sus

Well-known member
Some people think the Homeless King is the dog killer because he gets angry when he sees the dog biscuits, but then that could also be because he thinks Garfield's the dog killer.
I think the ambiguity's gotta lean toward Garfield being the dog killer. The Homeless King seems to have principles—Garfield on the other hand... When we're introduced to him, he's a selfish, shallow, unemployed voyeur. Sure, he proceeds put the charm on for his FWB when she comes by, but that should make us trust him less, not more.

And there's something a little off about him, right? Even beyond the biscuits. The strange, violent dreams. Parts of the record of events is missing—he just ends up naked at home after the reservoir, with a big blank space in between. He's not exactly a reliable narrator. Schizophrenia an active possibility—it's a bit like Zodiac or other films, where you can't tell if what he's onto is real or not.
 

sus

Well-known member
I wondered about why she looked at the camera and he watched that bit twice.
I think it's supposed to mirror the opening scene, with the binoculars, or the drone surveillance. Looking through the jealousy blinds. He's watching, but he also seems to be watched. He finds the keep quiet symbol on Sarah's apartment, then finds it in his own.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I think the ambiguity's gotta lean toward Garfield being the dog killer. The Homeless King seems to have principles—Garfield on the other hand... When we're introduced to him, he's a selfish, shallow, unemployed voyeur. Sure, he proceeds put the charm on for his FWB when she comes by, but that should make us trust him less, not more.

And there's something a little off about him, right? Even beyond the biscuits. The strange, violent dreams. Parts of the record of events is missing—he just ends up naked at home after the reservoir, with a big blank space in between. He's not exactly a reliable narrator. Schizophrenia an active possibility—it's a bit like Zodiac or other films, where you can't tell if what he's onto is real or not.
I don't know what FWB means but if it's the half-heartedly doggy styles when she comes round I don't think he turns on that much charm even then.
 

sus

Well-known member
And this to me is the big switch in the film: he starts out in the beginning peering out towards the world. He has plenty of problems at home—dysfunctional family relationships, missing rent, unemployment—but he seems more interested in finding something Out There that catches his interest. His own personal dramas are too boring to even be perceived as dramas.

When he meets the rich old guys who talk about Ascent, about leaving the banality of the modern world behind to some higher spiritual realm—well, isn't this another way of phrasing his own escapism? Chasing insane patterns instead of scraping together a rent check?

At the film's end, he switches apartment to shack up with the birdlady. He ends up in the outside, looking at his own life, his own apartment, instead of inside looking out. He stands on the balcony, watching the sliding glass of his old flat when the landlord enters it—watches it like a movie, like a screen; takes a drag of his cigarette.

There's something meta about the cinematic process—all the Hitchcock nods, the Kubrick nods, the PTA nods, always watching other people's dramas. Then finally learning to turn your own into source material.
 

sus

Well-known member
I don't know what FWB means but if it's the half-heartedly doggy styles when she comes round I don't think he turns on that much charm even then.
Friend with benefits! It's not anything too suave, but compare his treatment of mom.
 

sus

Well-known member
Right—it's like a cross between an exploitation flick (Showgirls) and the Hollywood Culture Mafia genre (Mulholland Drive). The social group is the conspiracy. It's all OK if she consents, though.
See also Jesus & the Brides of Dracula—"You have to sleep with Jesus to become a bride." (Showgirls: You have to give the owner a blowjob if you wanna stay stripping.)
 

sus

Well-known member
Inherent Vice, The Conversation, Eyes Wide Shut.
At least two of these are referenced in the film. It felt like pure genre, or canon pastiche. The car follow scene is basically a remake of the Vertigo car follow scene, down to the music cues and turn sequences. Sarah is a Laura Palmer lookalike. I felt like I saw nods or homages to:

Fisher King
Vertigo
Zodiac
Inherent Vice (chess party)
Mulholland Drive (apartment break-ins, conspiracist friend, Hollywood Culture Mafia)
Eyes Wide Shut
Blue Velvet (hiding in closets)
Short Cuts (Griffith park)
Kiss of the Spider Woman
Chinatown (reservoir)

And half of these, of course, are LA films; the other half are conspiracy flicks
 
Last edited:

sus

Well-known member
I liked the OnlyFans nod ("Shooting Star: fuck your favorite it-girl"). And all the Hollywood Culture Mafia stuff was wonderful, the way that breaking into a cultural network (actors? musicians? what exactly does Garfield wanna be when he breaks up? My guess was failed actor) is a bit like writing up a conspiracy chart on the bulletin board

BTW—what the fuck was up with his handicap permit in his car? This is another sign he may be the dogkiller—some kind of mental disability
 

sus

Well-known member
It's like Luka was saying about MCU, the way many of its problems and technologies are the same as ours but more powerful

The main character may be a schizophrenic dogkiller but his delusions are basically just exaggerations of present conditions, or established historical fact: subliminal media messaging, HCM, wealthy men and their penchant for prostitutes.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
And this to me is the big switch in the film: he starts out in the beginning peering out towards the world. He has plenty of problems at home—dysfunctional family relationships, missing rent, unemployment—but he seems more interested in finding something Out There that catches his interest. His own personal dramas are too boring to even be perceived as dramas.

When he meets the rich old guys who talk about Ascent, about leaving the banality of the modern world behind to some higher spiritual realm—well, isn't this another way of phrasing his own escapism? Chasing insane patterns instead of scraping together a rent check?

At the film's end, he switches apartment to shack up with the birdlady. He ends up in the outside, looking at his own life, his own apartment, instead of inside looking out. He stands on the balcony, watching the sliding glass of his old flat when the landlord enters it—watches it like a movie, like a screen; takes a drag of his cigarette.

There's something meta about the cinematic process—all the Hitchcock nods, the Kubrick nods, the PTA nods, always watching other people's dramas. Then finally learning to turn your own into source material.
Knobbing the bird lady doesn't seem like a long term solution though, I wonder what happens next.
 

sus

Well-known member
The film's apparently set in 2011, Inherent Vice is 1970 and White Rabbit's '67.
Yup I think I mean—despite being set in 2011, there are a ton of late 60s/early 70s references: multiple soundtrack entries, the Jesus band-cult, the vinyl records.
 

luka

Well-known member
Who's the bird lady? I don't remember that bit. Never clocked his name was Garfield either. Is that mentioned in the film or only in the credits?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Yup I think I mean—despite being set in 2011, there are a ton of late 60s/early 70s references: multiple soundtrack entries, the Jesus band-cult, the vinyl records.
But yeah, although have mobile phones people barely use them, the music is old etc or not ultra-modern anyhow.
 

version

Well-known member
Who's the bird lady? I don't remember that bit. Never clocked his name was Garfield either. Is that mentioned in the film or only in the credits?
Garfield's the actor's last name, not the name of the character. Andrew Garfield.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
Top