Are the two main characters one and the same?
...especially given the fact that the "young man's" character has no name. I've only seen one other person mention this here.
shareAre the two main characters one and the same?
I see no suggestion of this in the film. Where do you think the film implies this? Also how is this possible since in the film the waitress talks both to the young man and Cobb while they sit at the table. The blonde also talks to Cobb about the young man: wouldn't she be confused about who Cobb is setting up to take the fall? Or is your suggestion that she knows and plays along with this dual personality?
given the fact that the "young man's" character has no name
This is incorrect. The young man has 2 names given in the film. He gives his name to Cobb as "Bill" (though Cobb seems to suggest that he knows this is not his name). The young man gives "The Blonde" his name as "Daniel Lloyd" (and the end indicates that this name came from a stolen credit card).
Cobb is the only one with a name in the credits. The other characters are credited as: The Blonde, The Policeman, The Bald Guy, Home Owner, Waitress, Barman, Accountant, Heavy #1, Heavy #2, Man at Bar, Woman at Bar, Home Owner's Friend, Home Owner's Husband.
I've only seen one other person mention this here.
This post http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/board/nest/164264083?p=1 seems to have 3 people making that suggestion (unless you think all 3 are the same person just using different names). There have been other threads that I recall as well in the time I have posted here. IMDB removes older, inactive posts so many are no longer around.
But the answer always come that the film never seems to offer this as a suggestion and, while both are in the cafe, the waitress talks to each of them. share
You have to realize that the _entire film_ is the young man recounting a _story_ to the Policeman. Why does the movie start and end with the conversation between the young man and the policeman - what is the purpose of this other than some sort of deviousness on the director's part. I'm suggesting that Nolan pulled a Hitchcockian Stage Fright. The plot just seemed too far fetched to be realistic.
shareYou have to realize that the _entire film_ is the young man recounting a _story_ to the Policeman.
That is not true. The reveal segments are things that neither the young man, nor the policeman know.
Why does the movie start and end with the conversation between the young man and the policeman - what is the purpose of this other than some sort of deviousness on the director's part.
It is technique know as framing a story. It thus can employ a type of in media res to put us in the middle of the story at the start to build tension and suspense.
I'm suggesting that Nolan pulled a Hitchcockian Stage Fright.
We know what YOU are suggesting. Where does the film suggest it?
The plot just seemed too far fetched to be realistic
And the young man was not bright enough to realize it. That seemed to be the point. It was a setup by Cobb. Why would the young man be making up this story to the policeman and making himself the criminal? share
That is not true. The reveal segments are things that neither the young man, nor the policeman know.You mean the segments where the blonde has a conversation with Cobb? share
The credits on imdb which I assume are taken straight from the film's credits has him listed simply as "The Young Man".
shareThe credits on imdb which I assume are taken straight from the film's credits has him listed simply as "The Young Man".
And as I indicated, the credits for all the other characters (except Cobb) are descriptions as well: The Blonde, The Policeman, The Bald Guy, Home Owner, Waitress, Barman, Accountant, Heavy #1, Heavy #2, Man at Bar, Woman at Bar, Home Owner's Friend, Home Owner's Husband.
Cobb is the only character is who is given a name. The other characters are not. The Young man is given 2 names: Bill and Danny, though the movie suggests (and hence the credits) that neither are his real name.
Is your suggestion that all the characters are Cobb and it is some type of demented powerplay in his mind: a multiple personality disorder? I see no suggestion of this in the film.
I don't even see where you think the film suggests that Cobb and the young man are the same person. Where do you think the film offers this suggestion? It just seems to me to be speculation outside of the film presented.
share
I don't think you're getting what he's saying. He's not suggesting a dual personality or anything like that... Because he is talking to the police at the beginning and the end it implies the story that unfolds is the story he is telling the investigator; thus it could be completely fabricated to save his ass, but the evidence eventually suggests otherwise.
That being said, I don't actually believe this, I just thought I would clear things up. I think Cobb is real and he is one smart mother *beep*
I don't think you're getting what he's saying. He's not suggesting a dual personality or anything like that... Because he is talking to the police at the beginning and the end it implies the story that unfolds is the story he is telling the investigator; thus it could be completely fabricated to save his ass, but the evidence eventually suggests otherwise.
