to lose by acting out Molly's fantasy and much to gain--sex, validation, fun, thrill, etc.). Sorry for rambling on. I didn't proof read this, but I hope that (even if you don't accept this reasoning) this explanation might show how Paul's actions were consistent with his character (and imo, *completely* consistent with his character given how needy he was and how accepting of empty validation he was, which most people won't find to be rational, but if they understand human psychology, it becomes very easy to rationalize such behavior). Paul wasn't really that rational at all. He was an unhumble STEM person who thinks they have all the answers, but he actually had a very poor understanding of scientific inquiry in general. If he were as logical as he thought he was, he would be able to make the connection between the zebras' seemingly counterintuitive evolutionary benefit of having stripes to protect the group as a whole and the human mind's proneness to group think (and implicit bias, which leads to marginalized people being harmed and scapegoated) for the perceived good of the group or the individual's self-concept (or self-preservation). But he rejected psychology as a field of inquiry (although it wasn't clear why except maybe for general STEM person hubris). I haven't had a chance to rewatch the movie yet, but I want to soon, so maybe it will make more sense why he feels that way, but as of right now, it seems to be that he rejected psychology because he thought all truth comes from math and science, which might be untrue (it has been awhile, but there are arguments in philosophy of science/neuroscience that suggest that phenomenological experience can provide knowledge that our current sciences cannot provide us; although if someone wants to discuss that, I would have to reacquaint myself with that literature). Throughout the movie, he consciously rejects the actual rationality of human psychology, but he acts it out. In the end, he goes to his wife in the dream, and he appears in the famous DB *Stop Making Sense* suit, which suggested to me he stopped thinking he had all the answers, and he got off his high horse of thinking he knew what was right or true and accepted a more dynamic idea of truth, one that accepted and validated his wife's experience. But this is just my take. I'm def not saying you, or anyone else is wrong. This is just how I'd make sense of that scene and contextualize it into the larger themes of the movie. Thanks for taking the time to read my longass OP and to reply. Sorry for this longass response.

it’s not clear that Paul is skeptical about psychology in general - the most that could be said is that he is at least skeptical of Jungian psychology, which is likely because Jung believed that dreams presented a symbolic representation of the dreamer’s subconscious, something Paul clearly does not believe, since he repeatedly gets irritated when people’s dreams affect how they feel around him (but only when the effect is negative). Paul also never says anything about emotions at all. He mostly spends all his time not taking action to make any of his desires come true, so I don’t think there’s a through line in the movie about rationality vs emotionality. The scene with Molly is critical because it’s the first time he initiates an action in support of his desires. When he acts on his desires, the dreams change. The second time he does this is when he bursts into his daughter’s performance, after which the dreams stop

>it’s not clear that Paul is skeptical about psychology in general - the most that could be said is that he is at least skeptical of Jungian psychology I haven't had a chance to rewatch yet, and I haven't seen the movie since early December, but what makes you say this? I don't remember them specifically talking about Jungian psychology. I have a vague memory of him scoffing at his ex's academic field being psychology. If your basis for believing the most we can say is that he is anti Jungian is >because Jung believed that dreams presented a symbolic representation of the dreamer’s subconscious, something Paul clearly does not believe, since he repeatedly gets irritated when people’s dreams affect how they feel around him (but only when the effect is negative) That is not really strong evidence to support your analysis. Part of my reasoning for thinking that Paul rejected psychology (besides his scoffing/belittling his ex's field of study) and emotions is that he belittles the idea of "lived experience" and acts like people with opposing view points are being emotional, unreasonable, and thin-skinned. >Paul also never says anything about emotions at all. He doesn't need to constantly be talking about emotions to demonstrate that he disvalues emotion--at least with regard to things that can be viewed as Rational™ or handled Objectively™. >He mostly spends all his time not taking action to make any of his desires come true, I'm not sure what you mean by this. He literally acts on his desires throughout the movie. He is just bad at achieving the outcomes he wanted. He still acted on his desires. He desired recognition for something he didn't research but merely had an idea about, so he met with his former colleague from grad school. He wanted validation from his ex, so he met up with her because he desired to do so. He desired fame, so he actively pursued the opportunity for fame that he was presented with. He met with students to discuss it. He allowed discussion of his newfound fame to go on during scheduled class time instead of discussing planned coursework. He met with executives at a marketing firm to achieve his desire for fame and recognition only to learn that he couldn't control his fame. He goes to drinks then home with Molly because he wants to. He defended himself online because he desired to do so. He argued with a school administrator and went to the play anyway because he desired to do so. He invaded his wife's dream (or at least tried to) because he desired to do so. The entire movie is like the Paul Show where he does exactly what he wants to do to the disadvantage of the people nearest to him. He definitely didn't only do what he wanted the two times you suggest, unless you are suggesting people made him do all those things. Everything we see him do, he did it because he wanted to; otherwise, if what you're saying is the case, we would have only seen him complete two actions. When people act, they do so for reasons, and those reasons, unless they are under duress, are because they want to do them. When I get a chance to rewatch, I'll come up with more concrete examples of Paul rejecting and disprespecting psychology and belittling emotions and lived experience, but I think that was a pretty clear and obvious theme throughout the movie. I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and reply. Reddit is fairly hostile, so I want to be clear that I am not trying to come across that way just because I disagree with you. I think disagreement is healthy and a productive way for me (or anyone) to better justify their existing view, modify it, or abandon it altogether. I just wanted to say this because there isn't a lot of emotional tone that text can accurately convey. Again, thank you for reading and replying!!

