The obvious companions to Labyrinth are the Oz movies.

Dorothy has either become unconscious and created an imagined world based on her mental state before or she actually has passed into a bizarre other world.

The Haunting could either be a true ghost story or the mind of a dying woman finding happiness after a short period of group hysteria fueled by years of abuse and frustrated ambition.

I never seen Labyrinth.

Is it a single level maze?

No and it has multiple route choices so it should have been called Maze.

Pan's Labyrinth really does feature a Labyrinth though.

Back to the topic at hand, the bulk of the Buffyverse takes place out of sight of Buffy herself so does that knock the possible reading of Buffy (via Normal Again) that everything we see as happening is happening in her mind on the head?

Bingowings said:

Back to the topic at hand, the bulk of the Buffyverse takes place out of sight of Buffy herself so does that knock the possible reading of Buffy (via Normal Again) that everything we see as happening is happening in her mind on the head?

She could be imagining everyone else's lives as well as her own, sort of a schizophrenic thing, which would be in line with being in a mental institution.  How about viewing Buffy as either a) a teen monster show that's fun and cool or b) an allegory for teen angst and later early 20's anxiety?  Too much?

Another movie is Vanilla Sky.  Without spoiling too much, there are three or four different ways to view that movie.

Astounding! I was watching Labyrinth last night! :D

TV's Frink said:

I never seen Labyrinth.

You probably wouldn't like it, David Bowie is in it. ;-)

Erm... Inception?

xhonzi said:

Erm... Inception?

How so?  I mean, I love the movie, but it's pretty straightforward, ironically.  The only thing that's debatable is the ending.

Unless I'm missing something.

It is possible that the whole film is a dream.

The technology used seems to be something from a different age than the present day as depicted in the 'real' world sequences.

So Leo could really be a very very old man living in our future still trapped in his first Limbo dreaming himself young and pulling on near contemporary world imagery in the same way that one might dream of being a child again but inexplicably have access to a contemporary piece of technology.

His wife may have successfully left or become lost to him in a separate Limbo and he continues to delude himself that he is responsible for her death because he planted the idea that escape is possible (but dangerous) into his own mind.

Very true, bingo, and I'd thought of something like that before.  I was just thinking of movies that actually referenced their own different possible interpretations.  But with dream movies like Vanilla Sky and Inception, I guess the line gets a little more blurry. 

RE: Inception.

Is Cobb solving Fischer's problem by working for Saito?

Or is everyone solving Cobb's problems working for ???

Is inception an analogy for food??? Or perhaps Corporate Greed?????

greenpenguino said:

Is inception an analogy for food??? Or perhaps Corporate Greed?????

A: Maybe.

Q: When Kramer talked about building levels in his apartment, why didn't they show it?

Wrong thread frink

But my question was about levels.

TV's Frink said:

Q: When Kramer talked about building levels in his apartment, why didn't they show it?

Because they knew that he couldn't, and were positive that he wouldn't.

This song does if you can make out the lyrics.

TheBoost said:

One of the things I love about the movie "Labyrinth" is that it works perfectly on three levels.

1. It's a child adventure film with magic and goblins.
2. It's a coming of age story about a girl using her imagination to deal with the loss of her mother, and her own fears of growing up.
3. Jennifer Connolly was smokin' hot.

Fixed =P

TheBoost said:

Although not a great film...

It must not be too fantastic.

Every pawn shop in Wyoming has at least 27 copies.

Carrying over spoiler heavy Shutter Island discussion from another thread....

CP3S said:

doubleofive said:

xhonzi said:

I think the movie and the book were both written to be intentionally ambiguous.  While I lean to your interpretation, I think the movie supports your cousin's as a valid interpretation as well.

What? I don't see how it could support anything but the explanation the movie itself gave. Vanilla Sky was like that, no one understood it, even though they spend the last 10 minutes of the movie explaining what was going on.

I agree. The movie spelled out the explanation quite clearly and definitively, I don't think there was the least bit of ambiguity about it.

I gotta agree with 3PS and 005 here.  {SPOILERS}  There are two exposition dumps in the movie that show the two possibilities of interpretation: the one at the end in the lighthouse, and the one in the cave with the crazy lady.  The one at the lighthouse has the lengthy flashback in which his wife kills the kids and then he kills her.  To me, this is finally showing the reality of the situation, otherwise they would just leave it ambiguous, as they did with the cave scene.

CP3S said:

I loved that movie while watching it, thought it was shaping up to be a great little mystery thriller, especially when he met the woman in the cave. It was getting really exciting with all the conspiracy stuff. Then all the twists kicked in... and I was pretty disappointed. Feels like everything goes for the "WHAT A TWIST!!!" shock reaction these days. Comes off as a lame gimmick to me. Tired of it. Very disappointed by Shutter Island in the end, felt it could have been so much more.

I thought the same thing upon seeing it the first time, but the movie really stands up to multiple viewings.  Once you know what is actually going on you can pay more attention to the subtleties of the characters and the mystery, and to Scorsese's great directing. 

xhonzi said:

I want to say that the director commentary addresses the "ambiguity" of the piece.

If not, then I guess you both are just wrong.  :)

In other words, watch it again and try to see it as "all a lie" to convince him.  I think you'll find that it plays that way to the degree that there is no really conclusive evidence against it.

But you can go debate it on the imdb forums too, if you'd like.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/board/

After watching it and paying close attention, there are so many moments in the movie that you think are working towards the "all a lie" outcome, only they work much, much more towards the "he's crazy" outcome once you realize what's going on. 

For example, when Dr. Cawley (Kingsley) first meets Teddy, he mentions that Rachel Solando's children drowned, and looks carefully at Teddy/Andrew just as he says the word "drowned".  Watch the guards, and their behavior around Teddy, especially in the beginning.  When Teddy sits in on the board meeting the members are clearly annoyed that a patient has been allowed in, and one of them even jokes about how clever the rule of four is, only to get an angry glance from Dr. Crawly.  Also, when the warden and Teddy are in the car alone, the warden mentions that Dr. Crawly thinks he (Andrew) can be cured but he does not.  They have that long talk about "violence" and such, and it really doesn't make sense in the "all a lie" viewpoint.  There are other, very obvious clues, just watch it again.

One HUGE clue is the theme of fire and water.  Fire represents Andrew's insanity - the matches in Ward C, Rachel's fire in the cave, blowing up a car, etc. - while water represents the reality that he's trying to hide from - his wife drowning his children in it and all.  A big clue that Rachel Solando was completely a figment of his imagination.