You've gotta read in between the lines with this one

Thanks for your analysis. My reply addresses several of the theories that I have read in this forum, so these comments are not necessarily in response to your posting. I agree in principle with the moral that many have interpreted this movie to express, mainly based on Lucy’s behavior in life. Regarding specific incidents that have been pointed out, I have rewatched certain scenes in the movie to clarify them in my mind.

Starting with Lucy’s final appearance at the house: Clara did seem quite concerned about Lucy’s health, inquiring repeatedly. Clara did not give Lucy an abnormal dose of the drug in her tea, only one measure. The tea was prepared even after Lucy requested to see what happened in the bedroom, which Clara denied. Clara also claimed to completely understand Lucy’s curiosity. I suspect that any of the girls in that position would have expressed such curiosity sometime during their tenure. I do not think that would have been a cause for Clara to terminate Lucy (her or her position).

I do not think that Clara (or anyone) watches via CCTV what happens in the room. If they had a serious concern about the girls learning what happens in the room (out of concern for the clients’ privacy), they ought to have foreseen the possibility of what Lucy successfully carried out (hiding a camera in the room), so if they could be watching, they would see that. They would also see as it happens any infraction of the rules by the clients, such as one of the clients “leaving marks” on Lucy (as some here have speculated), so a stipulation against that was added to “the rule.” We saw no evidence that the proprietor(s) knew of those events as they transpired.

Clara did add four measures of drug to the tea of Man 1 (? Peter Carroll?) before asking him, “Are you sure?” After Clara goes back in the room after the session, she did not seem at all surprised to find Man 1 dead. Clara was, however, clearly worried about Lucy when she did not initially respond to Clara’s touch and therefore tried to wake her vigorously.

Some in this forum and elsewhere have speculated that Lucy was dead at that stage. That scenario is tempting. The filmmakers do not commit to that interpretation: “We don't want to tell you our spin on it as the ending is left open for you to decide and infer what happened to her.” http://www.facebook.com/SleepingBeautyTheFilm/posts/371681289524520 (I cannot access more of that thread beyond that page.) The ending may therefore be intentionally ambiguous. I have alternately leaned toward that interpretation and away. I think that what we see of Lucy’s response to (apparently) awaking and becoming hysterical is inconsistent with what we had seen of her character with her knowledge that she was “escorting” quite old men during her sleep, so it should not have been drastically frightening to find that one of them had in fact died.

I think her response was quite an overreaction if she merely came to realize how she had “wasted” her life up to that point. (It is not as if she were an old lady and had already wasted her whole life. So she might think, “OMG, I’ve got to start living more responsibly,” but not scream hysterically like that.) Possibly, if she suddenly remembered everything that had happened to her during her sessions, those memories might evoke such a response (especially if there were any sessions worse than those we saw). However, why would she suddenly remember them all? Did the drug prevent such memories during her sleep or not? I doubt that the trauma of seeing the dead Man 1 would be severe enough to counteract all the action of the drug so far. So her response is consistent with discovering that she just “woke up dead.” Of course, we the viewers don’t see (again, perhaps intentionally) how she understands this if it’s true, e.g., we don’t see her conspicuous dead body in the bed at the same time. But we don’t really know what we see after we die, do we?

After that response to that possible discovery, we never see anyone reacting to her again (somewhat “Sixth Sensibly,” though we don’t see any more of Lucy at all). We do see an excerpt from Lucy’s hidden camera, but we don’t know who is watching it. In that scene, Lucy is seen slightly moving and shifting her body, whereas Man 1’s position is exactly as it was when he was found dead. I doubt that Man 1 killed Lucy following that scene. However, if Lucy died as an effect of the drug (in her unhealthy condition that day), it must have been after that movement we saw in the clip. How likely is that? I don’t know if that was consistent with a dying motion, but perhaps death could have come even later.

In conclusion, I think there are some inconsistencies with each of the theories I’ve seen offered for the ending. That may be intentional so that no interpretation is definitive.

Wow. What do you do for a living?

[deleted]

I really dig your insight man. I had been pondering the repetitious nature of Lucy's routine and the cyclical nature of the narrative itself.

OP I completely agree with your articulate analysis. I found the film haunting, intriguing and powerful, and that is just the style. On an intuitive level, even if I couldn't make heads or tails of its meaning or message, I would still enjoy it for the film itself. I see it as almost a work of art, like a poem or a play, rather than a movie.

I second that the point of having characters this empty and one-dimensional is to highlight the message inherent, not as an end in itself.

It matters none to me that there are people who think of this film as bad or pointless. They are the ones who wasted their own time and/or money and refused to derive from it anything worthwhile.

"There's nothing really truly being said by this film, and yet, by the nature of its existence, there's a lot being said."

Agreed. It's almost as if this film doesn't NEED to really "say" anything; it simply shows a certain reality, a mind set, an environment where Lucy's "job" flourishes. That, in a way, is enough to make the film provoking and valuable. That, by itself, contains a lot of social commentary.

As a young woman who has brushed up against this sort of thing, who lives in an environment where young women are more often than not seen as sexual trophies for old men, I find this film very real and poignant. The scenes with the old men fondling, abusing, touching, and licking Lucy while she sleeps were surprisingly.... accurate. Realistic. They captured the essence of this world, this mentality (and, by extension Western society's attitudes towards women and sex) - succinctly and accurately.

The film also touches upon female sexual passivity. Is sex something women can, should enjoy? Is sex something in which women can be the aggressors in? Lucy demonstrates the role women have had in sex for centuries: the passive object that sex is done to. However, ultimately it was her decision to accept the job, even if she did not know all the details. That is a sort of aggression on her part, but again, it's passive-aggressive. She agrees to submit herself to the perverse male fantasies - not for any sexual enjoyment she may get out of it, but purely for money. In fact, the fact that she is asleep throughout the whole process implies that she'd rather not deal with the sex part at all - she doesn't want to know. Ignorance is bliss, and if she can get away with taking the money without having to fully acknowledge what she is doing to herself, and what is done TO her, she'll do it. Like the men, she is objectifying herself - but not even for her own sexuality, but simply because society objectifies her and she must conform to that in order to survive. This isn't the classic self-objectification of the insecure woman who wears skimpy outfits to bars and has one night stands all the time in order to feel loved. It's a passive acceptance of the men's view of her, the acceptance of her role in society, the acceptance of the status quo.

This IS NOT a fluff, mindless film. There is A LOT here. As a young woman exposed to the kinds of men who are Lucy's clients, this film speaks volumes. There is still a lot of sexual inequality and sexual politics are still very much skewed in our day and age.

Wow, interesting read. Definitely a knockout win for youshotandywarhol :-)

Nice analysis OP. I would add that there is a subtle critique of contemporary female culture to become a sexual vessel by decorating and adorning the external self at the expense of developing an internal self.

Keep silent unless what you are going to say is more important than silence.