Shouldn't they be seen from his own eyes? Yet, when the characters at the beginning look at his brain through the monitors, it's always OF him from afar (walking through the double doors, making out with the girl, etc.)
shareThat's standard movie making. Of course memories of a character should be through their eyes. But that leaves out the context of the character (you don't see their body) so it's harder for an audience to figure out what is going on in the memory.
It's spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove'
Yeah, good point, but I guess we can overlook it, like how all foreigners speak English with British accents when the movie translates for us (unless they're Latino)
shareA pretentious reply could contain things like 'it's a movie language'.
In books, authors can basically use as many words as they want to describe a memory, or internal dialog of a character. Movies can't do that, they have to be more concise, to pack everything into two hours or less (usually).
Movies are 'tied in time', unlike books.
Reading a book, the reader can set the pace, go back and forth, skip and slowly travel from one place to another, take a vacation in Hawaii, come back in three weeks, continue where they left off, etc.
Watching a movie, the audience take in the story at a fixed pace. Even if you pause the movie or skip/rewind, etc., it's not quite the same. It's like audio vs. text; with text, the reader can read it super-quickly, or very slowly and re-read the same sentence a few times, etc.
With audio, it's just a fixed-pace 'tied in time'-stream that the listener has to just listen fully with their full attention on it, if they want to understand it. That's why text is 'timeless', and audio can't be skimmed as easily.
Or you can think of a photo; you see 'the whole thing' immediately - but then you can pay attention to this or that detail that you didn't notice at first, and keep getting all kinds of impressions from the photo - but you can do this at your own pace.
Anyway, so movie has to have its own way of explaining things, it can't always just use narration, and since visual is faster than narration, and also more viewer-friendly (requires less focus and is less tied in time than audio), movies use generally-accepted-conventions as a shorthand to quickly tell the viewer what's going on, so they can get on with the story instead of having to do the 'realistic' thing and then spend 5 minutes explaining it to the viewer.
This is why memories are almost always shown from the external viewpoint, because after all, the whole movie exists for the viewer's benefit, not for the benefit the character in the movie.
So, movies have this 'visual movie language' that compensates for the problems of the format; the 'fixed-in-time' problem, the 'lack of internal dialogue' problem, the 'text vs. audio' or 'narration vs. visuals', and then movies have to also be able to 'show, not tell', and fit to a compact chronological space, whereas books have unlimited chronological real estate to roam in freely, so it forces movies to lack in detail.
When they use this 'movie language' as a shorthand, they can create a nice, acceptable compromise between 'lack of detail' and 'lack of realism', that brings 'entertainment' and moves the plot along at a rapid pace, so the viewer isn't too bored.