The "Jacob's Ladder"/"Brazil" Solution

knight_errant00 12-03-2003 10:26 AM
OK . . .

So, I've been lurking in the forums since I discovered this site after the great "Show Must Go On" debacle. "Big O" has become one of my favorite shows now, one that always leaves me thinking (a good thing, for sure).

Aside from catching one or two episodes of the first season in its initial run, I didn't start watching "Big O" until its return this fall, coming in at episode 15.

Since "Show Must Go On" I've been trying to make sense of the show, reading everyone's theories and seeins how they matched with mine, which was an elaborate construction involving robots as religious zealots, a holy war, a negotiator, and a bunch of clones.

I liked this theory a lot, but after seeing "Roger the Wanderer" at last, I have another theory, one that pretty much covers everything in the show, and explains it all. The problem is, I don't like what it leads the show to really be . . .

So . . . here goes . . .

I think the entire show is Roger's fantasy. I think the Roger we see in "Roger the Wanderer" is the real Roger, one who lives in New York and is essentially homeless, probably due to the fact he is more than a bit mentally ill. He was a soldier once, and for some reason, committed a war atrocity--opening fire on a group of children--which he has never come to terms with.

His past tortures him. He wants to escape his memories, not be defined by them. So he drifts into his own world, one patterned after a popular comic strip featuring a giant robot called the Big O.

In his fantasy he and those aoround him always wear black--a sign of his mourning. He fantasizes about a bank nearby as his mansion, and a young woman he often sees a beautiful young woman rushing into a local nightclub as his romantic interest, distant and unknowable. He's tortured by his destructive past, which he metaphorizes as the Bigs attack on the city. He's tortured by his memories of the children he killed--the tomatoes, heads round, pulpy, and red in death (Gordon Rosewater's constant reminders him of the lies and the tomatoes). He uses Angel to re-assure himself of the fantasy (in the car, after *Roger* makes reference to being a soldier and opening fire on children she reassures him--"quite an imagination you have!" to help him move back into his protective fantasy).

To save himself, he becomes a hero in his mind, fashions a story as protector of the city, patterning himself and his adventures after the comic strip, but always haunted by his true memories lurking at the edges of his mind.

He chooses to "stand in the rain" because he has no home, and the changing that would require him to own up to his past, which he can't do. "Ye Not Guilty"--he needs the reassurance, all the time. The religious overtones are all about his searc for redemprion. And the constant definition "I'm Roger Smith, a negotiator, an important job . . . "--he's constantly struggling to maintain his identity, and his importance, at least in his fantasy world.

I'll have to do some more thinking, but I suspect "The Show Must Go On" is a point where he runs into a part of the comic strip he can't reslove with his fantasy, which is why it's so jarring as the two are merged together in places.

It's kinda like the movies "Jacob's Ladder" and "Brazil", where reality isn't what it is, where the small flashes are Truth, and fantasy is the only way to escape the oppression of one's own mind.

I know, this is a very sad interpretation of it all--I'd rather it be about clones and robots. But right now, it's the best one I see.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'll keep working on the clones and robot theory in the meantime . . .

--knight_errant00
trekkieb47 12-03-2003 02:22 PM
I really like your theory. This is the great thing about Big O, everyone has their own theories and what they get out of the show. Its highly entertaining to see these theories, because a lot of them make a heck of a lot of sense and make you think about Big O in a new light.

Thanks for your insight.

Berry
ParadigmSubways 12-03-2003 03:09 PM
I love this theory.
NVWC2006 12-03-2003 04:12 PM
This is a theory that makes sense, and could very well be true.

I can't exactly fit scenes from 'The Show Must Go On' though, for we see Roger dead, and him and dorothy reasurring Angel. But maybe I just missed something.

It really does sound good.
Unfortunately, I'm one of those who will always see The Negotiater as the hero inside and out, and thinks that when he's bored he'll sit down in the basement w/ Big O, light a fire, and have himself some s'mores...

...
Tongue Perhaps if we bug CN or Sunrise or anyone working for Big O enough they'll tell us the real storyline, if there is one...
Narsham 12-03-2003 04:57 PM
Interesting theory, but I can see a number of holes, or elements which either need to be fit into it or which argue against it:

The biggest problem, of course, is that if we accept your theory it becomes impossible to establish whether any moment on the screen is real or fantasy. Because we see all sorts of elements bleeding in to Roger's experience as the Wanderer from the rest of the show. If you accept Roger reading the comic strip as real, how do you account for Roger (faceless) on stage immediately before that? How do you decide that Angel's appearance after that is part of the illusion again? Why can't the whole thing be a dream?

