Total Recall - your interpretation? (spoiler alert!) - Page 2

I believe it was real. The guy sweating and trying to maintain his calm composure makes me think it was really happening to Houser/Quaid.

------------------

Aside from the Blue Sky comment which first started to turn me away from the reality side of the movie, there's what the head of recall says to him before he starts to sweat...he goes on to explain how his dream will go on and on and how he'll be this big hero and even discover alien artifacts on Mars but in the end...he'll be lobotomized. Interesting that he basically plays out the rest of the movie, almost as if he already knew what was going to happen, which one could do if one were to read the implant's storyline.

I had to bring this thread back up because, for some reason, I started thinking about this topic today (dream or reality).

I started to think about the teaser trailer again and started thinking about my previous comment on it, especially:
I was a strong believer that it was real, but now I am not so sure. Actually, I think we are all correct in our assumptions.

Here is what I came up with as an anternative way of looking at the movie, Total Recall. We are debating whether it was either real (he was actually Houser who was brainwashed in believing that he was Quaid) or a dream (he was Quaid and went to Recall for a vacation on Mars). Who is to say that we are both correct if we are dealing with the topic "How would you know if someone stole your mind?". What if what we considered "real" was actually a dream, and vice versa? How would he (Houser/Quaid) know the difference?

We have to go by what evidence, or what he can prove to himself and that becomes questionable if minds can actually be minipulated (memory capable of being erased and implanted with another).

I think this is why Paul Verhoven doesn't really give an answer to either way. I think now that the story was written on the topic of "How would you know..." and can be looked at from both sides and still be right.

Thinking about how the story possibly came from that topic I believe that it should take place in the future since we are still uncertain of the brains fullest capacity, so a story about being able to completely erase your memory and replace it with another is hard to fathom in this day and age. What type of character would you have to surround and support the protaganist? Probably family (wife , Lori - Sharon Stone)and friends (Harry, construction worker) for one side of the coin (Quaid) and on the other (Houser), probably a business partner of some sort (Cohegaan) a mistress (Melina). Who could he turn to for a definite verification? No one really. I mean if your mind can be altered, how would you know either way?

I don't know, maybe I am reading into this a bit much .

Keep in mind that any good conspiracy is unfalsifiable. In other words, all facts can support the conspiracy.

So it was real b/c the guy sweated?? Any decently real-seeming plot would have a guy sweating, just to plant the seeds of doubt...

Why do you never see the UN's helicopters transporting advance troops to take over America? Because they are black and in cahoots with the government...

Total Recall: a great film for all these reasons, who knows? It is hard to name a fact in the film that wouldn't support reality OR a super-well executed conspiracy...

Dan

What has Verhoeven said about it? I guess the answer would be whatever Arnold or Verhoeven said it was meant to be.

Is this any different than all the other Arnold movies?

I think the movie, no matter how it was intended to be made, gives the audience a perfect 50/50 balance between dream or reality. There's strong evidence to support both.

Mike

I agree with what you are onto Brett.

That does seem to be the actual SF theme being explored. Not unlike Ghost in the Machine in that way. While Total Recall is not a Cyberpunk movie itself, that theme of identifying what makes us human is, with a sub-theme of that being "how do we know what is real".

Cyberpunk often follows the theme of people "jacking into" cyberspace or the net, direct brain connection with a massive data store and the exchanging of data between the 2. In GitM people have their IDs totally wiped out just like Quaid does and a big question even for the cyborgs is "what part of me, my thinking mind, makes me human?"

Of course another Cyberpunk film Blade Runner also explores this (Dick was certainly onto something with this theme). In an age where technological interaction/implants with flesh seem inevitable, this "definition of human/reality" is becoming a serious question. SF always addresses the morality of science before science gets there.

Matrix being just one of the latest in this field, though played as an action/thriller.

And of course Verhoeven already had Robocop addressing this too. Say what you want about PV, but he has brought us some fantastic source material and done it pretty well, IMHO.

In the end Total Recall challenges us to define reality for a character even with the benefit of being higher on the hierarchy of knowledge than the protagonist...and we still can't. I call that a rousing success for PV, the point is made quite clearly that we have a problem pending that we might have a tough time solving.

Just revisited this for the first time in 7 years! I didn't much like it when I first saw it, but I never really fully explored the dream vs. reality angle in my head, and thankfully it really improves the experience to keep both possible interpretations in mind while watching, and considerably more confusing! The only thing that turned me off when I first saw it, was that, even though in retrospect integral to the kind of story PV was trying to tell - super-spy action adventure whose absurdity escalates throughout the film - the action and wall-to-wall balistic bloodshed dominated almost every scene. The cheeseball one-liners really belittle any serious meaning. Re-examining the plot this time round, it's very tightly constructed, and I've developed a new found admiration for the film.

