Enemy

[HeywoodRFloyd]

Official synopsis (courtesy of TIFF): Brilliantly adapted from the late Nobel Prize-winning author José Saramago's 2002 novel The Double, the latest from the Academy Award-nominated Denis Villeneuve breathes new life into the doppelgänger tradition, with a hypnotic, haunting, surreal approach that reaffirms the Quebec director as one of our generation's most skilled storytellers. Adam Bell (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a glum, disheveled history professor, who seems disinterested even in sex with his beautiful girlfriend, Mary (Mélanie Laurent). Watching a movie on the recommendation of a colleague, Adam spots his double, an actor named Anthony Clair, in a bit role, and decides to track him down — an adventure he quite relishes. The identical men meet, and their lives become bizarrely and irrevocably intertwined.

Director: Denis Villeneuve
Stars: Mélanie Laurent, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sarah Gadon
Release date: 8 September 2013 (Toronto International Film Festival)

I had no idea about this film, I haven't even seen Prisoners yet and Villeneuve already has another completed film. Also, the cues for the score in the teaser are strangely reminiscent of Greenwood's score for TM

[polkablues]

Wait, are this and the Richard Ayoade film both based on the same book?

[Ghostboy]

This is based on a Jose Saramago book, and the other one is Dostoyevsky.

I really need to see these before I lock up my own double script. Or maybe I shouldn't, in an open test of the inevitability of thematic parallels.

[Tictacbk]

I'll see them for you, but I want a co-writing credit.

[jenkins]

I really need to see these before I lock up my own double script. Or maybe I shouldn't, in an open test of the inevitability of thematic parallels.

tbh i'd watch this movie and please see what not to do, or at least observe certain methods, appreciate ones you want to, and notice this or that. what i'm saying is, incendies swings dramatic punches, and i saw it in a festival's beginning days and i said "oh shit, it's going to win" and it won. i know it was old people who voted for the movie, because of those dramatic punches. i think a dramatist works like a magician, and the problem with incendies is you can see the trick. i haven't seen enemy and maybe i'll go see it and maybe i'll be amazed, but i definitely think there's something for you to take away outside noticing parallels (a friendly word from you, because i know what you mean). whether good or bad, even if this one seals his fame, having seen both incendies and saints, let there be a difference

no actually, if you don't go see it there'll for sure be a difference, because you didn't even see this. but imo if you go see it, please notice where there could be differences

[Mel]

It reminds me a "Black Swan" and a bit of Zulawski (doppelgangers) - sets look very naked on trailer (no extras, very empty rooms etc) and there is something interesting shown at 1:47. Definitely interested.

[03]

..dude.....

[Lottery]

It looks enjoyable.

How about this dude's earlier stuff? I liked Prisoners.

[Mel]

Featurette - acting against tennis ball included:

[Lottery]

This had some interesting ideas. Can't really talk about the film without spoiling it in some ways. Definitely a more thematic/symbolic piece than anything. Gyll is good, the piss-stained drear of the cinematography is effective in setting the mood.





SPOILERZ

- Not to be taken literally (duh), but I'm a still confused by some of the more straightforward scenes
- The chronology is all over the shop
- It's about one dude. Aspects of his life/personality
- Main Jake is good guy/Actor Jake is evil cheating Jake, unable to commit
- Film obviously has ideas of fearing commitment, rejection of one's own life, desires/adultery

Sooo, Jake gets wife preggers- can't stand preggo wife- has an affair- affair falls apart (accident?)- returns to marriage-? (still a little repulsed by wife?)- events happen again maybe?

Not entirely sure about the spider craziness but there's that idea that female spiders eat males. All of those spider scenes are goddamn bizarre.

I'm still uncertain with how some of the scenes fit in. It becomes a lot more bizarre in th second half.

I haven't read the book. Not sure how close it's supposed to be. So this could be all bullshit.


EDIT:

I think there are some folks on the IMBD who have more or less broken the film down pretty darn well.

Also, what a pity. Awful stuff:

[BB]

SPOILERS MAYBE

It's been a while since I read the book, but the movie seems only to take from it its barest, tagline premise. It's pretty well completely an original. Especially in its ambiguity and peculiar symbolism (is it definitely only one man? spiders and shit? blueberries?). If anything, having read the book I was doubly () confounded.

But I enjoyed it. Well enough anyway. Didn't feel things needed to make sense. Looked good, felt weird, repped my hometown, I'm happy. Villeneuve's been a bit of a national secret for over a decade now, so it's great to see him getting broader exposure.

[03]

this is definitely one of the films that MOST benefits from second viewing.
i hated and was bored by it until i rewatched it. so keep this in mind when you see it.

SPOILERS
-
-
it is about one guy, the actor is fake (as actors have to be), an illusion that is manifested because of his cheating.
the night he's at the squashing club is the night he had his affair. the spider imagery is repeated throughout the film and gets crazier because of his guilt and slowly unraveling sanity. so the non pregnant chick is who he had his affair with, and the guilt splits him into two realities, the dissonance from his partner is symbolised by the real him (adam) being a complete stranger. have not read the book, but this is pretty heavy shit. more reminiscent of villeneuve's 'maelstrom' than 'prisoners'. and a LOT of similarities to 'mulholland drive'.