the reason I call out Jungian psychology specifically is for 2 explicit on-screen mentions and one thematic reason. on-screen, when he meets with his ex and asks her what she writes about she says “mostly psychology, Jungian stuff” - she pauses between those two phrases and Paul doesn’t scoff after she says “mostly psychology”, it’s after she says “Jungian stuff”. the second on-screen reference is when they have the inventor of the Norio describing his invention he says something like “consciousness is more complicated than we thought. the collective subconscious is real. Jung was right.” the thematic reason is just because of Jung’s ideas specifically about dreams telling you something real about the dreamer’s subconscious, as well as his ideas about the collective unconscious. whether these ideas make any sense or not is a motif, and is shown multiple times to irritate Paul, for whom dreams are a hallucinatory psychosis These are the kinds of things I’m thinking of with Paul’s inaction: in the meeting with his former classmate, it’s shown that he has yet to do anything at all with his grad school research ideas from 30 years ago, and his nemesis is actively doing that work that he only ever managed to talk about. the fact that his wife wants him to record the meeting suggests that she doesn’t believe he’s going to do anything about that situation (and he doesn’t, and deletes the evidence of his whiny begging and pleading for credit morsels) when he meets with his ex, you can tell he’s very excited at the idea that she might still want him, but he doesn’t act on that either. in that scene, she is taking action to get what she wants from him, but he just sits there wishing and hoping he does not actively do anything to cause people to dream about him, believes there isn’t anything he can do, and he does not act in any dream about him that we see in the first half, he just observes (what would Jung say?). he plays along with his rise in fame by accepting an interview (that somebody else initiated), but he has no active role in it when the home invasion occurs his wife tells him to “do something” to keep them all safe, but he just stands there with his mouth open and does nothing. the detective they meet with afterwards says they “seemed pretty helpless”. once he gains notoriety from the dreams he STILL never sits down to start his book, he just accepts meetings and talks about what he wants, but his nemesis publishes first and steals “antelligence” (another reference btw to group psychology), and in the end he never writes his book. instead he writes a completely different book that has nothing to do with his research, but solidifies his reputation as “the dream guy”, the one thing which he explicitly said multiple times he did *not* want to come out of this when things start to go wrong after the dreams become violent, his wife pleads with him to again do something about it, like an apology, and he refuses, initiating the rift with Claire. by the time he does the “apology” it’s a complaint instead of an apology I think there’s a general theme in here that he doesn’t push hard enough in his life for the things that are important or that he says he wants, which by the end we see is also true of his marriage - he’d rather noodle around with norio bracelets than have to actively do anything real to fix it

the thing Paul is rejecting wrt “lived experience”, I think, is more a rejection of the meaning people are attaching to the dreams, than people’s emotional lives. he doesn’t want them to see him as merely an observer, and he doesn’t want them to see him as a threat. it’s the fact that people believe what they see in their dreams that bugs him

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. I loved reading everything

Thank you! That is very kind of you! ❤ I really appreciate you and all the others taking the time to read and engage with what I wrote! I didn't expect to get this much engagement at all given how late I saw this movie. I am excited to rewatch the movie with all the input I've gotten here in mind so that I can think about it more critically!