Another problem is the role of R. Dorothy. Despite Angel being the one to "bring Roger back," he concludes that so long as Dorothy recognizes him as Roger Smith, Negotiator, that that is who he is. What, then, is Dorothy?

Worse, the whole lesson of the episode, the lesson Roger learns, is that he must CONFRONT his terror in order to go on. Once he learns that lesson, he is able to accept that Big O exists and that he is who Dorothy says he is, and he "wakes up" in Big O. For your theory to be correct, Roger has to come to a realization which would break him out of a fugue like the one you propose, with the result that he's thrown completely back IN to his fantasy.

I don't get the feeling from the episode that we're supposed to think Roger has recognized something and then run away from it again.

The alternative you propose ends up putting us in a Cartesian position where we assume the writers of the show are intentionally misleading us and want us to see as "real" what isn't, drawing wrong conclusions from each and every clue they offer to us.

All that said, I'd love to see how you'd account for some of my objections. Smile

Narsham
C.R Foxhound 12-03-2003 05:50 PM
they should call this the "Roger on Prozac" theory

but it really good tho'. But i think ANYTHING will work at this point, as long as you have the points to back it up

man, i really need to see that movie Brazil, i've heard so much about it, but i've never seen it.Is it on DVD anywhere?
knight_errant00 12-04-2003 11:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Narsham
Interesting theory, but I can see a number of holes, or elements which either need to be fit into it or which argue against it:

The biggest problem, of course, is that if we accept your theory it becomes impossible to establish whether any moment on the screen is real or fantasy. Because we see all sorts of elements bleeding in to Roger's experience as the Wanderer from the rest of the show.


Yep. That's the problem with stories about people who are somewhat unhinged, whether it's "They Might Be Giants", "Man of La Mancha" --heck, even "Total Recall". The ambiguity's part of the genre . . .

quote:
If you accept Roger reading the comic strip as real, how do you account for Roger (faceless) on stage immediately before that?


Roger's unsure of his identity, the part he's playing . . . that's why he's also so distant and unmoved by what's happening on stage.

quote:
How do you decide that Angel's appearance after that is part of the illusion again?


I don't think it is . . . I think she may actually be from the military hospital where Roger gets treatment, and wanders off from ocasionally. That's why, in his Big O fantasy, she represents the foreigners hidden "below"--the ones searching for memories who he has to stop.

quote:
Why can't the whole thing be a dream?


Because that would suck . . . just like the theory that the whole thing being some big VR TV show, something like the holo-novel "The Big Goodbye" fromt "Star Trek: The Next Generation" just kinda falls flat with me as well.

quote:
Another problem is the role of R. Dorothy. Despite Angel being the one to "bring Roger back," he concludes that so long as Dorothy recognizes him as Roger Smith, Negotiator, that that is who he is. What, then, is Dorothy?


Dorothy is his fantasy woman, patterned after an adorable girl he sees going into the club from time to time. She's his anchor character in his fantasy, someone who believes in him as Roger the Negotiator and doesn't care about his past, only who he is and what he does now--the opposite player to Gordon Rosewater, who's there to remind him of the Truth (I'd be willing to bet he's a doctor treating Roger in the hospital).

quote:
Worse, the whole lesson of the episode, the lesson Roger learns, is that he must CONFRONT his terror in order to go on.


He does, and he might--Just not right now. Going underground terrifies him because it's, metaphorically, reaching down into himself (remember, all the memories are supposed to be hidden down there). The ride with Angel/Nurse starts to terrify him because it's taking him back where he'll have to face those memories. So, he manages to retreat to Roger the Negotiator, probably escaping from the car, which leads to all the stage scenes.

All this also brings to mind Norman's role . . . I'd be willing to bet in Roger the Wanderer's real life as Majoe Roger, Norman Burg was some kind of Sergeant Major--older, experienced, keeping an eye out for the young officer but loyal to the gates of Hell and back. Probably something of a mechnaic as well, and made into the supporting character of Norman in the Fantasy.

quote:
Once he learns that lesson, he is able to accept that Big O exists and that he is who Dorothy says he is, and he "wakes up" in Big O. For your theory to be correct, Roger has to come to a realization which would break him out of a fugue like the one you propose, with the result that he's thrown completely back IN to his fantasy.