Perhaps that is what the OP is suggesting, but then see the Subject of the query ("Are the two main characters one and the same?"). If it were as you suggested shouldn't the question be: "Does Cobb really exist?"). I also fail to see the point of the significance of the young man not having a name in the credits, since the young man would be existing, it is Cobb who would not be existing and he should have no name. We will have to see if the OP is suggesting a twist like Fight Club, Identity, Usual Suspects, Psycho, Citizen Kane, or what...
but the evidence eventually suggests otherwise.
My point, there is nothing to suggest in the film that Cobb does not exist given the structure of the film, expecially the reveal segments. The cop is not telling us that and it does not seem to come from the young man.
I think Cobb is real and he is one smart mother *beep*
I don't think it was neccessarily Cobb who was smart. He was doing as the Bald Guy directed him to do. The Bald guy was smart to eliminate witness to a murder who was blackmailing him, and if the evidence of the blackmail was found, that would also point to the young man as well as additional motive for her death.
share
[deleted]
I doubt the specifics of the plan were planned out by the bald man. Cobb seems like a person to work alone to some extent, he was working for the money.. I kinda agree he is smart.
Besides that there is no way that the two main characters are the same, I have little doubt about that. Although its a excellent observation that he is not in the credits, I hadn't noticed that. But as the last poster said, it would be Cobb that wouldn't exist (due to the lack of records of his existence) rather than the young man
Although its a excellent observation that he is not in the credits
But he IS in the credits. He is "The Young Man". Are we supposed to believe that all the characters are Cobb, since he is only one with a credited name and everyone else is a description? share
If you look at many of Nolan's films, there are many that include instances such as the Following in which Nolan leaves a sense of uncertainty at the end of the film. I believe that Nolan did with this movie as he did with Memento; he left the ending up to the interpretation of the viewer. Nolan is truly a masterful director, so who's to say that he didn't use the interrogation technique to purposefully plant the seed of doubt in the viewer. We don't *truly know if Cobb exists, because every single scene in the movie was from the recounting of the story that is told to the police officer. Also, why would Nolan *only mention Cobb in the credits, if none other than to suggest that there truly was not two separate characters? It doesn't seem to make sense that he wouldn't mention the Young Man as Bill.
There still is a possibility that Cobb and the Young Man are one and the same. You cannot deny that.
If you look at many of Nolan's films, there are many that include instances such as the Following in which Nolan leaves a sense of uncertainty at the end of the film.
And in those instances the uncertainty is explicit. What in the film offers the suggestion that Cobb does not exist?
We don't *truly know if Cobb exists, because every single scene in the movie was from the recounting of the story that is told to the police officer.
That is not true. The reveal segments are things that neither the young man, nor the policeman know.
Also, why would Nolan *only mention Cobb in the credits, if none other than to suggest that there truly was not two separate characters?
Cobb is not just in the credits, he appears as a character in the film. Cobb and the Young Man (as are others in the film) are all listed in the credits.
Your would seem to have more of an argument that Cobb was only person to exist since he is only one named in the credits. All the other characters are given descriptions: The Blonde, The Policeman, The Bald Guy, Home Owner, Waitress, Barman, Accountant, Heavy #1, Heavy #2, Man at Bar, Woman at Bar, Home Owner's Friend, Home Owner's Husband. [Since you have brought up other Nolan films, are you also suggesting that only "The Doctor", the Blonde, and the Tattoist are the only real characters in Memento since they are the only ones without names in the credits and that all the characters with names must not exist? I just don't follow the logic]
It doesn't seem to make sense that he wouldn't mention the Young Man as Bill.
The Young man gives 2 names in the film. He tells Cobb that his name is "Bill" and he tells the Blonde that his name is "Danny". The the movie suggests that neither are his real name and hence the credits just list him as young man.
There still is a possibility that Cobb and the Young Man are one and the same. You cannot deny that.
I don't deny it. You just haven't indicated in the film where there is a suggestion of this. It is also possible that everyone is figment of Cobb's imagination.
[If Cobb and Bill are meant to be the same person, why do people in the film talk to both of them in the same scene? Why in the scenes that the Young man is NOT describing do they show Cobb in them and not the young man: it seems to me that Blonde thinks of them as 2 different people.] share
1. That is a good point in that it usually is explicit whether there is uncertainty in the end of Nolan's films. I can agree with that.