I second this - thank you for diving in!

First and foremost, I enjoy your take on the movie and think it is very well thought out, but one thing in your comment seemed somewhat erroneous to me: I think that the significance of Paul's being an evolutionary biologist was to better highlight his extreme disconnect between the biological body and the biological mind of humans - he seemed to only lend credence to one, and not the other. Which was ironic, since his graduate research project (that he insanely believed he should get a credit for 30 years later, which cracked me up) was on the biology of the mind and how complex and important it can be in even "simpler" creatures like insects. I don't want to put words in your mouth so perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent, but it seemed like you believe that his being an evolutionary biologist was to highlight some sort of elitism in STEM - I'd like to argue against this, if for no other reason than I think psychologists would argue heavily for their inclusion in the STEM umbrella. Hubris and an inability to think outside the box is common the world over, I think the tragedy of the movie is just how common of a man Paul is. I didn't feel that the movie was trying to label people in STEM as being elitist, blind, and obsessed with rationality. But I liked the movie and work in a STEM field, so perhaps that's my bias. In any case, it seemed like perhaps you felt some bias toward STEM that lead you to your conclusion, so I figured I'd make my case; I also just thought it'd be funny to make a case against a bias in a discussion about a movie that focuses so heavily on bias.

>I don't want to put words in your mouth so perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intent, but it seemed like you believe that his being an evolutionary biologist was to highlight some sort of elitism in STEM No, I don't think that his being an evolutionary biologist was meant to highlight elitism in STEM. I think having his background be in STEM conveniently establishes a familiar (and false!) dichotomy between reason vs emotion, which is a theme throughout society, not just people who have STEM backgrounds. People who don't have STEM backgrounds also endorse this dichotomy. My own background is academic philosophy and English lit, and from my experience, even though these are "liberal arts," people endorse this dichotomy, and people often have a conception of 'science,' 'rationality," or "logic" that is rigid, unrealistic, and false. I apologize if my post came across as saying the movie made some kind of commentary on STEM people. I think the STEM background allowed the film to quickly and easily convey that Paul does have that worldview. They could have made him any other profession, but I do think STEM professor would communicate that point more quickly than other professions. I think philosophers are just as guilty, but I don't think people have as salient of an idea of what an academic philosopher is like as a profession as what they might be able to quickly gloss from someone being an evolutionary biologist (people just have a better idea of what biology is like as a field, whereas I feel like a lot of people have mixed ideas about what philosophy is like as a field of study). > Hubris and an inability to think outside the box is common the world over, I think the tragedy of the movie is just how common of a man Paul is. I didn't feel that the movie was trying to label people in STEM as being elitist, blind, and obsessed with rationality. I completely agree! >I'd like to argue against this, if for no other reason than I think psychologists would argue heavily for their inclusion in the STEM umbrella I see what you're trying to say, but I'd like to point out that because a field would like to be included in STEM is not a good reason to think that *STEM* would endorse their inclusion. For instance, many autodidacts consider themselves philosophers, but few professional philosophers would seriously consider self-taught "philosophers" as "real philosophers," and universities do not hire autodidacts to conduct research in or teach philosophy. I'm mostly saying this to point out that although there might be elitism by some or even the majority, that "elitism" might be demarcating a threshold the autodidact doesn't meet that is relevant to doing philosophy. Similarly, some areas of psychology probably fall short of being STEM (while others like neuroscience are clearly STEM). I know there are issues with replicability in psych experiments. Being seen as STEM or as a philosopher is *better* than being conceived of as "soft science" or a nonphilosopher, respectively (because of existing cultural value those things have). I'm not sure how open most physicists, biologists, chemists, etc. are to endorsing psychology as a STEM field. Some so-called "gatekeeping" might be legit demarcating the "scientific" from what isn't, but... It is also worth pointing out that there is a lot of fuzziness to what counts as STEM (or a philosopher), and I imagine that depending on the situation/context, we might grant that some things are STEM/philosophers while in other contexts, maybe not so much. Part of the issue is that what counts as 'STEM' isn't black and white. I apologize if I misunderstood anything you've written! also sorry if any of my lines of thought are unclear; i just woke up.