The realization put him further in. For now, he needs the fantasy--the Truth's too terrible. That's why, I think, he sees himself and Dorothy in the reflection in the windows as Negotiator and R. Dorothy--they're what he *wants* to see. And I think his line "As long as that's what you call me, that's who I'll be" indicates this as well.

quote:
I don't get the feeling from the episode that we're supposed to think Roger has recognized something and then run away from it again.


Don't think of it as running away, think of it as making a choice to survive.

Again, back to "They Might Be Giants"--what would you rather be, a judge who's seen, and perhaps released too much evil in his court because of the law, or Sherlock Holmes, going forth to solve the great crimes, stop master criminals, and make the world a better place?

quote:
The alternative you propose ends up putting us in a Cartesian position where we assume the writers of the show are intentionally misleading us and want us to see as "real" what isn't, drawing wrong conclusions from each and every clue they offer to us.


Ever seen "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", or "Jacob's Ladder"? The very *point* of such stories is to get you to believe you're watching one story, and then amaze you when it turns out to be something else. Say what you will about the movie "Signs", for example, but when you reach the end and realize, that

spoiler (highlight to read):
the story in not *at all* about an alien invasion, and could be about *any* huge, distracting device


You learn somthing by seeing how your assumprions and presumptions affect your view of events.

As a writer myself, I just tend to notice certain elements when they pop up . . . they strike me as the clues *I'd* lay if writing a story. The line about turning his gun on children just popped out at me, and got me thinking in this direction

quote:
All that said, I'd love to see how you'd account for some of my objections. Smile


I think that accounts for most of it Big Grin . . . As I said, this idea's less than a day old and not complete or fully fleshed out. And, I think there's stuff in eps 25 and 26 that need to be looked at again (which I will when they're re-run). And, as I said, I'd rather it be about the religious war between Bigs and man, with clones and androids and all . . . but Roger the Wanderer has put me down this path, and for now, for me, it fits best.

But please, I posted this here for discussion, and love tearing ideas like this apart and re-building them. So . . . everyone, let's talk!

--knight_errant00
Pygmalion 12-04-2003 11:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by knight_errant00
Yep. That's the problem with stories about people who are somewhat unhinged, whether it's "They Might Be Giants", "Man of La Mancha" --heck, even "Total Recall". The ambiguity's part of the genre . . .

I wonder how many readers on this board have seen They Might Be Giants (the movie, not the band). I saw it once in the late 1980s (a Sherlock Holmes completist could do no less), and I can't imagine it is aired very often.

The fact is, however, in each of the movies you cited, there was evidence that the main character's view of the world didn't match everyone else's (or reality, for that matter). For your analogy to hold, you'd have to show, in the other 25 episodes of Big O, some indication of the same.

Pygmalion
heyyu 12-04-2003 12:53 PM
To quote Angel, "My, what a pleasant imagination you have" Cool

Interesting theory, though I don't think it's the "correct" one...still always nice to speculate though, and as somebody pointed out, "The Big O" is so ambigious it can allow anyone to come to their own conclusion...at least until the creators come out and say what it really is...or maybe they have already, but ya' know, Gainax has been doing this for years with their series, and creating speculation is half the fun...
knight_errant00 12-04-2003 02:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Pygmalion
The fact is, however, in each of the movies you cited, there was evidence that the main character's view of the world didn't match everyone else's (or reality, for that matter). For your analogy to hold, you'd have to show, in the other 25 episodes of Big O, some indication of the same.


Good point. Shocked

I guess my first reaction would be to say that ep 14 simply was the first clue . . . without having had the benefit of seeing 1-13 a second time after seeing 14, I'm pressed for any other clues.

I'd also argue, again coming at this as a writer, that my analogy is just pointing out other similar movies. Just because those stories chose to give away the goods at a one pace doesn't mean this story has to as well. There's stories like--oh, anything David Lynch does--where dream and reality are just one weird mishmash. Start dragging in Bergman movies like "Persona", and I think there's plenty of examples where things seem OK until a certain point . . .

