Dream Theory IMDB

[chris]

...chris, as you said, Leone removed those two pages from the script - which had it as an explicit dream - to preserve the ambiguity...

My post about finding the missing 2 pages was my feeble attempt at a joke and none of us know what was in those pages.  Since I've not seen the pages, I can't say what they contained.  In fact it's possible they contained the complete opposite and that the script made it clear that the garbage truck scene was not part of a dream and happened in 1968.

Kaminsky, who will have seen the pages, made the comment:

"...The reflectors of the truck glow "like two fiery eyes" and change into the lights of an old Ford.  The people in the car are dressed in 1930s costume. Noodles of 1968 realizes he is not back in time but firmly in 1968..."

Incidentally I'm not sure why he put the phrase "like two fiery eyes" in quotation marks other than it was possibly a direct quote from the script.

Leone's vision and intentions changed over the years but I agree with you that he wanted the movie to have a double reading and ambiguity.  Whether or not he was successful in that is open to debate.  As I've said before I don't know anyone who thought that part or all of the movie was a dream on their first viewing without reference to Schickel's commentary, the Once Upon A Time documentary or other material.
 
  

[drinkanddestroy]

Let's view the "intention" thing the other way round, must we now first check the director's intentions before we watch a film? And what if the director talks bullshit or tells lies about his intentions? Do we still follow his "intentions"? How do we know that we can trust him? Why should we don't believe what we think we see in a film. From that point of view it is indeed less important what a director, a critic or god says about a film, but it is instead important what I think about a film. Even if I'm maybe sometimes completely wrong.

this is obviously ridiculous. depends on the situation. depends on a lot of stuff. I am talkinga bout OUATIA, not every theoretical movie/interpretation ever made/offered. We don't have to get into the theoretical ridiculous in order to discuss OUATIA.

In the case of OUATIA, the dream interpretation fits very well. Just because I didn't think of it the first time I watched the movie doesn't mean it's not legit. I've never smoked opium and have no idea about its effects. I certainly didn't understand the significance of the final smile and when I heard the dream interpretation offered (I forgot where it first was) it made sense. And the more I read about it, the more it made sense. The fact that many viewers didn't figure it out on their own is not an argument against it: as we've said a hundred times, there was an intent of ambiguity, it's not a clear AND THEN HE WOKE UP, so, yes, just like the viewer at that first showing in the cinema in Rome that Leo Benvenuti was talking about, I was unsure of it and when given that interpretation, it made sense to me. And reading all that Leone said about it - and not only Leone, but others like Martin Scorsese - has convinced me more and more that it makes sense as a dream. It's not like Leone said, "Believe it's a dream," and I responded, "Yes, Master, I will." Rather, after reading about the dream explanation, it makes a lot of sense to me, and that's that.

And no matter what explanations have been attempted, I've never seen one that is close to satisfactory in explaining why the movie end sin the opium den and closes on the final smile. Yes, many have been offered; but i can't believe that anyone offering them is fully satisfied with them. The dream interpretation is a completely satisfactory one for that final smile. And again, the dream interpretation doesn't mean the movie is meaningless; quote the contrary. On some level, it is a dream. But all the themes and ideas and beauty of the movie still remain.

[chris]

when you said those two missing pages state that it was clearly a dream, that was a joke? You said you downloaded them from some site or another, that wasn't true? Yes, it was obvious that your joking initial explanation of how you got them was a joke, but when you copied those pages in yellow Courier New font that said that this was all a dream, that wasn't real, you made that whole thing up yourself?

Of course.  Sorry, drinkanddestroy, I thought everyone would have guessed it was a joke. I did wake up one morning and in a dreamlike state thought the idea was quite funny. Sometimes humor doesn't cross the Atlantic well.  Apologies.

   

[drinkanddestroy]

that's stupid

[drinkanddestroy]

A1 has various scripts for the movie on his site http://msb247.awardspace.com/ (click the "Links and Downloads" link on bottom left of the home page). I've downloaded these already onto my computer. I think these are the same ones at the links your provided earlier

[stanton]

this is obviously ridiculous. depends on the situation. depends on a lot of stuff. I am talkinga bout OUATIA, not every theoretical movie/interpretation ever made/offered. We don't have to get into the theoretical ridiculous in order to discuss OUATIA.

Well, we have. At least if we want to look at films and the world form a more complex point of view.

In the case of OUATIA, the dream interpretation fits very well. Just because I didn't think of it the first time I watched the movie doesn't mean it's not legit. I've never smoked opium and have no idea about its effects. I certainly didn't understand the significance of the final smile and when I heard the dream interpretation offered (I forgot where it first was) it made sense. And the more I read about it, the more it made sense. The fact that many viewers didn't figure it out on their own is not an argument against it: as we've said a hundred times, there was an intent of ambiguity, it's not a clear AND THEN HE WOKE UP, so, yes, just like the viewer at that first showing in the cinema in Rome that Leo Benvenuti was talking about, I was unsure of it and when given that interpretation, it made sense to me. And reading all that Leone said about it - and not only Leone, but others like Martin Scorsese - has convinced me more and more that it makes sense as a dream. It's not like Leone said, "Believe it's a dream," and I responded, "Yes, Master, I will." Rather, after reading about the dream explanation, it makes a lot of sense to me, and that's that.

Still you can't explain why most of it doesn't look like a dream, and how comes that Noodles sees the future as it is (more or less), and not like a vision or like a notion. It could make sense when Noodles in his mind changes his past, but for the future it does not work in a film like OUTA. It could work in a David Lynch film, but not in a Leone film.

And no matter what explanations have been attempted, I've never seen one that is close to satisfactory in explaining why the movie end sin the opium den and closes on the final smile.

My interpretation, my way to view the film, is for me much more satisfactory than yours. Obviously, if you would see the satisfaction of it we wouldn't need to discuss that here. Or not?

Yes, many have been offered; but i can't believe that anyone offering them is fully satisfied with them. The dream interpretation is a completely satisfactory one for that final smile.

What you want is an obvious explanation, one that explains everything. I don't need that. I accept it as ambiguous or as a final comment on Noodles thinking. And it works very well.

And again, the dream interpretation doesn't mean the movie is meaningless; quote the contrary. On some level, it is a dream. But all the themes and ideas and beauty of the movie still remain.

I don't think it is then meaningless, but the film is then in parts for me then all wrong. The film is then less good for me. As I said, with the dream theory I would lower my rating from 8 to 6/10. Still not a bad film, but one with great structural deficits.

[noodles_leone]

that's stupid

and funny

[dave jenkins]

Yeah, I laughed and laughed.