Talk:Stay (2005 film)

message: Basically I wanted to second the notion two entries down.  I feel that this is really interesting stuff, but until/unless an interpretive analysis of the film becomes a published work, it is not an appropriate source of encyclopedic information and should simply be a link on a separate page.  I also want to stress that this is actually hard to say because I like the interpretation and feel that the film warrants more discussion, it's just that the Wikipedia is not the proper place for it.
I like the interpretation. But it lacks an explanation for the many twins and triplets that appear.
I also like the interpretation but I feel like it belongs on a seperate web page, it isn't wikipedia material. Publish it somewhere, googlepages perhaps, and include the link. Interpretations based only on personal opinion do not belong in an encyclopedia.
- My guess is that since it is a dream, he has a limited scope of the real world. Thus several people appear more than once, sometimes in the same area. CaravaggioFan 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I made a huge edit and addition to the speculation and interpretation section, I hope you guys like it.  I agreed with much of what was already there, so I built my speculations into it and tried to improve upon it as much as I could. HellishFiend 10:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: No one made any reference to Jacob's Ladder which is also about the delusions of a dying man ... albeit a less complicated one .
As soon as It was revealed that Henry was dying I made the connection to Jacobs Ladder J.T.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3666:E8C0:8E9:C2B1:DDB7:91B2 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm suprised 

message: The analysis of Stay on this page revealed subtext and many references I'd have otherwise missed. Thanks. :-). And I suspect, like all great art, many interpretations are possible and equally valid. "Stay" contains many nods to the art world. For instance, I suspect the scenes framed with angular geometries, repeated elements (like people and staircases), and distorted perspectives are trying to invoke the work and themes of M.C. Escher, who as a mathematician and an artist, used his drawings to suggest spaces with more than the 3 (or 4) dimensions we intuitively perceive, projected on the inherent limitations of a 2 dimensional canvas. And perhaps the repeated use of twins is intended to invoke the continuing struggle, and failure, of many artists to perfectly 'copy' that which they see with sharp clarity all around them, and repeated with such ease by 'nature.' Jackson Pollack comes to mind.
But as a physicist and fan of the craft of film-making as well as film, I believe the movie is broadly addressing how life and death are part of the circular nature of time, and how everything and everyone is interconnected. I didn't see Henry's vision as something he constructs during his final moments. Instead, I think we're shown his growing awareness as he makes some corporeal transition, witnessing the futures of people connected to and affected by his death on the bridge. Henry's character evolves during the movie from confusion -- "who the fuck are you" he says when first meeting Sam -- to understanding: "I wish you didn't have to see this" before he shoots himself on the bridge. Henry's 'suicide' is his final, fearful acceptance. But his eyes are filled with tears, and his words and his face express concern not for himself, but for Sam. He has seen Sam's future, and though his "troubles will cease and fortune will smile upon [him]," Henry also knows the pain Sam must endure along the way. It is some of that pain he wishes to spare Sam.
When Henry pulls the trigger his character leaves the movie. And for the first time (and the rest of the film) we see the story from the point of view of the living, discovering in hindsight who each character is, but only we know well who they are destined to become.
IMO, these people are all connected and affected by Henry's death, and from beginning we see the future through Henry's dying eyes. Sam and Lila's cup of coffee is the first step toward a complex romantic relationship: they will become lovers, but also psychiatrist and patient though in what order we are not precisely told. Beth, who is the first to reach Henry on the bridge, descends into depression driven by her feelings of inadequacy, helplessness, and anger. She clings to the only aid she could provide -- "I didn't touch him. I know you're not supposed to move them" -- and twists her respect and admiration for Sam, who stepped in to 'replace' her on the bridge, into feelings of attraction, rejection, and anger at him, Lila, and ultimately herself. "No, you're loyal. You're a good dog. Good, loyal dog, Sam. What's her name? Lila?" To Beth, as both Sam's helper on the bridge and subsequent lover, Lila is a nagging reminder of her failure and she remains trapped by her affections for Sam and his relentless concern: "you should've let her bleed in the bathtub."
Every scene, before Henry 'kills' himself, includes some indication that he is present when not visible. After the art lecture, Henry and Sam are walking together until Henry wanders into an aquarium. Sam is gone, however a callous couple on the bridge briefly intrude as Henry seems to be communicating with the whales. The scene fades to Sam and Lila's apartment, but there is a small picture of the whales in the background throughout. Later, when Sam talks to Beth, the scene changes dramatically when she states omnisciently "he's watching us" and directs Sam to find Henry's mother.
A closing thought on my belief that this film is suggesting life and death are not a beginning and end, but points on the circular path of time. The sets are all "dressed" with contrasting pieces: a digital answering machine sits on a radio from the 50's connected to a handset phone from the 70's; a doctor's office has modern brain scan images and a black rotary phone hanging on adjacent walls, a bare stainless steel sink, and bookcases filled with apothecary jars.
And when Henry shoots himself, the scene is more than just blurry. The air is filled with strings of light surrounding the two men, sweeping behind, in front, and through them. They are perhaps the lives of others, converging, diverging, and intertwining. But we are looking now through Henry's eyes and Sam does not see these distortions. Wholly in the world of the living, would he not be astonished and at least acknowledge their existence?
Henry's journey is complete: he is no longer a confused psychiatric patient, but on the outside looking in. And he is looking at Sam who confesses, "one of the first times I met you, you said that you didn't know what was real anymore. And I said that I did, but I was wrong. I don't know what's real anymore." At the beginning of the movie Henry comes to Sam for answers, but by the end only Henry sees that death is what will allow him to "wake up." And everyone touched by him is left with new questions about themselves, new connections to others, and new futures.
This is a great, overlooked and misunderstood movie. :-) Todd Johnston 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different perspective 