In light of Minority Report however, I'd really be interested to see what Spielberg could've done with the material. The tightly constructed ambiguity is replicated in that film, but it also has a far more complicated narrative. Its the more thought-provoking of the two films, and though the question "How do you if what you're experienceing is reality?" is far wider than MR's "Can you be held accountable for crimes you haven't committed?", the former question is hardly TR's focus. With Arnold in full-focus and PV at the helm, Total Recall was always gonna downplay the more interesting aspects of the plot and push the violence and adrenaline. The heavy-handedness of it all undermines the subtle elements of the story and it justs seems so needlessly brutal. Not saying there isn't a place for those types of films, but with material this strong, it justs seems like a waste.

Despite that, I might just have to pick up the DVD now. If I order it online will I get a keepcase or the baboon's ass? I don't want the latter.

edit: checked the Amazon, and they have both editions, separately available, but DVDEmpire, which I normally use, doesn't?!?!

I don't know how to tell if you will get the tin or the keep case if you were to order it online. Best Buy and other stores now carry the keep case, so you might be better off buying it from a brick and mortar retailer.


As far as how do I interpret the story? I believe Quaid had the schizoid embollism and is a vegetable back in Recall. Someone previously used Piers Anthony's novelization as the basis for their own opinion and I have to respond to that. Having read and enjoyed Piers Anthony's interpretation of Paul Verhoeven's interpretaion Philip K. Dick's short story, "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale", I still must respectfully point out that it doesn't make sense to use as evidence to support your opinion that Piers Anthony focused on it being real. His interpretation is no more legitimate than any of ours be it for or against the whole thing being a dream. That would be like me saying that Paul Verhoeven thinks it is a dream, so it must be one. We all have our own interpretations and they are all correct.

I would suggest that you read the original work along with several others by PKD to get a feel for how the author himself may have personally interpreted that story. When I first saw Total Recall, I believed that it wasn't a dream and I had many of the same reasons for believing that as several of you have noted in this thread. However, as I've gotten older (and more cynical), and have read several anthologies of PKD's short stories, my personal interpretation has gone the other way to believe it was a dream. Quaid (Quail in the original short story) got what he paid for.

The beauty of Philip K. Dick's work is that he didn't spell everything out for the reader. When you read his stories, you bear some responsibility. Another excellent example would be Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). Was Deckard a Replicant, or not? The viewer/reader must decide.

In my opinion it's undecided.
The whole point of the film is: that one cannot know. The "reminder" at the end is meant to direct us back to that fact - but the answer simply cannot be given. Everything that seems to have happened in the movie could have happened in reality - or indeed be a false memory.

The message of the movie is that once such a technology comes into existence, we'll never know anymore. Never. So neither do we about the movie (well I do know it's a film....).

Cees

Granted, I have not watched the film that many times, but I personally at this point go with the reality view solely because there are scenes that do not revolve around Arnold. The scenes with Kohagen outside of Arnold, as they debate what to do with him after they've captured him, when they find out he's reached Mars, etc. say it is probably really happening. If it had been only Arnold, never leaving him, don't know where I would be, but scenes happening independently of Arnold, with characters he hasn't met yet, not sure he could dream that up.

For me, this is what makes the three Dick films so spellbinding.


Totally agree Cess. Everything is so well constructed, that there is no true answer, and never can be. It's all personal interpretation.


Chris, he doesn't need to dream anything up, it's all implanted into his head. Also, those scenes are played out for our benefit, not Quaid's. He has no idea that those discussions take place. The result of filming strictly the portions of the 'ego trip' memory implant that he experienced wouldn't work as a film. In the translation to the screen we have to make allowances for the necessity of a narrative.

One other thing I forgot to mention, what an unbelievable score! Absolutely fantastic. It must sound great in 5.1.

Enjoy this:

[c]
Captured by John Rice.[/c]

Haven't you ever had dreams where you are a non-participating, unseen observer? I know that I have had dreams where I knew certain things about what was going on even though there was no logical reason for it.

In the commentary Verhoeven keeps going on about it being a dream and that Quaid is still strapped to the Rekall machine, and Arnie doesn't seem too happy with that interpretation, preferring that it's all really happening and that he really is saving Mars, also in the commentary Verhoeven adds that the whiteout before the end credits was to signify that Quaid was ultimately lobotomised because his Rekall 'trip' malfunctioned and f*cked him up badly.
Hmmm a bit of a downer there Paul, I'll stick to the 'it really happened' interpretation thanks.

Has anyone noticed how similar this story is to Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

While I was watching I thought it'd be cool if this were true. Most of the audience leaves the theater thinking Arnold just saved Mars, but really he's just had his frontal lobe removed!


