Enemy In-Depth Analysis (Fully Explained Theory)

Well, this could be the meaning authors have put into the film. But I don't like it. Of course, there are some clues, but it's too cumbersome and puzzlish. All those spiders that make resemblance with space invasion films… Personally I've thought that it is the point (trying not to overuse that always-could-be-used main hero madness explanation). And the film title hints that.
1. Yes, none sees them (Adam and Anthony) simultaneously,
2. his mother (almost) says that Adam's the only child and had dreamed of acting (and should have stop doing that), (by the way, she's not confused by his story — why?),
3. and we don't see Anthony's mother, only Adam's,
4. and that the same (part of) photograph both persons had (I thought it was two copies).
5. And almost always empty streets and surroundings (and less and less students in the class room).
(By the way, why a professor has cheap flat, but three local episodes actor have that bigger one?)
So, I don't like the script, but Gyllenhaal's acting is superb. :)

Thank you man. Very very good piece of writing. It explains a lot.

His wife said "I want you to stay" meaning they were already divorced which can be supported by the Teacher never wearing a ring and the tore picture.

I think all the scenes with him with the ring are more than 6 months old. The scenes with the Actor are dramatised to make it seem like the Actor and the Wife are talking about the Teacher but I believe they are actually talking about the cover up of his affair.

The part at the end where he opens the envelop, the Actor was wearing a leather jacket, not a suit.

Loved reading your analysis, Daniel. I think the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal is credited as "Andy + Anthony" and not Andy/Anthony or whatever, pretty much proves that both of them are part of the same person.

The film is definitely vague and lets you interpret things any way you want to, so while I believe there is no 'right answer' when trying to describe this film, there are definitely more than enough clues from the filmmakers that your theory is what they had in mind.

I kinda like the effort you put into this, I'm seeing you with pen and paper drawing timelines, so thumbs up.

The level of psychosis involved to make this storyline work though belies the entire plot/story. A guy who has myriad audio/visual/tactile? hallucinations and a dissociative identity is a mild mannered history professor at a university and failed actor bike rider sex club patron at night? And he's at this level of total insanity because of fidelity issues? And a car accident that left him with one scar?

It hit me that the guy was split when he sees himself in the video. The odds of spotting an identical to you extra walk on actor is what? Has to be microscopically minute, but then throughout the movie they go out of their way to highlight the amount of interaction between the two. Why? Both of them are just tottering along the brink of self discovery, crossing lines repeatedly. Nobody goes to work during this kind of psychological stress I don't think. Function should plummet...

But forget my rambling, main point is, did the director go into any specifics of his thinking going into this. Like his rationale? Because a lot of it feels to me like high art low science "cause I wanna" or "it'll be cool if"

If you really think about it the way you clearly have I think this makes even less sense. What you can get away with in a fun movie, I don't think you get to have that same pass when pen and paper come in to play.

Also, how do you call a movie a masterpiece when it's so convoluted the first thread is "fully explained theory"? I mean, I haven't done any kind of professional film study, but isn't the end crux of a movie to entertain at its full potential? This is arty yes, but some research and coherency would have done this wonders imo. I mean, clearly you love it and have watched it several times and at parts it still has you bent over backwards and reaching.

#NotAMasterpiece (imo)




Clever people will recognize and tolerate nothing but cleverness.

Well done, Daniel. Untangled a lot of threads. Thanks for the careful work.

Thank you Danielito for taking time to write such a well explained theory. It really cleared up my doubt about spiders, It's a great movie.... loved it from the begining... :)

That was all very nice but I don't believe a word of it. The director has said he had a high old time making the movie and delighted in confounding the audience and could be open to any interpretation you like. An important point is that in the original novel by Jose Saramago the spider motif is absent, it is a conspicuous addition to the film. The novel itself is less than forthcoming about its real meaning. Perhaps there is no real meaning.