2. I'm going to assume from your typo (I think it's a typo or a slip in grammar, I'm not sure however), that you meant to say "the revealed segments are things that neither the young man, nor the policeman know." If you meant to say that, then my rebuttal is the revealed segments could be part of the story made up by the Young Man, if the events were truly a story that he made up. The entire film is encapsulated within the story the Young Man reveals to the policeman (who is also part of the Nolan family btw), therefore you could take that and say that the revealed segments of Cobb and the Blonde talking are figments of the Young Man's imagination that he made up to help delude himself or the officer. It's a stretch, sure, but it isn't certain in this movie. [I'm just trying to be difficult ;)]
3. I'm sorry I think you misunderstood what I meant. 'Cobb' is the only proper noun in the credits; the other characters are all named using general character descriptions. You could view the fact that Cobb is the only name in the credits to emphasize the point that Cobb is the central character that the Young Man forged for the policeman. That was my initial point. [Also, I don't think that's a relevant argument, and Memento has too much *beep* to discuss :D That belongs on another board.]
4. The Young Man does give two names in the film, and your point is a very valid point. However, you could also say that when he used the name Danny, that that name was explicitly false because of the credit card handed to the Young Man by Cobb.
5. Another good point, but I believe that there doesn't have to be an overt indication or suggestion of an open plot set up for interpretation. But then you can say that Memento and all other Nolan movies do have overt suggestions of a plot open for interpetation, and this does not.
[If they talk in the same scene, my point was that that scene is a fabrication made up by the Young Man. As I said earlier, the scenes in which the Young Man is not present could be a fabrication of the Young Man's memory that he doesn't overtyl express. It could help in his delusion to the policeman. It's still open for interpretation. And the Blonde is dead, so we don't really know if she viewed Cobb and the Young Man as two different people.]
A new point: I say that the last scene helps to support my argument. The visualisation of Cobb disappearing into the crowd reinforces the idea that Cobb is not an actual person.
1. That is a good point in that it usually is explicit whether there is uncertainty in the end of Nolan's films. I can agree with that.
And to me this is a very critical point. Why presume uncertainty when none is suggested? It is like watching a mystery where the sleuth explains at the end what happened and you choose to ignore it, believing the sleuth is wrong.
2. I'm going to assume from your typo (I think it's a typo or a slip in grammar, I'm not sure however), that you meant to say "the revealed segments are things that neither the young man, nor the policeman know."
Not I meant (and perhaps I should have included the quotes) "Reveal segments". These are segments that we as viewers seem but are not part of the young man's perspective nor are things the policeman know.
The film is highly structured in its pattern. There is a "framing narrative" containing the young man and the policeman which sets up what amount to "flashbacks". The flashbacks seem to me to use the framing as "setup" but do seem to have the viewer seeing what happened, not just what the young man is describing. The flashbacks have 3 separate "timelines" and they are distinguished primarily by the young man's appearance. We have the young man: 1) Unshaven with long hair, 2) Clean shaven with short hair, 3) Clean shaven with short hair and a bruised face. The framing sequence takes place during/after after "timeline3" due to his appearance.
There are 3 "reveal segments" (perspectives outside the young man's) that occur when a timeline segments "ends" (transitions from one to the next) and the reveal occurs just after the transition time.
If you meant to say that, then my rebuttal is the revealed segments could be part of the story made up by the Young Man, if the events were truly a story that he made up.
I disagree that the non-framing sequences are suggested by the film to be a "story made up by the Young Man". What in the film suggests to you that is is meant to be "made up" and that we are not being shown the "truth" of what happened? As mentioned before the "reveal segments" are also outside his perspective, I see nothing to indicate that they are part of his narrative. How can he narrate segments he didn't know and why would he give the same information from 2 perspectives (Cobb telling the blonde how he was using the young man and the blonde telling the young man). The final reveal is being shown during the framing sequence while the policeman is talking, not the young man.