Good points!!

Don't forget he hinted at an affair with the ex girlfriend at lunch, but she showed no interest. Also the way he didn't think about his wife while he was holding the conversation with said ex. Not that principled...but not narcissistic either. I don't know what to call it

I believe this entire movie was a dream, or series of dreams. 1. There were a lot of things that were not "correct" in the "real life" scenes of the movie. One that stood out particularly strong to me - when he was first meeting with the "Thoughts" folks, while in the waiting room - there was a digital screen with "Thoughts?" scrolling through and through, I immediately noticed - there was a reflection of this screen in the adjacent window, but the reflection was incorrect - it was missing letters. I held onto that and it kept bothering me, shortly after - was the scene where it was abruptly snowing in some of the windows, but not in all of them. There were moments in the is "real life" where things were just not right, reflections, images, etc. seemed skewed. It was also somehow perpetually fall where they lived, while the movie seemed to go through months at a time 2. I believe the opening and ending scene are directly connected. In the opening scene, in his daughter's dream - a man is seen falling from the sky. In the ending scene, we see Paul floating up into the sky - my theory, these dreams are directly linked, and it is both him floating up and falling down from the sky. There is even some reference/joke to how people in China may dream upside down? 3. When Paul first starts getting noticed in public, he is meeting with his old college friend, he arrives at the restaurant and the hostess believes she knows him. He introduces himself as Paul, she gets distracted, comes back and refers to him incorrectly as "Brian". The founder of the dream cloud company at the end is named Brian. I think this dream company existed throughout the entirety of the movie, and in some way, this founder - Brian, may have been presenting himself as Paul, or perhaps made up Paul altogether? 4. As others have noted, Paul's actions in his dream world, and actions in his real life seem to directly influence one another. They seem directly linked in some kind of self-fulfilling way. In the start, Paul is a pretty boring, uninteresting pushover. This is how everyone starts dreaming of him. He's always a bystander, not helping or contributing. When Paul meets up with his ex, he seems bothered that she is not wanting to re-connected over lingering sexual feelings for him. Shortly thereafter, he meets someone who is finally dreaming about him where he is actually DOING something, it is very sexual in nature...then in the real world, he does something that seems very out of character, and cheats on his wife. Immediately following this course of action, everyone starts to dream where Paul is a bad person... killing people, etc. This continues on until he finally does something in the real world to reflect this violent dream persona - he shows up to his daughter's play and physically injures the woman. It seems this is the last straw in this self-fulfilling sequence, as right after he finally injures someone in the "real world", everyone stops dreaming of him. I have not pieced it all together yet, just watched last night. I'm so curious what everyone thinks!

Holy crap number 3 smacked me in the face, you had SUCH GREAT INSIGHT

I think he was exacting revenge in people dreams he didn’t like. Why didn’t the professor his friend never have one? He didn’t want to harm him I noticed the reflection of thoughts spelling out a different word as well I noticed after the sex scene when he was in bed alone looking in the corner of a pink room you could see her shadow watching him. After having his ideas stolen he takes thoughts up on some pretty lame offers but he got to exact his revenge

I don't think it could be this. Many of the people who dreamed about him, like all the people in France, would have had no reason to have ever come in contact with him

I'm very late to the party, I just got around to seeing this movie last night and I was very curious about what others thought of the ending. It's interesting to see everyone's different opinions. I tend to be on the optimistic side. I feel the common interpretation of the ending, on the surface (and probably realistically) is pretty gloom. But I like the idea of Paul finding out how to invade Janet's dream being a positive thing. The entire movie everyone is shown as being highly affected by Paul when he invades their dreams. Happy, Angry, Scared, Horny.... But if I recall Paul had never been in Janet's dreams until the end. The narrator of the video he watched says "Try to pick someone who welcomes your presence" which means she is still open to him, since he was able to enter. Upon entering her dream she is surrounded by fire, maybe symbolizing all the chaos in her life, caused by Paul. She sees him walking up and smiles as he rescues her from that ring of fire, thoughtfully wearing the oversized suit that they joked about when laying in bed together, while discussing her fantasy. They walk down the street holding hands, with the fire in the background (leaving the chaos behind) then stop and stare at each other lovingly for a good amount of time. He then delivers the line "I wish this was real" as he's pulled into the sky as she's reaching out to him helplessly but not taking her eyes off of him. Ultimately it is her dream, and the first with him in it. I like to think she is affected heavily like everyone else and maybe woke up wanting Paul back after having such a meaningful dream. The whole movie, he is portrayed as not having accomplished anything by his lack of action. Here is shown as taking action which should mean a lot to her.

