No, this isn't a thread about what the ending meant, since I thought the intended interpretation was pretty clear. But just that there are still certain scenes in the film - and we're focusing on the film, not the book, since I've only read up to chapter 12 of that yet - that either don't quite make sense to me or just weren't fully explained.
As a side-note, one of my little theories (which probably isn't anything new), is that Teddy sees fire as a help (e.g. cigarettes, source of light, and how he says it's "important" that Dolores died from the smoke rather than the fire - although you could also say it's because he didn't want to imagine his wife being burned to death, which may be more painful than smoke inhalation) and water as a hindrance (e.g. sea sickness, the lake being the location of his children's deaths, scenes where the water appears imaginary to Teddy's perspective). You could say it's something of a strength/weakness dichotomy.
1) Why does George Noyce tell Teddy "I'm only here because of you" and imply there's something at the lighthouse, when he apparently knows that Teddy's "not investigating anything" and that he's a "rat in a maze"? Does George, being a paranoid schizophrenic, believe some parts of Teddy's conspiracy theory, but not others?
2) Even though there aren't Nazi-esque experiments going on at the lighthouse, did lobotomies (which did happen in real-life psychiatric places) still take place at the lighthouse? Because when, at the end, Teddy goes with the psychiatrists to presumably be lobotomised, it cuts to a shot of the lighthouse (although some people say it's not even the same one *shrugs*).
3) Were the patients Teddy and Chuck interviewed real, as well as their backstories? Bridget Kearns still wants to be known as "Mrs.", even though she killed her husband, and later laughs while talking to a doctor for no apparent reason (I think it's the scene after Teddy comes back from talking with "Dr. Rachel Solando" and he meets back up with Dr. Cawley).
4) Why is Teddy fearful of the "ex-military prick" warden (not Naehring or Cawley, just him) from the moment he looks at him (even though he was suffering from a migraine at the time and, thus, may've felt vulnerable)? This was even before their "God loves violence" conversation. Is it just because he instinctively knew that the Warden wanted him to relapse again and get lobotomised, because he believed Teddy was naturally violent? Perhaps he was a former colleague of Teddy's when he was in the war? Detests him for killing his wife?
5) Why does Teddy/Andrew put so much more focus on his dead daughter than his dead sons during his hallucinations and even when he first finds his children dead? For example, he only tries to resuscitate and later warm up his daughter Rachel's foot.
6) Was the Board meeting when Naehring suggested putting the extremely dangerous patients in shackles part of the game for Teddy? They didn't know Teddy was there at the time, until he spoke.
7) Was the gun that Teddy initially had while on the ferry and up until meeting Deputy Warden McPherson fake and/or empty? If it was real and/or loaded, why would they give their institution's most violent and calculating patient a gun, even if they were just going to take it away anyway?
8) How did Cawley know it'd all go to plan, and Teddy wouldn't just end up freaking out and try to kill someone in his search to uncover the conspiracy? I mean, he almost strangled a patient to death. Cawley admitted he realised the hallucinations were worse than he thought when Teddy/Andrew mentioned "Dr. Rachel Solando".
9) Also, why'd Cawley have Chuck abandon Teddy, allowing him to do things like climb down a dangerously rocky cliff, and let Teddy knock a guard unconscious?
10) If Rachel Solando is fake, and Andrew Laeddis is Teddy, that means that Andrew is not the 67th patient. There can't be a 67th patient, because Andrew would be the 65th or 66th (unless I've got my maths wrong) patient (replacing Rachel, who he made up). Was that the point? Is it a plothole, because Cawley tells Teddy at the end that he's the 67th patient, after having previously told Teddy there were only 66 patients in total? Then again, we don't know whether or not Cawley was counting Andrew and/or the fictional Rachel in his patient total.
11) What was the point of Cawley acknowledging Chuck at the beginning, and then outright telling Teddy "you don't have a partner, Marshal; you came here alone", then goes into a passionate mini-rant about having "built something valuable here", that people don't understand, and he's "not going to give up without a fight"?
12) Doesn't "Dr. Solando"'s argument about how anything you say will be dismissed if they're legally termed 'insane' actually hold some water? Yet the story seems to debunk that argument about Andrew actually being mentally ill and having hallucinated said doctor and the entire conversation?
13) Why take Teddy/Andrew off his medication, exacerbating his migraines and hallucinations, rather than actually slip it in his food, drinks, and even cigarettes, if that's possible? Teddy/Andrew's memory was muddled anyway (e.g. needing Chuck to remind him about "Hoover's boys", despite being a U.S. Marshal), and perhaps they even use that approach on other mental patients who refuse to take their medicine.