The entire film is encapsulated within the story the Young Man reveals to the policeman
No it is not. It is framed by it, but it contains "reveal segments" that are not from the young man's perspective, so are not part of his story.
the revealed segments of Cobb and the Blonde talking are figments of the Young Man's imagination that he made up to help delude himself or the officer. It's a stretch, sure, but it isn't certain in this movie.
But where does the film suggest this? Flashbacks are uncertain in ANY film: we can always conclude it is a story, or a figment, but what in the film leads to that conclusion. Where does the film suggest any uncertainty that what we see in the flashbacks is not "true".
[In films of that type, flashbacks would normally not have someone interacting in the same scene with both characters and they would have some "reveal segment" where it shows the "real character" acting as the "figment". I just don't see where you get that suggestion from the film]
3. I'm sorry I think you misunderstood what I meant. 'Cobb' is the only proper noun in the credits; the other characters are all named using general character descriptions. You could view the fact that Cobb is the only name in the credits to emphasize the point that Cobb is the central character that the Young Man forged for the policeman.
I understood your point. As I mentioned, it would make more sense with Cobb being the only name (techincally speaking even the name "cobb" is not a "proper noun" in teh credits, the descriptions are lower case, so none are proper nouns, proper nouns are capitalized), to believe he was the ONLY character and all others were the figments. Character descriptions are used in many films when the author does not choose to create names for the characters.
[Also, I don't think that's a relevant argument, and Memento has too much *beep* to discuss
You brought up uncertainty in other Nolan films, and that film does have some names and some people with just descriptions. By the logic you used with the film Following one would conclude that Nolan only meant the doctor, the tattooist and the blonde to be real and the rest are just figments in Memento. But I see nothing in the either film to draw that conclusion.
4. The Young Man does give two names in the film, and your point is a very valid point. However, you could also say that when he used the name Danny, that that name was explicitly false because of the credit card handed to the Young Man by Cobb.
But when he tells the Blonde we don't know that. And while the name "Bill" is not explicitly shown to be false, the implication from Cobb (when the young man says his name) is that it is false. [Also if his real name were "Bill" don't you think that Cobb would have mentioned the "coincidence" that the young man's UB40 showed the apartment owner was named "Bill" just like the young man?]
5. Another good point, but I believe that there doesn't have to be an overt indication or suggestion of an open plot set up for interpretation.
Not to be "an open plot set up for interpretation", there is always some interpretation in any "art". But the film sets the "boundaries" for those interpretations within the film. One can conclude that "the policeman" was not a cop, but was actually "the Bald Guy"'s boss, but the film does not suggest this. One could conclude that none of it was real, but just a story idea that Cobb had come up with.
For me there needs "to be an overt indication or suggestion" to indicate that it is suggested by the film and not just speculation outside the film. And while there is nothing wrong with speculation outside the film, I prefer to interpret the film and not what amounts to "fan-fiction".
But then you can say that Memento and all other Nolan movies do have overt suggestions of a plot open for interpetation, and this does not.
But even those have limits within the framework of the film. Are we discussing the film as shown and what it suggests or do you want to discuss anything and everything not explicilty refuted by the film? While it is often fun to discuss what is allowed and what "could be" true, I prefer to stick to what the film actually shows.
[If they talk in the same scene, my point was that that scene is a fabrication made up by the Young Man. As I said earlier, the scenes in which the Young Man is not present could be a fabrication of the Young Man's memory that he doesn't overtyl express. It could help in his delusion to the policeman. It's still open for interpretation. And the Blonde is dead, so we don't really know if she viewed Cobb and the Young Man as two different people.]
Once you presume that the scenes in the film may not be true, you pretty much indicate that ANYTHING is possible....
It was also not just the Blonde who treated them as different, the waitress did as well.
I say that the last scene helps to support my argument. The visualisation of Cobb disappearing into the crowd reinforces the idea that Cobb is not an actual person.
[The script does not seem to support that idea
EXT. BUSY WEST END STREET CROWDED WITH PEDESTRIANS - DAY
Cobb comes out of a café and walks away from us down the street.
He stops and looks back towards us over his shoulder as if to check that no one is following him.
Satisfied, he turns back, moves off and is swallowed by the mass of pedestrians crossing the frame in slo-mo and we:
FADE TO BLACK.