I love the downer!


That's an interesting idea. It does make it complicated beyond belief to sort out in your mind though. I.e. where would Quaid's dream at the beginning slot in. Is he dreaming within the Rekall dream of the future Rekall dream he is to undertake?

[c]Another of John Rice's great captures.


"Hey man I've got five kids to feed."[/c]

Well, the other thing I though of would be that it's a dream because everyone knows you don't really explode if you get depresssurized in a vacuum. Therefore, the explosion of Kohagen, and near explosion of Arnold and the girl, means it HAS to be made up (or Verhoeven just made a mistake )

Uhh, then I guess the people who made "Outland" didn't know this.

I think the whole thing was a dream because everyone knows that you can't implant memories of vacations you never took. I mean, really, you can't make a blanket statement that it must be a dream because something is or is not possible. It is a movie! Anything is possible as long as it fits the rules established by the film itself. Otherwise, Star Trek would be deemed too silly because 99% of the elements that the plots depend upon don't exist.

Just watched this tonight, first time in awhile. Put me in the positive it's a dream camp. Upon rewatching the scene with the Dr. confronting Arnold any doubt was gone for me, about every last word he says is spot on.

Don't forget Quaid was regularly dreaming of Mars and Melina before he went to Rekall. He was already married to a gorgeous babe, why would he be having recurring dreams of trotting around on Mars (of all places) with a mystery girl, a bit odd wouldn't you say?

I just read through this entire thread and I must say that this is a very interesting debate. I have always thought that the events taking place were real, even though I did catch the "Blue skies on Mars" line and Melina on the monitor. But I just felt that they were just red herrings. But after reading this thread and thinking about it I'm beginning to change my mind.

I also agree with the comments made by Michael Taylor about dreams. I always have dreams where I'm not around but am privy to conversations from people who I have never met. Very strange.

And yes, I have noticed the similarities between Total Recall and Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) They would make a nice double feature.

I think I'll go out and pick this one up. Its been a while since I have seen it. Plus, BB by my house has the non-monkey butt edition for $12.99.

To me, this is a decoy, falsely suggesting that the events are real. The walk on Mars with Melina at the beginning is a dream. Are you telling me you've never had a bizarre dream, featuring a mystery woman? I had a dream last night that I was in South America during an earthquake. Does that mean I must've experienced it for real?

The fact that he has a skizoid embellism (sp?), means that he can mould the rekall-trip to his specifications. So seeing the same woman in the ego-trip isn't strange at all. Also, he specifies that he prefers brunettes, so fantasising brunettes when you're married to a blonde also isn't strange.

I just watched this movie and haven't seen it in ages. I forgot most of it, but here are my thoughts, i still don't know if it was a dream, but think it would be alot cooler if it was!



The dream he had was just that, a dream. He dreamt about some girl, he dreamt about mars, and he was intrigued by both. So what girl did he naturally pick when he went to recall, the girl he has been fantasizing about in his dream. And thus goes to mars in his dream.

It was the whole blue skies thing and the description of his adventure, BEFORE he fell asleep in the chair the first time that described everything that happened in the movie afterwards (people trying to kill him, saving mars, etc.) that made me wonder if it was all a dream.

I still think the ending, though leaving room for interpretation, still forced the general audience to think it was real....

Anyways, watching it and just having fun with it made me like it more than i remembered it...

I thought this was still pretty much unknown. I know that in space your body would supposedly freeze prior to depressurising explosively...

Naw, I requested Josie Maran as my companion. My second choice was an 18 year old, blond hair, blue-eyed Playboy Model.

Seriously, I slightly lean towards reality, because I can't explain why we would see Houser or Quaid spazz out at Rekall if it was a dream indeed. Or why Quaid would feel pain at all in a recollection. It's a weak argument, I know, but I'm working on Med School applications right now.

"Mr. Quaide can you hear yourself? She's real because you dreamed her?"

"What's bullshit Mr. Quaide? That your having a paranoid episode triggered by acute neuro-chemical trauma, or that you're really an invincible secret agent from Mars who is the victim of an interplanitary conspiracy to make him think he's a lowly construction worker?"

Those quotes about make a heck of a lot of sense, but the Doctor's final lines nail it home IMO:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Pretty much the flow of the plot exactly from that point on. 1-2-3 and then the movie ends. I can only assume 4 is how we can assume the movie really ends.

I believe it is a dream. The doctor sweating from Rekall keeps coming up, but other than him telling you that he is from Rekall, how do we know that? I believe he is just part of the simulation as operative that is just using the whole Rekall thing as a trick. Arnie is just playing out his "Mind trip".

Total Recall is my all-time favorite Arnold movie. I agree the movie becomes more interesting and compelling if viewed as a dream.