Also, remember, we have a season change here between 13 and 14, and how many TV series have suffered from such, er, paradigm shifts (sorry) between two seasons? This could also be a case of a writer saying to himself "Waitaminit . . . what if this whole story is Roger's Fantasy?!?" There may be no clues to this in the first season (since it wasn't part of the plan, then, under this scenario) but the second can more easily be read in this light.

But, as I said, I need to watch over the other 25 eps with 14 in mind to see if this theory really works.

Anybody else buy it?

--knight_errant00
InsInIfIcant 12-04-2003 08:16 PM
Its been awhile since Ive seen Act 14, so refresh my memory about Roger opening fire on about of children when did he say that? Because I must of missed it.
NVWC2006 12-04-2003 08:24 PM
Roger the Wanderer (RtW) is walking down the street at night in the rain. He sees a blinding light, and it ends up being a police car.
"what do ya know, there's an angel out here too" as Angel gets out of the car and heads towards him. She says something about not knowing what he meant, calling him major, blah blah blah..
Then in the car, Roger is joking about the idea of being a major to himself, outloud.
"So I'm a major, huh? And let me guess, I turn my gun on school's of children."

"Why, what a pleasent imagination you have. Were you really THAT afraid of reawakening IT?"

Ok, the quotes might not be right of, but you should be able to get the idea.
The Fallen Phoenix 12-04-2003 09:07 PM
There is an episode script of Episode 14 posted on the site...you can check that for the exact quotes...

Anyway, the theory is interesting...but like others, I am a little skeptical. If this is true, then what is the significance of Big Venus at the end? Of the final burst of memories when Roger is sinking? Of Roger and Dorothy reassuring Angel in the control room?

They seem to be very significant pieces of the puzzle...and for this theory to fit, these pieces must be significant some how...so how are they so?

I do agree that you hit the nail on the head when you bring up all of the identity ideas that are floating through Big O...I personally think that was one of the bigger (general) themes in the entire series for both seasons.
evanASF27 12-04-2003 11:09 PM
it seems possible. But it leaves many more questions unanswered....and it gets kinda confusing @_@;;;


I made a theory myself about the show Smile It's quite interesting and I still believe that is is the most correct one yet thought up....mainly because it covers nearly everysingle detail of the shows and can relate that easily to the theory..



Very freudian...so you have been warned @_@;;; CLICK HERE!!
knight_errant00 12-05-2003 09:27 AM
Y'know, it occured to me just now that this also explains Roger's rather steadfast aversion to carrying or using a gun . . .

--knight_errant00
Narsham 12-05-2003 11:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by knight_errant00
Yep. That's the problem with stories about people who are somewhat unhinged, whether it's "They Might Be Giants", "Man of La Mancha" --heck, even "Total Recall". The ambiguity's part of the genre . . .


My issue is that in movies like the Sixth Sense, there IS actually a "reality" and at some point the movie makes that clear to you.

BTW, knowing that there was something unusual about the movie allowed me to almost immediately determine what the "gimmick" was. It involved constant and consistant reinforcement of the evidence. I don't see any sign of that in Big O.

quote:
quote:
If you accept Roger reading the comic strip as real, how do you account for Roger (faceless) on stage immediately before that?


Roger's unsure of his identity, the part he's playing . . . that's why he's also so distant and unmoved by what's happening on stage.


So this is a vision again? So Roger, having woken up in the "real world" as you would have it, gets kicked out of a bank, suddenly has a fantasy vision, and then awakens on a bench?

If you assume that ANY moment in episode 14 could be a vision, on what basis can you declare anything real?

quote:
quote:
Why can't the whole thing be a dream?


Because that would suck . . . just like the theory that the whole thing being some big VR TV show, something like the holo-novel "The Big Goodbye" fromt "Star Trek: The Next Generation" just kinda falls flat with me as well.


I agree, which is my main objection to your theory. I see no effective way to avoid the conclusion that we cannot depend on anything we perceive on the screen if the vast majority of the show is one huge fantasy/escape for one character.

quote:
Dorothy is his fantasy woman, patterned after an adorable girl he sees going into the club from time to time. She's his anchor character in his fantasy, someone who believes in him as Roger the Negotiator and doesn't care about his past, only who he is and what he does now--the opposite player to Gordon Rosewater, who's there to remind him of the Truth (I'd be willing to bet he's a doctor treating Roger in the hospital).