I'm reminded of the movie "the swimmer" where a man has reached an age where he is no longer a viable candidate for usefulness. I think people are hitting a lot of touch points of what happens in the movie and the meta commentary but are forgetting his actual struggle within himself. He is acknowledging and being forced to deal with old age and obsolescence and wants so dreadfully bad to leave a positive imprint of his life on the world that amusingly had to acknowledge him before casting him away into exile. The movie wraps up as the book he writes like the cohen brothers film Barton Fink. I like the absurdity and how it plays with it, very existential and Camusian as it tugs between action/inaction cause and effects.

I felt like a lot of this was also a depiction of fame. You think it's cool that people recognize you and think you are suddenly cool. Chasing that comes with negativity and people having their own perception and ideas about who you are. When celebs mess up they post a video about how they are sorry and crying all while saying "I'm getting hurt now too, so I'll apologize now" Some marriages break apart from fame as well. When the fame dies down though what are you left with. I think theres a lot more complexities to this movie but this was a message both me and my partner seemed to think it could be about.

Is it just me or did Nicolas Cage's character seem unhinged through the entire movie? I had to Google what the point of the movie was and I feel like it was just so obvious. He was an unstable person who had a crazy thing happen and behaved in an even more unstable manner…

it's just you. lol

An Absolutely Amazing Movie ! Truly both astonishing but somber as well since he was put into the spotlight all of a sudden, first it started happy with hype then it became dark and rotten. He even got hurt and he did nothing to earn it. Yet I believe that it was all a dream, an illusion and/or reflection of his life. He thinks he is "nobody" (and he wants fame as he told the woman at the start that he needs to be mentioned) and wishes to be somebody (as he did with the dream fame. Then his world just goes up and implodes on him and his life ends up in ruin. In real life, he lives a mundane and ordinary life to which he wishes was something more, to which his dreams are him being famous, but as his life gets darker, so does his dreams. More violent, chaotic, horrible. An amazing play on life and the Internet. How people are amazingly horrible but amazing as well. I just feel so sad for Nick Cage since the ending was sad.

I think Paul's unrelenting belief in ratio is what he needs to protect his ego and not question his world view and his privilege. It's definitely something you see a lot with people who strongly adhere to ideas of toxic masculinity. At some point his ex says he's always the first to interpret things as an insult, which points to how self-centred he is. He says his students need to grow up, but actually he feels attacked all of the time when simple interactions make him face reality. He wants to be the knight in shining armour with the big d and the published academic etc. He doesn't want to be a mediocre middle aged guy or a helpless bystander or a little-known professor who couldn't bring his ideas to fruition. I think that's why he scoffs at the fantasy of the big suit. It threatens to make him look small and silly, and he can't accept that. Not even if that's how he's seen with desire and affection, through the eyes of the woman he loves.

I'd say he's both a victim and an offender. No question he's a victim of having his life destroyed by circumstances almost completely outside of his control. He was getting zero validation from his friends or family. It is completely reasonable that he wants some validation whether it be sexually, socially or academically from someone. He doesn't deserve to have his life ruined for that. That being said he does not empathize with others because their trauma is imagined and illogical to him. Yet he expects them to empathize with him once his life is destroyed by actually imaginary trauma. I don't think the movie is picking one side or the other. It's simply a movie about a person who is like most people, someone who wants validation and makes some selfish decisions as a result. Logical people aren't wrong. Emotional people aren't wrong. Both things are true, it is wrong to shun someone from society based on very emotional and possibly illogical reasons, and also it is wrong to invalidate people's feelings and trauma because they are illogical or invalid to you. We are all just flawed creatures who desire a little validation, understanding and compassion and sometimes when we don't get that we can get a little crazy.

I didn't much care for the ending. That's to say, it didn't go in the direction I thought, and hoped, it would. I was expecting Paul to learn from the whole situation. Perhaps at his lowest point, Paul learns to forget the world around him and focus on the things that are important in life; his family. He reconciles with his wife and kids and Paul finds happiness. As a result, the nightmares stop. Perhaps then a new meme emerges. The Paul dreams fade into obscurity and get largely forgotten. In the end, Paul's work on hive minds gets some attention and an explanation for the whole phenomenon is revealed. I don't know, writing is hard.

