MovieChat Forums > The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013) Discussion > Of course he NEVER actually travelled to...

Of course he NEVER actually travelled to Greenland, Iceland, etc.

posted 11 years ago by John-G
101 replies | jump to latest

Warning; this post obviously contains spoilers!

Well, I never intended to create this topic in the first place because I thought my observations were obvious. I guess not. I was surprised reading so many posts here on imdb (and of some critics) of people who really think he went to Greenland, Iceland and Afghanistan and he really made it to the cover of the magazine.

As the movie shows in the beginning, most of his life (in particular the adventures) are daydreams. Do people really think the travelled to Greenland? Battled sharks? Stars at skateboarding? Escaped a volcanic eruption? Climbed mountains? Made it to the cover of LIFE? And, perhaps, got the girl?

Is this a feelgood movie? Why? He got fired for losing a negative (creating his own imaginary adventure based on photos to retrieve it from his wallet), never leaves New York, only has a helpdesk guy to talk to on the phone, and hopelessly tries to approach a female colleague who already started dating a guy (her outdated profile is broken which explains why he cant sent a wink). It made me feel pretty sad at the ending. On the other hand, this "secret life" of his brings him to mountains in Afghanistan while actually being in a city park next to kids playing soccer. This makes his life richer than any of us can imagine, so ok, for that reason, it can be considered a feel good movie..............

The hints that most stuff is not real are countless:
1. The sequences at the beginning of the movie of him being a hero heavily warning the viewer. 2. his cell phone reception talking with the dating-site helpdesk in the middle of nowhere. The calls are real, but the location and the conversation itself arent. 3. A NY pizza place in Iceland when he steps out of a car. 4. unrealistic action (eruption, sharks, high-altitude mountain climbing). 5. kids playing soccer on high mountains like its a park. 6. After his final hero talk with the bearded bad-guy, he suddenly is in the elevator with a colleague, showing it was again just a day dream. 7. the cellphone text message of his colleague on the mountain which only half-succeeds to bring him back to reality.

Any moment that is normal is real, any moment where he is a hero is obviously not. The only doubt is created in the final scene with the girl, I really hope for him that was real!!......

Many people might find this post obvious, so my sincere apologies to them. Its just surprising that a movie like "Life of Pi" (similar to this one since what you see isn't "real") needs to put in a final scene to explain stuff, which was not necessary of course. As soon as it is not explained (as in this movie), its shocking to see how many people take what they see literal....... How many hints do you need? Does it really need to be spelled out for you all time? I also thought about the excellent horror movie "Drag me to hell" which shows the mental state of a woman with an eating-disorder, but never spells this out to the viewer, resulting in >90% of the viewers misinterpreting the entire movie.

In hindsight, I have to agree with the critics that this movie is not as good as it could have been. Its a commercial-like "feel good" movie that is misinterpreted by many people. Deep issues remain unfortunately unaddressed, making the movie shallow (nonetheless amusable!). Truly good scenes are absent. Its just nothing compared to something like Forest Gump.

[–] frogca 10 years ago

>Watch or read discussions with Ben Stiller about the movie. Watch "The making of Walter Mitty" on HBO. Walter traveled to Greenland, Iceland, and Afphganistan. PERIOD. It Happened. It was real. THERE IS NO DEBATE. I will grant that the cell-phone coverage is a huge plot-hole. STOP with the theories that it's "open for interpretation". Sorry , it simply IS NOT.

Sorry, but the film-maker on a promo tour, or anywhere else, is not the final word on what the meaning of the movie is, in my opinion. Ditto any artist - the meaning resides in the art, not in the artist. They can tell you their intention, or a promo lie as I think Stiller is doing if he acted as you say. It makes the movie palatable to the audience that needs to see it that way, the audience that can't see the emperor has no clothes, the audience that accepts that view of reality and doesn't see the other more painful view of reality.

[–] parbon84 10 years ago

"that actually happened" the quote after the shark scene.

It happened.

Its unreal, thats the point, he has to finally get involved in his own life, to WAKE UP!

