The wonderful thing about this film is: whether the number of CLAY members is 4 or 1, and at the end of the film, it is still like the life and death of Schrödinger's cat in an undecided state. The male protagonist believes that the number of CLAY members is 4 from beginning to end, and he is only willing to accept this state. The prosecutor, through his own reasoning and "re-checking", believes that the number of CLAY members is 1, and he is only willing to believe this conclusion. And for the audience, the observation and reasoning themselves have an impact on the conclusion.
The general outline of the plot is: the male protagonist deliberately misled the prosecutor to draw the conclusion that the male protagonist has a split personality and the number of CLAY members should be 1. And when people were released in the car, the male protagonist deliberately challenged the prosecutor and told her with the magic of 4 to 1 sugar cubes: 4 is the real number of members, and 1 is what I want you to see. After the male protagonist got out of the car and disappeared, the prosecutor doubted his conclusion for a moment, but he quickly passed his own "re-check" and insisted that what he saw was the truth, and at the same time challenged the sugar magic on the male protagonist's car The behavior is interpreted as: the male protagonist refuses to think that he has a split personality, is unwilling to accept the reality that the number of members is 1, and only wants to believe that the number of members is 4.
Under the setting of the above outline, according to the number of members is 4 and 1, whether the male protagonist really has a split personality, 4 possible realities can be combined:
1. The number of members is 4, and the male protagonist has no split personality;
2. The number of members is 1, and the male protagonist has a split personality;
3. The number of members is 4, and the male protagonist has a split personality;
4. The number of members is 1, and the male protagonist has no split personality.
The first case is the easiest conclusion to draw from the plot of the movie, which is equivalent to affirming the male protagonist's plan to escape from the shell, but thinking that the prosecutor has been deceived and unaware. But in fact, there are also unexplainable details, which are mainly reflected in the second half of the heroine cooperating with the male protagonist to create scams and following the male protagonist to escape. And the female protagonist in these plots is very like another character split from the male protagonist. That is, the male protagonist actually has a split personality, which is the contradiction.
The second case is also a conclusion that is easier to draw from the plot of the movie, which is equivalent to affirming the prosecutor's reasoning, so that the heroine's performance of following the hero in the second half of the episode can be interpreted as another split personality of the hero. . Further analysis in this case shows that the prosecutor and the audience believe that the male protagonist has a split personality, but the male protagonist himself does not think that he has a split personality from beginning to end. And the funny thing is that the male protagonist tried to "mislead" the prosecutor through various clues to come to the conclusion that the male protagonist has a split personality in order to hide and rescue his organization members, but these members do not actually exist, but he splits up personality. After the sugar magic challenge above the car, the prosecutor once thought that he had been deceived. As a result, through "re-examination", he was convinced that the male protagonist was a split personality, and at the same time realized the strange state of the male protagonist: pretending to be split personality to rescue the members of the organization, but not I don't know that I do have a split personality, and I don't know that the members of the organization I am trying to rescue are just split personalities and do not exist as real people. What's even more bizarre is that although the prosecutor has told him the truth, he is still unwilling to accept and believe the reality that his split personality and other members of the organization do not really exist, and even use sugar cube magic to challenge or reverse preach to the prosecutor: you I just want to "see" the number of members is 1. In fact, what the prosecutor and the audience see is: the male protagonist only wants to "see" the number of members is 4.
The third case, "half-truth", is the most interesting. The general situation is as follows: the male protagonist tried to hide and rescue other members of the real organization in a way that misled the prosecutor into believing that he had a split personality, but the prosecutor found that the male protagonist was a real split personality. As a result, the two of them each got half of the truth and saw the other half of the illusion at the same time. The male protagonist thinks that the number of members is 4 is the truth, but he thinks that he has no split personality and just deceived the prosecutor by pretending to have split personality. This part is an illusion. The prosecutor obtained the half truth that the male protagonist was a split personality, and then believed that the other three members of the organization were just his split personality and did not really exist. This part is an illusion. In this situation, it is logical to interpret the female protagonist in many scenes in the second half as the split personality of the male protagonist. As well as the challenge of sugar magic above the car, it also makes sense and is very enlightening: the prosecutor could not know that the real number of members was 4, not because he was "misled" by the male protagonist, but precisely because of what he found. Half of the truth prevents her from obtaining the other half of the truth. This kind of cognitive trap is quite common in human society. The proverb "only see the trees, but not the forest" probably reflects this phenomenon. The same holds true for male protagonists.
The fourth case is the most tortuous conclusion of reasoning. The general situation is: the male protagonist knows that the number of members is 1, but he said the number of members as 4 from the beginning, and then uses clues to mislead the prosecutor into thinking that he is a split personality, in order to avoid entering the witness plan, trying to use the "patient" way to get out. Prosecutors also determined the number of members to 1 after finding that the male protagonist was split. At this stage, the prosecutor uses the wrong reasoning premise and process to reach the correct conclusion. Then the male protagonist used sugar cube magic to remind the prosecutor in the car that he deliberately led her to convince her that the number of members was 1, and successfully escaped as a "patient". At this time, the prosecutor reflects and uses the wrong premise and reasoning process, then the conclusion should be wrong, so the number of members should be 4. The next scene of the four people on the boat gathering together should be imagined by the prosecutor, including the appearance of the female protagonist on the boat. It can be considered that the prosecutor denied the previous on-site visit to the female protagonist, believing that she and the male protagonist were in a group, and Imagine a scene where they run away together. In the end, the prosecutor found through "re-examination" that the error in the reasoning process was mainly in the belief that the male protagonist was split. Modify the premise but keep the conclusion unchanged, that is, the male protagonist has no split personality, and the number of members is 1. At this point, she will find that the male protagonist is constantly playing with her. She should be angry, but considering that her career had a major turnaround because of this case, and the fact that the male protagonist made a lot of contributions in catching MAX and Fr3nd, what he did before was not too harmful, it is acceptable to let him go. So at the press conference, I finally let go and smiled knowingly.
In short, all four cases make sense, and the magic of this movie is this "hanging".
View more about Who Am I reviews