First of all, let me talk about my own attitude towards this kind of suspense movie. I don't like to find fault. What's wrong with this, I'm more inclined to explain things rationally. I will find one for the seemingly unreasonable places. Reasonable way to explain, as long as it is reasonable and explained. And the premise is not to overturn all opinions, such as denying everything, and calling it a story of schizophrenia. I admit that it cannot be refuted by saying that it is schizophrenia, but this is a philosophical question, and we can treat everything as our imagination, But what's the point? So I share my understanding of the film "Follow".
I think
The outermost content of the film: The boss of the gang murdered the hostess's house and left blood on the carpet. The hostess hid the carpet and threatened the boss that she would use the carpet to testify for his murder, taking this opportunity to blackmail him and not knowing how to restrain. (This detail was explained before Cobb killed the heroine)
So the film is equivalent to telling the story of how a boss gets rid of the threats around him and clears himself of suspicion. The reason for the threat is the heroine herself. Therefore, it is natural for the gang boss to kill the heroine.
The main reasons for killing the heroine:
1. The heroine has already posed the strongest threat to him, as long as the heroine testifies with the bloody carpet.
2. He is looking for a scapegoat to prove that the person who was at the hostess's house was not killed by him. (As long as the female lead is also smashed with fingers and then killed.) (This also explains why he did not kill the female lead himself.)
As for Cobb, as long as Cobb perfectly solves the boss's problem, the boss doesn't care what he does. (The boss doesn't know the specifics of what he's doing.)
[So here I will first explain that this story should not be understood as the cause of schizophrenia (although it is not conclusive evidence, but it is a very important psychological reason, and the psychological reason is easy to be ignored by us)
Nolan is good at narrating from the details, and we normal people understand the natural law of a thing is to start from the big frame, after we know the overall frame of the thing, then fill in the details.
Therefore, in a film like this, all the details of one thing are displayed in front of our eyes, and we will feel that everything is clueless. This is also the goal of the director's non-linear narrative, and we will feel that all the details are unreal. , because we lack a big frame that plays a decisive role in the understanding of the whole thing, and this big frame has been weakened, and we are not easy to notice, this big frame is what I said at the beginning, the gang boss needs to get rid of Therefore, the heroine is mortal, and the death of the heroine is the ultimate goal of the whole incident. (As for why the death of the heroine is so natural to us, I will explain it later)
So if we look at it this way in normal order, with all the bits and pieces and events wrapped in a shell explaining them, at least we won't feel clueless. While there is no hard evidence to refute it is not schizophrenia (and to be honest, even with what we think is hard evidence to rebut it, it wouldn't count as hard evidence in the eyes of someone who already thought it was a schizophrenic event, which I understand), but We are at least more likely not to mistake it for schizophrenia. ]
Then the following is the second layer of events:
Cobb accepted the task of the gang leader, so he tried to set up a plan to complete it. The initial idea was to use the heroine first, deceive the heroine's feelings and approach the heroine (although the heroine is not serious).
So Cobb's fundamental purpose is twofold
1. Cause the death of the heroine and complete the task.
2. He also manages to get himself out of the business while completing the task.
[Here I want to insert the relationship of the second layer event to the previous layer event:
To explain the coincidence, we can analyze the difference between the boss assigning the task and the Cobb completing the task, which is very important!
The boss just arranged for Cobb to cause the death of the heroine and distance himself from him. That's all, how the heroine died and how to clear the relationship, it can be said that he did not know the specific content. He just cares about the result. So we can make up for it. This is really a brain-fill: the boss found that Cobb's extraordinary ability was almost the best candidate, so he asked him to do things. Of course, the benefit was money, and this Cobb was definitely willing. And the specific thing is only related to Cobb. ]
This allows us to analyze the third layer of events:
That is Cobb and the heroine jointly set up a bureau to use Bill to complete the whole thing. This is also the true angle of the film's narrative.
This layer of events is also the most suspicious of why everything is so smooth and ingenious.
So, I came up with an explanation that feels more reasonable, but let's analyze it from the end.
Let's skip to the end of the film and analyze the police case:
Many people say that the police are too stupid, but as far as I know, I think it is reasonable.