[–] another242 9 years ago

Frogca: are you seriously saying that what the filmmaker told us about the character is wrong, and you are right?

Wow.

[–] frogca 10 years ago

>Any moment that is normal is real, any moment where he is a hero is obviously not. The only doubt is created in the final scene with the girl, I really hope for him that was real!!......

Yeah, about that. He behaves very differently. His facial expressions are different, his ability to pause and be receptive rather than zoning out. This is not an easy thing to learn, and I have no reason to believe he learned it. I feel it is unresolved, though I have the same uncomfortable sense of unreality in his changed behaviour as I do about the other events such as cellphone reception, ability to climb in low-oxygen environment, etc, etc. There's no reason why he couldn't have that relationship, as Emily has been somewhat receptive all along. He just has to cut the daydreaming and focus outwards non-neurotically. Just that.

Maybe I'll watch it again some day.

[–] jerelvis 10 years ago

I'm sorry "John-G" but if you think he didn't actually travel to those places, then you missed the entire point of the movie. It was not all a daydream. You are over-thinking things WAY too much. Sucks for you, because it's a great movie. That's all I have to say.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tobisama 10 years ago

The movie establish at the very beginning that every time he starts daydreaming, someone or something interrupts his fantasy. In his last two fantasies, the woman singing, we can see that the girl disappears, so his dream stops and when he saw the birds with the girl's face, he crashes with the signal and falls, so again his dream stops.

The idea of everything just being a fantasy is really really ridiculous.

And lately I have found a big lot of films, and a posts with someone saying that everything is just a dream, an hallucination, etc.

Not even the wikipedia plot mention that possibility.

The case would be very different with a clue from the creators at the very end, big example would be the last seconds of inception.

.....or even better let's say the classical: "he was in comma and everything was a dream", that can be applied to every movie ever made.

I'm pretty sure that this is not the case here.

[–] tobisama 10 years ago

And there is something that I think nobody has mentioned.

In the closing credits of the film, they show us photographs ONLY with images of the life of Walter, that's very clear (travels, work, friends, family).

Photographs = real events.

None of the photographs show Walter's fantasies.

They even show us a photograph of Walter and Cheryl in the future, they are old and they are still a couple.

That's proof enough. There is nothing else to say.

[–] Mickyfinn 10 years ago

Actually I think they show stills from his "Benjamin Button" fantasy, so I don't know about that theory. But I totally stand that Walter did do ll the things we are discussing here.

You just have to be resigned-
You're crashing by design

[–] tobisama 10 years ago

Nope, I saw the credits just before my post, and there are zero references to his fantasies in the photographs of the closing credits. I'm 100% sure.

They both appear old, maybe that's the image you are confusing with the Benjamin Button segment.

This is the image:
http://i.imgbox.com/gdhoGNaN.jpg

In the Benjamin button reference he was old with the body of a child, and it was during day, this image is different, they are showing us the future.

[–] Mickyfinn 10 years ago

You are correct sir. That does appear to be the only 'future' photograph though - unless I missed others.

You just have to be resigned-
You're crashing by design

[–] dgcasey 10 years ago

I'm not sure what photo you're talking about showing them as an old couple. Obviously the Benjamin Button photos aren't what you're talking about. The only other photo you can be referring to is when they are showing Shirley MacClaine's name on the screen and that is a photo of her as a younger woman and it's meant to be a picture of Walter's mom and dad. There's also the photo of the middle-aged couple sitting on the couch and the boy holding up the Stretch Armstrong toy and that is meant to be his mom and dad again and him as a boy. There are no photos of Walter and Cheryl as a future couple.

[–] KingCobra686 10 years ago

I do enjoy this theory and I'm glad you brought it up.

I really dont think that this was the intent of the movie though. This is a much darker interpretation of the events we saw but everything in the movie pointed towards it being a "feel-good" type of film. As others have mentioned, the people who made this film have described it as Walter moving from his daydreams to real life.

But does any of that matter? As much as they want to be, the actors/director/producers of a movie are not the final authority on what the movie means. I dont think you can argue that this was the overall intent of the film, but no one can tell you that your interpretation is completely wrong.