There is nothing of "vanishes as he if never existed" that you seem to see in it. To me it alludes to a short story called "The Man of the Crowd" written by Edgar Allan Poe about a nameless narrator following a man through a crowded London.
As mentioned earlier, showing non-existence would be done by having no one ever talk to one or the other when both are present, and to have flashbacks at the end showing us things being done by the young man, that we saw Cobb doing earlier in the film.
So as I mentioned, while it is "possible" (not refuted by the film) I see nothing in the film that suggests that Cobb did not exist in the framework of the film. It is just as possible that the policeman killed the blonde in your argument and the young man only imagined it was Cobb] share
Instead of responding, to your entire post, let me start by stating that I do not myself believe that Cobb and the Young Man are one and the same. There is more than enough evidence to validate the hypothesis that the two characters are indeed separate people.
I wanted, however, to point out that there truly is a possibility that they are one and the same. You cannot support validate your argument to be truth when it is based on opinion. I'm going to take a nihilist approach here and say that when it comes to film, there is never objective truth. What we understand to be any movie is merely the images that we are subjected and our subsequent postulations of our own understanding of the movie based on our own perspective.
I'm saying you can take this either way and run with it in regards to Following. From one viewpoint the initial frame of the scene with the policeman can be indicative, however subtly mind you, that everything is based on the account offered by the Young Man at that interview. In this postulate, the "reveal segments" as you call them are not even analogous because they are fictional. The other argument, and the one you are arguing, is that the "reveal segments" are indeed separate from the account given from the Young Man. There is much larger evidence to support this argument as you've shown.
But the beauty of cinema is subtlety. Nolan is a God at making films, and there are numerous subtleties in his films; discussions of his films typically end up as 'you say' 'they say' arguments. Following is not an exception.
I aplaud discourse and abhor discourse-challenged trolls.
There is more than enough evidence to validate the hypothesis that the two characters are indeed separate people.
I never said it was NOT a valid hypothesis, I agreed it was possible. My point remains that it is a possibility that I do not see raised within the film. If you believe that the film raises this possibility (I am not arguing whether the film does or does not refute it) where is it. If the film does not raise the possibility than it is speculation outside of the film.
You cannot support validate your argument to be truth when it is based on opinion.
But I may no claim as to truth of the argument. I only point out what things are shown within the film to come to a conclusion
I'm going to take a nihilist approach here and say that when it comes to film, there is never objective truth. What we understand to be any movie is merely the images that we are subjected and our subsequent postulations of our own understanding of the movie based on our own perspective.
I agree. But though it can allow many interpretations, not all of those interpretations are from the film. There is a big difference between what is allowed (not refuted) by the film and what is implied or suggested by the film. There is a possibility that Cobb does not exist, but there is a possibility that the blonde does not exist or the policeman does not exist or even that the young man does not exist. In reality none of them do exist, but we are supposed to imagine that there are events that occur in the "film world" that may be outside our "real world".
I'm saying you can take this either way and run with it in regards to Following.
You can do that with any film or story. Take Gregory Maguire's novel "Wicked" or even the musical based on it compared to the film The Wizard of Oz. Maquire's events are a possible explanation for the film, but it is not what the film suggests. It is speculative fiction outside the events of that film or even of the L. Frank Baum novel that the film was based upon.
From one viewpoint the initial frame of the scene with the policeman can be indicative, however subtly mind you, that everything is based on the account offered by the Young Man at that interview.
But even this presumption does not raise the question that the "two main characters one and the same". It would offer the conclusion that the story was made up and different events occured and means that the film has less answers since anything outside of what is shown in the interview room is speculation outside of what the film shows. The only things we can trust and draw conclusions about is how much of what the policeman says is true. And for all we know (in the nihilistic approach) he may also be a figment of the young man's (or someone else's) mind.
The entire movie may be about Cobb (the only one with a name) and the rest are just characters in a story he is working on...
In this postulate, the "reveal segments" as you call them are not even analogous because they are fictional. The other argument, and the one you are arguing, is that the "reveal segments" are indeed separate from the account given from the Young Man. There is much larger evidence to support this argument as you've shown.
Except that without being in the scenes the young man can not know what occured. The first reveal he gets an account of it from the blonde (to me in a film sense supporting that the idea of a reveal to us and then some reveal of that event to the protagonist), but it makes little sense from a young man to policeman to tell the event to the cop that he did not witness and then also tell him about what the blonde told him.