What are your thoughts, and potential answers?
As a side-note, one of my little theories (which probably isn't anything new), is that Teddy sees fire as a help (e.g. cigarettes, source of light, and how he says it's "important" that Dolores died from the smoke rather than the fire - although you could also say it's because he didn't want to imagine his wife being burned to death, which may be more painful than smoke inhalation) and water as a hindrance (e.g. sea sickness, the lake being the location of his children's deaths, scenes where the water appears imaginary to Teddy's perspective). You could say it's something of a strength/weakness dichotomy.
1) Why does George Noyce tell Teddy "I'm only here because of you" and imply there's something at the lighthouse, when he apparently knows that Teddy's "not investigating anything" and that he's a "rat in a maze"? Does George, being a paranoid schizophrenic, believe some parts of Teddy's conspiracy theory, but not others?
2) Even though there aren't Nazi-esque experiments going on at the lighthouse, did lobotomies (which did happen in real-life psychiatric places) still take place at the lighthouse? Because when, at the end, Teddy goes with the psychiatrists to presumably be lobotomised, it cuts to a shot of the lighthouse (although some people say it's not even the same one *shrugs*).
3) Were the patients Teddy and Chuck interviewed real, as well as their backstories? Bridget Kearns still wants to be known as "Mrs.", even though she killed her husband, and later laughs while talking to a doctor for no apparent reason (I think it's the scene after Teddy comes back from talking with "Dr. Rachel Solando" and he meets back up with Dr. Cawley).
4) Why is Teddy fearful of the "ex-military prick" warden (not Naehring or Cawley, just him) from the moment he looks at him (even though he was suffering from a migraine at the time and, thus, may've felt vulnerable)? This was even before their "God loves violence" conversation. Is it just because he instinctively knew that the Warden wanted him to relapse again and get lobotomised, because he believed Teddy was naturally violent? Perhaps he was a former colleague of Teddy's when he was in the war? Detests him for killing his wife?
5) Why does Teddy/Andrew put so much more focus on his dead daughter than his dead sons during his hallucinations and even when he first finds his children dead? For example, he only tries to resuscitate and later warm up his daughter Rachel's foot.
6) Was the Board meeting when Naehring suggested putting the extremely dangerous patients in shackles part of the game for Teddy? They didn't know Teddy was there at the time, until he spoke.
7) Was the gun that Teddy initially had while on the ferry and up until meeting Deputy Warden McPherson fake and/or empty? If it was real and/or loaded, why would they give their institution's most violent and calculating patient a gun, even if they were just going to take it away anyway?
8) How did Cawley know it'd all go to plan, and Teddy wouldn't just end up freaking out and try to kill someone in his search to uncover the conspiracy? I mean, he almost strangled a patient to death. Cawley admitted he realised the hallucinations were worse than he thought when Teddy/Andrew mentioned "Dr. Rachel Solando".
9) Also, why'd Cawley have Chuck abandon Teddy, allowing him to do things like climb down a dangerously rocky cliff, and let Teddy knock a guard unconscious?
10) If Rachel Solando is fake, and Andrew Laeddis is Teddy, that means that Andrew is not the 67th patient. There can't be a 67th patient, because Andrew would be the 65th or 66th (unless I've got my maths wrong) patient (replacing Rachel, who he made up). Was that the point? Is it a plothole, because Cawley tells Teddy at the end that he's the 67th patient, after having previously told Teddy there were only 66 patients in total? Then again, we don't know whether or not Cawley was counting Andrew and/or the fictional Rachel in his patient total.
11) What was the point of Cawley acknowledging Chuck at the beginning, and then outright telling Teddy "you don't have a partner, Marshal; you came here alone", then goes into a passionate mini-rant about having "built something valuable here", that people don't understand, and he's "not going to give up without a fight"?
12) Doesn't "Dr. Solando"'s argument about how anything you say will be dismissed if they're legally termed 'insane' actually hold some water? Yet the story seems to debunk that argument about Andrew actually being mentally ill and having hallucinated said doctor and the entire conversation?
13) Why take Teddy/Andrew off his medication, exacerbating his migraines and hallucinations, rather than actually slip it in his food, drinks, and even cigarettes, if that's possible? Teddy/Andrew's memory was muddled anyway (e.g. needing Chuck to remind him about "Hoover's boys", despite being a U.S. Marshal), and perhaps they even use that approach on other mental patients who refuse to take their medicine.
What are your thoughts, and potential answers?