Aspies For Freedom

Check out the review if you're curious:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/mov...html?fta=y

Just saw this movie a day ago--spectacular, colorful, wonderfully surreal.  Amazing visuals.

But I remain very confused as to the "actual plot."  What events were happening in the film's reality, versus those happening in someone's dream or someone's dream within another's dream (!?).  Can anyone who's good at seeing layers and subtext in a film, tell me what's going on here?  Is there an objective plot in this film, or is it intentionally muddled?  I'd like to know.

I think "Paprika" raises some good questions about the increasing role of the internet, the increase of virtual communication over physical reality, the possible alienation between ourselves as a result of the latter.  The theme of a threat to get caught up in the "dream" (fantasy world) as a result of all these technological temptations--versus dealing with the material world objectively--seems to figure strongly in the movie, as well.  There is actually a direct message in the movie about "dreamy" people who concentrate a lot more on trivial matters than their duties in the material world.

To me, a lot of these criticisms seem relevant to Aspies.  Such as myself.  I am self-admittedly dreamy, and mostly concerned with my own specific interests--most of which aren't functional in the real world.  The Internet and technology plays a large role in these interests.  I am quite escapist and in my "own world" a lot.  Just to get the facts out--yes, I am, and have been, a shameless dreamer.

So... is this virtual world a real threat; an open window to escapism?  So I am escapist.  So shoot me.  I'm much better at social interaction on the internet--anything in writing, basically--than I am in the material world.  That's where the status quo reigns--NTs.  Those with AS can't often "keep up" with them, so to speak.

So, is the Internet a regressive/escapist device for Aspies, or a necessary tool?

This movie raises some excellent questions...  and to me, I see a lot of relevancy toward the more stereotypical/nerdy Asperger personality.  Are these concerns??

Future of the internet:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xj8ZadKgdC0

It's really cool that you should bring this up now- I just watched the movie a couple days ago with my boyfriend, and we had to keep pausing it so I could explain it to him.
The trick to understanding the movie is being good at seeing symbolism and being able to grasp the idea that reality is fluid.
The same director also made a TV series called "Paranoia Agent", which also revolves around this concept that our dreams/fantasies and our reality can at times be indistinguishable. (WARNING: TOTAL SPOILERS FOR PAPRIKA AND PARANOIA AGENT AHEAD)






In paranoia agent, the main character makes up a fictional criminal, who she blames for the death of her dog.  Her whole life afterward has been built on this lie, and when she is having trouble at work and may lose her job, "Little Slugger" (the false criminal) appears and attacks her.  The series revolves around the lives of many characters who, faced with desperate situations, are attacked by Little Slugger.  However, it's not until the end that you find out that he was made up.  So then you have to wonder:  Was he real?  Did he become real?  Or was he an idea, some scapegoat that people used to take blame off of themselves?

In Paprika the idea is similar.  We cannot know what was a dream and what was real.  As one of the characters says near the very end, after Paprika has swallowed the Chairman and everything is over, "Are we still dreaming?"  You can't ever be sure.  The director is relying on that uncertainty to make his point.  In fact, we can't even be sure whose dream it was and which parts really happened.

What I found interesting about the movie was that I had very little trouble following the plot line and seeing the symbolism, but my boyfriend did.  I have borderline NT/Atypical autism traits; he is most likely solidly in the Asperger's category.  This may be part of the reason for the difference.  For example, in the beginning credits, when Paprika is going through the city and then melts into the woman with the black hair, I said "I think they're the same person".  And they turned out to be the same person.  My bf did not understand this.  Also, later on, when the dream has spread to the entire city, when the robot guy fell and the woman with the black hair melted into him, just before Paprika jumped into him and became the giant child, I said to myself, "I swallow everything.", which is what the robot guy had said.  And, sure enough, as I had just predicted, Paprika proceeded to swallow everything.  I seem to be very good at following this sort of bizzare, symbolic, nonlinear plot line.  My boyfriend, however, didn't understand a lot of what was going on.  I don't know if he was taking things too literally, or perhaps not literally enough.  Or perhaps there is something else that was preventing it.
Do you think there is some ability or lack of ability to follow a movie like this, which can be divided along neurotypes?

The problem I had with the movie was that I felt I was led to believe, after the first dream at the beginning until the 40-minute mark, that there was an objective plotline to be followed.  Or so, that's how I felt.  I usually have no trouble with accepting a surreal, visual movie just as it is, but for some reason--perhaps having to do with the semi-literal exposition of the movie--I felt there was a complex plotline that could be unraveled if I could pay enough attention to it.  I was disappointed to see that things only got more confusing in the second-half.  

Not to mention, I was certain that there were layers of fairly specific symbolism/meaning behind most of the scenes.  Frustratingly I couldn't see it, no matter how hard I concentrated.  So even as you reveal to me that the plotline can't really be followed, I am still in the dark as to the multiple layers of meaning, and how I should interpret them.  I can't see subtext, nor interpret too well; at least not much beyond the literal.

As you can probably tell from what I said above, I can't see artistic symbolism for beans.  I marvel at those Aspies who can both read symbolism and craft it, especially those who are good at spinning tales and writing fiction/poetry.  Despite myself being artistically inclined, I have this major deficit in an area which is pivotal to so many of the arts.  Even though I enjoy reading novels and short-stories, usually I can hardly say anything about the themes presented in the book once it is done--and you have no idea how frustrating this is for me.

Well I still question what was going on in Paprika, because some websites attempted to offer semi-literal explanations of all the events; others however said there was no use in trying to find a concrete plot.  I am not sure where I should stand on this, though--another thing I have difficulty with is forming my own unique opinions on what an author/director is trying to say in their work.  It's like--what am I supposed to think?

I think that what the director was going for is a movie that can be- and perhaps is meant to be- interpreted multiple ways.  It's not the kind of film that you watch once and understand everything; you probably have to watch it many times to catch all the possible meanings and symbolic visuals.  It's probably possible for it to have more than one plot line at the same time, too.  The director wants you to think hard about it.  It's like philosophy: there are no solid answers, only what you think you can see, and you might end up arguing endlessly with people who see something different in it, unless you can accept that there are multiple interpretations.
That may be one thing aspies have difficulty with, I have found that some people can't understand something (especially something as complex as a whole movie) meaning multiple things.  They want one solid answer.

I think you're right.  There's probably no single explanation for the meaning of Paprika and, as we established earlier, no objective plotline to be unraveled.

I am very, very literal minded.  I'd provide examples of the many things I took directly, at a literal level, throughout my life... if I wasn't so embarrassed about so many of them.

For me, I tend to see this as one of the worst aspects of Asperger's--a real curse.  Here I am without academic gifts; instead, I am creatively inclined.  But I can't read artistic/literary symbolism, or even figure out to use symbols myself.  This is a real problem for me.

It probably wouldn't be a problem if I was looking for a career in Science, which primarily requires the objective; but if you want to be an artist and you have a deficiency like this, it's a major problem.

Looking at that review it seems to be an anime version of the classic "this isn't real" genre. Am I missing something or is that mainly all there is to it?

You're mostly on target with that.  Although if you care to look for symbolism and hidden "layers" of meaning, I'd say this is also a thinking man's movie.  Quite cerebral.

Personally I like surreal movies, so "Paprika" is a winner for me--but I was frustrated by my inability to read symbolism.