And why would the young man tell the cop about what cobb did in killing her before the cop indicates it? The final "reveal segment" is dispersed through the final frame and the events shown come before what the policeman says. [The interspersing with the frame at the end, mirrors the interspersing at the beginning of the several timelines. It seems to me less suggestive of the young man narrating the story, more of demonstrating the framework of the narrative structure of the film for us]
But the beauty of cinema is subtlety. Nolan is a God at making films, and there are numerous subtleties in his films; discussions of his films typically end up as 'you say' 'they say' arguments.
I agree, but the question remains are we discussing the suggestions that the Nolan (and the film) raise or essentially the unlimited number of possibilities that are not raised by the film but are not refuted by the film?
My preference is to discuss the film and the ideas from the film. I like to leave the "fan-fiction" to fanzines. share
I will try to point out how the movie gives the idea that they could be the same person.
My point remains that it is a possibility that I do not see raised within the film.
I see it raised in the film. To me, the story-telling technique that Nolan uses in the film alludes to this. The story he tells to the cop, and the story that the cop maintains is real, are clearly conflicting tales. Why would Nolan do this? To introduce uncertainty in the viewer. The cop tells the Young Man that the police found the lady he murdered and the hammer he used to murder her. From the cop's point of view, Cobb does not exist and the Young Man is using this as an alibi to get out of being convicted for the murder. This could all be easily explained.
But even this presumption does not raise the question that the "two main characters one and the same". It would offer the conclusion that the story was made up and different events occured
It does. You have to think of it in a certain way, however; it's the way I looked at it at first. It raises the presumption that the Young Man is trying to make the cop believe that someone else did the murder by fabricating the name Cobb and his actions. Therefore, if the cop does believe the Young Man, then in the cop's perspective Cobb did those things; while, in reality, the Young Man did those things. Thus the Young Man and Cobb are the same because they're both the murderers of the blonde women.
The movie as we see it comes from the perspective of the cop; what we hear is what the cop hears from the Young Man. So if the Young Man lies to the cop, we don't know it. We can't know if he's lying. We only know the evidence, and the story told to us from the Young Man.
I aplaud discourse and abhor discourse-challenged trolls. share
sdckapr, I like you in a non-emotional way. You're intelligent, you argue effectively and nicely. Have you ever seen the movie Pi?
I aplaud discourse and abhor discourse-challenged trolls.
What we have to remember is that the glorious thing about film is that the techniques of one movie will not be identical to those of another. While some movies may have a named central protagonist invent an unnamed figment of his imagination, others may (and have - I could give examples, but don't want to spoil movies other than that being discussed) turn such a convention on his head. Consider, for a moment, that the Young Man invented Cobb. Imagine that Cobb is some sort of demon within him. By only naming this inner aspect of the character, it makes that single element stronger and more powerful than the protagonist himself, overshadowing him and making him nothing. Again, there's another very big movie that does this - if you've seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Now, I think Nolan's primary intention was for the movie as a whole to be real. Why? Because the vast majority of evidence says there's nothing else to it. However, there are some very subtle implications for those with a bit of imagination. The naming bit is somewhat arbitrary - the final shot, however, is not. You posted the script to prove this wrong - I, however, think that proves Nolan's suggestion even more.
No finished movie is ever what was imagined in the script. Ever. In fact, there are frequently blatant differences - in Dog Day Afternoon, for instance, many lines were improvised, including many of the most famous ones. Here, the script calls for Cobb to turn and walk away, but the movie instead shows a stream of people passing by as he pulls a Batman.
The director's intention also does not need to be one way or the other, especially not with Nolan who I think explicitly stated that it doesn't matter whether the top wobbled. How I imagine it: He showed the script to someone, and they said, "Hey, you know what would be cool - if the entire story was in the Young Man's head!" And Nolan said, "Hm, interesting."
The first implication of the theory is the last line of the film. When the cop entirely disregards everything the Young Man has said, and the Young Man is unable to deny the cop's implications. Then we see Cobb disappear.
It doesn't mean anything, but it allows that very simple suggestion for the more imaginative folks in the audience to take off with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]