Ironically enough the bullet count is definitely the smoking gun that proves it was all in his head and the revisiting subway girl just adds even more proof.
Sure it might be an expertly crafted plot that would be appreciated by psychologists and psychiatrists around the world but it?s still a movie taking place inside the head of a silly nilly willy.
sigh what a waste of time
They should?ve had Dr. Silberman interview the smoking Arthur lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The bullet count could just be the product of filmmaker assumption that audiences won't care (or even notice). Or, maybe an off-screen reload could've happened when we're watching the guy limping away and crying for help.
As for the subway girl, that's not the same coat.
Not even close. Her subway coat was like a trenchcoat; the coat in the taxi looks to me to be leather, padded, and with a fur collar. Plus, yeah, I'm pretty sure the clown in the taxi is a dude too.
I really hate YouTube.
Sorry jye, but the film is not a waste of time. The intentional ambiguities paid off because there's no way to prove, or disprove, what was real; each person in the audience gets to choose. And different interpretations lead to interesting discussions. Everybody wins. It's an interesting film any way you slice it, which makes it the *opposite* of a waste of time, imo.
Personally, I think using the flashbacks to show that Sophie (the neighbor lady) wasn't with Arthur on the date, at the comedy club, or sitting with him in the hospital suggests that the film is letting us know what was real versus imagined. Arthur's fantasies about Sophie were imagined, and the film makes that explicit; the audience was let in on it. The rest doesn't need to be imagined if you don't want it to be.
