The 3 weird things I'd like explained.
I have to admit that watching films by this director is quite an experience. "Love" was like being in an empty cinema screening with one other bloke while a much better film was going on in the screen next door, you could hear something spectacular was going on but you were stuck with this one bloke and missing it. The Signal was confounding in a whole lot of other ways but I got the over all gist of it. However there were many things that did not make sense and I'm not sure if they were deliberate or down to the director's weirdness or incompetence. I can make up my own mind about a lot of it but on the below I can't;
1) During the opening credits when they're running in the woods, in the background is like a huge wall and a roof like they are actually indoors. Is that a real place near MIT where they did the shot or is that an effect for the film to hint early on about them being in a simulation on a spaceship? Surely there's not a real indoor forest that big for them to film in.
2) If they're on an alien ship would the aliens really label their craft with human numbers or are they really trying to say that Area 51 is actually a human/alien co project, oh and it's in space by the way?
3)Is everything after the coffee spilling scene actually in the simulation and everything up to that point just a flashback? ie at the point where the main guy goes out to the canyon edge to talk to the girl, they both have different clothes on and the main guy is looking around, frowning and feeling the ground as if he feels weird about his environment? Isn't that the same bridge as at the end in the background after all? And when they're back in the car the guy with glasses's phone is broken just as all the tech in the simulation is a bit old and retro, so could they have been in there quite a while with wiped memories.