Jamie and Josh are really the same, right?
Jamie exploits Darby and Josh to make his film, and Josh -- to give his wasted life meaning -- adopts an orphan from a third world country.
Is that what is being said?
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
Josh's father-in-law said to Josh after viewing his rough cut how he had achieved the level of success he had was because he was merciless in pursuing his career. Jamie was clearly merciless.
Josh wanted to make a difference. He wanted things to matter and to effect change in the world because it was the right thing to do. They didn't adopt a child to fill a hole in his life. They adopted a child because it's what they both wanted from the beginning. Much like his own documentary, things had gotten away from him (them) and he was going through the motions not knowing how to achieve what he wanted.
MettaQueensbridgeWarfare writes: "...things had gotten away from him (them) and he was going through the motions not knowing how to achieve what he wanted."
Okay. I see now. Maybe I was making it too hard.
His career was an allegory of his personal life. So, the film makes more sense to me now.
Thanks! Your post was helpful.
"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy
sounds ok but i think the film could have ended differently. what about Josh and Cornelia just flying spontaneously to Paris and doing many things they were just talking about before.
sharenice analysis.
i had a friend who explained his success, substantial, but not huge, as because he had the killer instict.
I've seen a lot of very amoral people succeed in the corporate world as well.
does that necessarily mean that the movers and shakers of the world are not nice people?
Well, Steve Jobs was infamous for being a D-bag...^^
shareThank you for explaining this. I wasn't quite clear where their airplane trip was taking them. Adopting a child makes sense.
share