Police handling cases pay attention to the chain of evidence, and the chain of evidence is closed, that is, the evidence collected matches their own guesses about the process of the case and the identity of the suspect, so they will close the case and will not collect more evidence to overturn the already established Suppose, we see that there are many cases in the movie where detectives have overturned the cases that have been closed and found the truth, which proves that there are still many wrong cases, and many cases have just ended like this, not against them.
So we might say:
1. There are two fingerprints on the hammer, which proves that not only one person has used the hammer. Why not extract fingerprints after extracting bloodstains?
2. The real heroine's death time and the night watchman's injury/death time are one after the other, which is contradictory to the police's inference, and the position of the hammer is also contradictory. To talk about the heroine who hit first, how did the hammer stay in the heroine? at home?
Yes, but the police don't care about this, and the case is closed when the chain of evidence is closed. Perhaps the technology at that time was limited, and the ability of ordinary police to solve cases was also limited. After all, there were still very few detectives, and perhaps many cases were closed like this.
If it still feels unreasonable, it can only be regarded as Nolan's setting. But I want to say a little more here. This is probably the situation at the time. Nolan created this work because his home was stolen. He is good at finding inspiration from reality, so maybe most of the police he thinks are like this. Ha ha.
From this, we can find that the police are bluntly confounding right and wrong, so we can reverse it according to the results. Since the police decided the case in this way, the analysis of the evidence is superficial, and it is simply based on the obvious evidence to determine the murderer, then Cobb is a Smart people must have basically understood the way the police decided cases at that time, and it was natural for this bureau to be set up like this.
Now we return to the analysis of the third-level event:
First our biggest question: How did Cobb know the Night's Watch was coming? The night watchman appeared so cleverly!
If you think this is unreasonable, we might as well analyze several assumptions that are different from the movie:
1. If Bill didn't bring the hammer to the hostess' house after beating the Night's Watch, how did Cobb get there?
He will take the hammer home, don't forget that Cobb will go to Bill's house to get the money (even if he doesn't take the money, he can still find a way to get into Bill's house), and take the hammer by the way (he can also make some evidence by the way. cover up), the ending is still that he beat the heroine to death, and the police judgement is the same as the movie.
2. If the Night's Watch shows up and kills Bill, how does Cobb get there?
In this case, it can be considered that the night watchman was sent by the boss, which is also equivalent to a game! Most likely it was Bill Jean's boss. It's the boss's place there. Cobb can still find the hammer and take it to kill the heroine. Anyway, the police judged the case upside down. In this case, the police can say that Bill killed the heroine for the password to the safe, and was found by the night watchman while stealing the money. kill.
3. If the Night's Watch didn't show up at all, how did Cobb get there?
The results were analyzed earlier. The most important thing for the police to judge a case is the evidence. If Cobb wanted to harm Bill, if the night watchman did not show up, Bill would take the hammer home. Beating the heroine to death with a hammer is the most important piece of evidence, enough to frame Bill and clear himself and the gang leader. In the end, when the police decide the case, Bill will kill the heroine for the safe password and take the money from the safe, and he will feel that nothing happened, because he stole the money smoothly, so he will not turn himself in, and the police will Take the initiative to come to the door. .
My purpose in making the above assumptions is to prove that Cobb cannot guess everything. There are two criteria for him:
1. Use the underwear of the heroine who stayed at Bill's house to prove that Bill has entered the heroine's house to prove that the heroine was killed by Bill.
2. Use the bank card to deduct the crime of entering someone else's house and taking the bank card on Bill's head, so that he can disappear from the matter.
And these two criteria can be established no matter what assumptions are made, which also proves that those multiple-choice questions are still multiple-choice questions for Cobb, and for us, under the premise that the night watchman's origin is unknown, no matter what Whatever happens, Cobb can achieve his purpose. So, it's not that Cobb anticipated everything, but that no matter what happens, Cobb's trap can be applied to achieve the ultimate goal. So we can assume that Cobb has foreseen multiple possibilities for things, and the trap is effective no matter what, but the final development direction is the most perfect for Cobb.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, we found that the plot can always be reasonably explained, there is no so-called loophole, only the police's way of reversing the time of the case makes us feel strange, but to be honest, this is not a loophole. In short, it can be explained without schizophrenia.
(If you still have doubts about the analysis of the above coincidences, then I hope you will think of someone, his name is Guy Ritchie, and he will tell you: probability, that is nonsense! There is no probability! Then you will feel that all coincidences are logical already...)
View more about Following reviews