Yes, but is there any ACTUAL evidence on the screen of any of that?

quote:
quote:
Worse, the whole lesson of the episode, the lesson Roger learns, is that he must CONFRONT his terror in order to go on.


He does, and he might--Just not right now. Going underground terrifies him because it's, metaphorically, reaching down into himself (remember, all the memories are supposed to be hidden down there). The ride with Angel/Nurse starts to terrify him because it's taking him back where he'll have to face those memories. So, he manages to retreat to Roger the Negotiator, probably escaping from the car, which leads to all the stage scenes.


My point is that the dramatic thrust of the story, the arc, points directly towards Roger's SUCCESS in confronting his terror. Just as, with Dorothy's help, he confronts that terror in episode 3. So your argument that he hasn't confronted his terror flies in the face of the available evidence. You cannot assume that your theory about Roger's fantasy is correct, and then use that assumption to prove that Roger has NOT successfully confronted his terror, and then turn around and use THAT as evidence to prove what you just assumed.

Well, you can, but it isn't going to convince me. Wink

quote:
quote:
The alternative you propose ends up putting us in a Cartesian position where we assume the writers of the show are intentionally misleading us and want us to see as "real" what isn't, drawing wrong conclusions from each and every clue they offer to us.


Ever seen "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", or "Jacob's Ladder"? The very *point* of such stories is to get you to believe you're watching one story, and then amaze you when it turns out to be something else.


Yes, but the point is that every single one of those movies provides a carefully consistant "reality" and then misdirects our attention.

If the Big O series is doing that, it's doing so in an extremely incompetant manner. We get hints in virtually every scene of "Sixth Sense." But our first hint in this show is in episode 14?

quote:
As a writer myself, I just tend to notice certain elements when they pop up . . . they strike me as the clues *I'd* lay if writing a story. The line about turning his gun on children just popped out at me, and got me thinking in this direction


I agree, it was something of an odd thing to say.

But I'd be much more likely to believe it was a reference to, say, the killing of the children/tomatoes in Paradigm City.

Something of the equivalent of his saying "Let me guess, you're going to tell me I'm Alex Rosewater."
R Trusedale 12-06-2003 01:17 PM
This is an interesting theory you have. I can see how Beck the Banker might be incorporated into Roger's fantasy. But what about that other major villain? How does Schwarzwald figure into this?
Master P 12-06-2003 03:45 PM
There was an episode of Buffy like that once, where she kept having dreams that she was in an insane asylum and that her whole life as a Slayer was a hallucination. The episode ended with her going back into a coma in the asylum, so we weren't really sure which reality was the "true" reality. A lot like Roger the Wanderer.

-Master P
knight_errant00 12-09-2003 10:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by R Trusedale
I can see how Beck the Banker might be incorporated into Roger's fantasy. But what about that other major villain? How does Schwarzwald figure into this?


Unfortunately, my Tivo just deleted "Roger the Wanderer", so I can't go back and check, but as I recall, Seebach (sp?) was the byline on the newspaper article Roger was reading about the mysterious giant uncovered beneath the city. Perhaps, then, this name gets metaphorized into the Schwarzwald we all know, the mad journalist seeking the Truth underground--Truth that involves the Bigs and memories, which in this theory so far, Roger is trying to stay away from.(in fact, didn't he say in 25 or 26 that he voluntarily gave up his memories?)

--knight_errant00
BigPrime 12-09-2003 10:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by knight_errant00
quote:
Originally posted by R Trusedale
I can see how Beck the Banker might be incorporated into Roger's fantasy. But what about that other major villain? How does Schwarzwald figure into this?


Unfortunately, my Tivo just deleted "Roger the Wanderer", so I can't go back and check, but as I recall, Seebach (sp?) was the byline on the newspaper article Roger was reading about the mysterious giant uncovered beneath the city. Perhaps, then, this name gets metaphorized into the Schwarzwald we all know, the mad journalist seeking the Truth underground--Truth that involves the Bigs and memories, which in this theory so far, Roger is trying to stay away from.(in fact, didn't he say in 25 or 26 that he voluntarily gave up his memories?)

--knight_errant00


Sort of. He says that he doesn't have any memories, but he doesn't think anyone stole them. Rather, he believes he got rid of them himself, for some reason. He doesn't really know, but that's what he thinks is the case.