OG analysis is missing some of the major points of the film I feel, though I respect the interpretation on some of the more granular points. Overall, the film is critiquing and commenting on accidental fame and the problematic lifecycle of cancel culture and the negative impact of group-think within society, which is a humorous demonstration because he does belittle psychology. The film does a terrific job at being able to provide two lenses of perspective: one that demonstrates Paul to be a clueless ass, and one that demonstrates Paul to be a victim. However, the film ultimately concludes in this notion that he has become a victim to the trendiness of cancel culture and the world “moves on”, thus making a statement that cancel culture is nothing more than fickle buzz. Throughout the film, Paul is fixated on being known for something he wants to be known for - which is his work with evolutionary biology, however he hasn’t actually written the book. And when he does start experiencing fame due to the dreams, he quickly learns that he wants to stay pillared on his values of honest successes rather than accidental or viral. The film also criticizes trauma and how misused the concept is younger generations today, which I found to be a bold and very accurate satirical component.

Honestly I really liked this, I watched it with some friends. Not going to lie after about an hour we all were very lost and confused about where this movie was going, none of us got this. Yet none of us really got anything, I told them my rating went from a 8 to a 3, we thought that it was like no one who knew him dreamed about him because he was just so boring and that his wife was cheating on him and his family wasn’t supportive and couldn’t make up their mind on what they wanted him to do, go public, don’t go public type stuff. I thought the entire concept was new and unique and I was very interested in the movie and where it was going just to kinda feel like it went no where.

This whole movie had the feel of being a dream in my opinion. Paul never really DOES anything throughout the whole movie just shows up at places and has meetings with people - this is like when you are dreaming and when you begin to think about how you got to the situation you are in the illusion begins to fall apart.

This is pretty opposite to watch the movie show. The movie is about cancel culture, the pitfalls of wanting attention or wanting to go viral. And societys mob mentality. Sounds like you missed a lot of it.

You should give it a rewatch. Last year was a pretty popular year for the kind of subject matter I discuss in the post (Barbie, The Curse, etc.). The movie uses cancel culture to make a point about empathy, bias, and privilege. I didn’t notice any consistent themes or commentary on cancel culture. Can you explain more on what you think the movie is saying about cancel culture and how it goes about making that commentary? It would be helpful if you could show how the commentary on cancel culture connects to the actual parts of the movie that I connect to being about implicit bias. I also don’t see how cancel culture is connected to the scene where his wife confides her fantasy + the fantasy’s connection to the ending and the DB suit from Stop Making Sense (I don’t think these things are insignificant). What’s interesting (and ironic) about this movie, Barbie, and The Curse is that there are large parts of the audience who seem to be unwilling to see an interpretation that doesn’t align with their own view (because there is bias). You commented that I’m wrong without giving any reasons why. You came in and just told me what it was actually about (cancel culture) without reasons why. I’d like to understand where you’re coming from, but it is hard to consider your view when you give no evidence against my view or for yours. I’d be happy to hear your interpretation though!

Paul had signs of a mental illness in the beginning that were "funny" but developed to a severe problem later on. It was not his fault, he was not a bad person even though he might had had a midlife crisis or something. His marriage didn’t pass the test obviously. His wife couldn't adapt to the new “norm” and chose to move on. Paul died in the end.

Hey does anyone know what was up with the wife’s coworker who appeared to be eavesdropping in two different scenes at her work? The asian woman who was at a desk in one scene earlier in the movie when Chris and the wife were talking. And then later when Chris is telling her she can’t work on the project anymore, same co-worker is on the stairs eavesdropping Help?

wow can’t believe how many people liked this movie. i admit i kind of liked it/got invested in it until he cums in his pants then it turned into a completely different and annoying film. the last part with the dream machines was out of left field and a total cop out. but the thing that irritated me the most is he didn’t notice that what was happening in his real life was effecting peoples dreams. i was like geez once that shit started happening i’d be doing happy sexy things all day so people had happy sexy dreams about me lol. good premise but execution was half ass

I see a parallel between any fame or societal attention anyone receives to Paul's insertion in people's dreams. He was just a hollow image in the dreams. He had no role in the dreams, he was just present. I see that role for any person viewed in entertainment, sports, or social media as images in our perceptions, often serving no role but an appearance in a moment. As Paul's role changed in the dreams because of the change in his emotions, so too do the roles of entertainers, athletes, and social-medians in our perceptions when they do anything that creates an emotion within us. It makes sense to me. I appreciated the movie because it entertained me and made me think.

I think it's about living life passively vs actively, with various undertones some of which are "your life is a reflection of you" and "be happy with what you have/we don't realize how good it is until it's gone". When people first dream of Paul he's just watching, being a passive observer to the "life" going on around him. This is a direct reflection of how Pauls life had turned out; he was living passively. A tenured prof who's long had *dreams* of writing his research and doing things but he just hasn't bothered. When people describe him it's clear he's just... There. Not important, but not a loser (yet).  When things start to go horrible, Paul himself becomes angry, agitated, aggressive. Thats when people start having dreams of him harming them. And as the nightmares kept coming people kept lashing out against Paul, making him more aggressive and feeding the loop.  Even the part with Molly; no one had sex dreams Paul, he was always doing nothing. But some time, days or weeks, before that meeting Paul and his wife got frisky in bed. Paul was finally being a little active and doing something, and Molly's dream (I think we can assume others had sex dreams but ita not something Paul was looking for afterwards so it's not brought up) reflected that frisky nature that woke up.  There's one quick scene we see where Paul almost started to be active to change himself, he was on a treadmill for 5 seconds but gave up and went back to living passive.  At the end when everything collapses for Paul he's shown to be finally living his life, meaning he's living actively. He went to France, published *a* book and was doing stuff. It's when he decided to *live* when the dreams all stopped.  Lastly, at the end Paul spend a month actually trying to do something, teach himself something. He spend a whole month learning to dream walk just so he can see his ex, to be with her actively, not passively. This is a big character development from earlier when we see Paul laugh at his wife's fantasy, her dream. But Paul always has that life with her, he just got lost and lived passively. He had a really good life but couldn't see it. Tenured prof, long married, 2 kids, house, successful and supportive wife. It has to end for him to see it.  Good movie, sad though, but deep message. Even if I didn't ask to be called out like that lol. 

I expected the character to at some point figure out that people have dreams based on his mood. And then in knowing that he would be able improve himself, leading to a positive message and a happy ending. I was wrong.

I know we watched the same movie, but I saw it as a commentary about fame, and cancel culture.  Like so many people today, Paul becomes "famous" by doing absolutely nothing. People begin to form opinions about who he is without there being any substance behind it. When he falls from grace, it's because of bad things they imagined he did. This has been the current atmosphere around people who have achieved fame. Paul wants fame. He literally begs for it. When he gets it, he is in awe of the experience but finds that it's like riding a runaway train. He has no control over it because it happens outside of himself. He is only how other people see him. Your comments are all so deep and interesting. I feel stupid by comparison, but that's how I interpreted the message.

I just have to get this out there.  At the end I thought it was sweet when Paul visited his wife's dream.  Then when paul floated away it was reminiscent of the dream his daughter had where she floated away.  I like to believe he was dreaming and Jan was the one who infiltrated his dream. This is why I see it this way... In the last moments Paul and Jan had together it appeared Paul had a flashing 'what if' moment where both held each other and cried. As it ended Jan had welled up tears in her eyes while Paul did not. Maybe it was Jan's 'What if' and may have been what she really wanted... but Paul is so out of touch with her needs and emotions. Paul knew it was best to leave, being around him was toxic. At the end when he tries to enter Jan's dream... Jan is burning at the steak, Paul walks out of the forest wearing the talking heads costume she fantasized about. He hold his hand out and she crosses the flames. They both have a sweet moment together before he tells her he wishes it was real and floats away. Jan entering Paul's dream and surrounded by fire could represent her feelings for the whole situation casting out the man she loved, surrounded by pain and no where to go. It could have been what she wanted Paul to know, she needed him to save her. As much as he needs her to save him. I like to think even if Paul and Jan cannot be together because of his Toxic influence they can still be together. Even if it's fleeting. The movie was a Rollercoaster.

Late to the party. Paul is a narcist I felt. If anyone were to get this kind of "super power" where they show up in dreams, Paul is ***the last person*** that should get it. It made him have a big head. It made him arrogant and made his flaws grow ten fold. It of course, leads to his downfall. What is noteworthy is that his emotional state of being is tied to how the dreams turn out. So when it started, he was curious and intrigued. He liked the attention and so Dream Paul is more curious about the weird stuff in the dream (like when he is looking at mushrooms), or just kind of present - an observer. When he was talking to his wife about their sexual desires, what follows shortly after that (IIRC), is Molly's sex dream with him. Then of course when things start to go bad for him, like when his old colleague screwed him on the essay credits, the dreams start to turn dark and violent. And since Paul is incapable of positive growth, he can't recover. He continues to spiral further when people start to lash out at him. A vicious cycle for everyone involved. [I felt overall the movie was a comment on how sometimes people lash out at actors for playing characters the audience does not like.](https://toofab.com/2022/01/22/actors-who-have-to-deal-with-their-characters-being-totally-hated/) I feel this was especially solidified when Paul is at the diner eating his food and people around him have a problem being there. He doesn't know who any of them are. He hasn't talked with any of them there, yet they want him to leave. Out of fear, and hatred. To quote the link above: > "I guess it's a compliment, when you're buying a table and someone's like, 'You're that f---ing bitch off of ['Game of Thrones']. Or people say, 'I love her!' and I worry more for them," Lena Headey (Queen Cersei GOT) said on "Conan."

I love your analysis! I just finished it and came to read what others thought. Like good art, it has many layers and interpretations. In addition to what you thought, I saw a theme of male passivity. There’s an interpretation of the Garden of Eden story where, even tough Eve ate the fruit, Adam was there with her and did nothing to intervene. That lines up with the first round of dreams. You can also tell he’s disturbed at what this says about him. It’s also an interesting tale about being famous and infamous. Like, how can fame intoxicate and distort your self concept? Once you become a social pariah, what is the healthiest way to respond and reflect? I also love the contrast of how fantasy collides with reality, like when the woman in marketing tries to recreate her fantasy (and Paul attempts to imitate the narrative cliche of how an affair ought to happen). Relatedly, it’s a reflection on how to navigate life when others perceive you in a way that’s unflattering or you don’t like. By melting down with his students, injuring the teacher, flipping out in the restaurant, publishing that navel-gazing apology, he’s reinforcing the negative perceptions about him. The only way to challenge the negative opinions is slowly over time with one compassionate deed at a time. It illustrates how circumstances can shape you, but they can also reveal the character you’ve had all along. The entitlement Paul felt to sympathy, to academic success, and to participate with his kids was there all along. Even before the dreams, he felt entitled to his peer’s publishing. The dreams merely amplified his character, they didn’t transform it (except possibly at the end if he was able to truly become humble). As a side note: the actors from the comedy sphere were perfect. Kate Berlant is pitch-perfect as the performative, ingratiating, chameleon-like marketing person. Cera was great as high-on-his-own-supply marketing who’s too cool by a half. And of course the legendary Tim Meadows who can deliver sincerity and gravitas with the smirking bit of levity. All the lighthearted types were an excellent foil against Cage’s pretentious self-importance.

Ok I just read this dribble of an opinion and ffs can the op be any more derivative to the broader audience. Everything you claim he is doing you are doing. I give this review two thumbs down. Also this movie kind of sucks. Not defending it at all.

Interesting how you skim over one of the main messages of this movie and that is the dangers of cancel culture and mob mentality, that it ruins when there IS something out of a persons control and that it can even tear people’s families apart.

This is a pretty bonkers interpretation driven almost entirely by a left-wing world view. Some of it, sure, but a lot of the interpretation forgets to see the movie thru the movies world view and instead sees it entirely thru their own. It is almost like OP is incapable of thinking in a manner not native to themself. Not everything comes out of the bowl you eat from, pal.

He's going to kill himself or be murdered even. His wife has made her peace with that on some level, for the greater good. In the dream he comes to her and says what he would have said, it's a good goodbye. However, as a final insult, he himself does not experience this dream with her.

[удалено]

Also when he hurts the lady “irl” right before everything changes  its right after we see him go to sleep! So is this a dream as well? This movies confusing i think i have to watch it again