message: Hey, a lot of that stuff belongs in the interpretations section, not here!  I am one of the major contributors to the section, and I understand you may be wary of altering it. All you have to do is make sure you dont remove any existing ideas from the section and it will be fine.  If youre worried about the wording, I will check back after awhile and clean it up if necessary.  I honestly would like you to work some of your theories into the section, so if you dont mind, go for it! HellishFiend 12:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great stuff Todd

message: ...for the kind words from both of you. I'll see about editing in some of my interpretations, but the process may be slow as I'm over-the-top busy right now. To Matt, please add comments whenever possible -- I am a big movie fan; but as much if not more, of the craft of film-making as of the content, and it's a rare privilege to get input from the artists on the technical side. DVD bonus tracks are the best thing since sliced bread: my respect for Kurosawa was vastly deepened by listening to other directors and cinematographers discuss his work.
I must admit that after first viewing "Stay" I felt sure I'd seen a great movie, but hadn't 'gotten it.' It was Roger Ebert's review -- he almost always 'gets' it -- that clued me in: the clothing, the sets, the scene transitions reveal the story. If "Stay" has a 'flaw,' it is that the movie really must be watched at least twice to appreciate it, and most American audiences can't think critically for even 90 minutes.
As the film's editor, I hope at least your colleagues appreciate what an extraordinary work this is. A movie like "Stay" is given life in the editing suite, much like a sculptor coaxes human emotion from a block of granite. The sequence in Sam and Lila's apartment, where she is trying to convince Sam to talk about "the kid with the hail" is so much richer than just the dialog. Starting from when Sam walks from the living room to the bathroom, there are well over a dozen cuts in about a minute and a half, each one (as I interpreted it) using their physical movements to portray the emotional "chase." We see Sam through a pane of glass (and an upside down, motionless hourglass) get up and walk down the hall to the bathroom. Lila, sitting like the therapist in her chair, gets up and follows him, but shown by her reflection across the pane of glass Sam just left. She stands in the doorway as Sam washes his hands in the tub, presumably where she slit her wrists, then leaves the water running (an invitation? His memory of blood pouring from her?) and moves to toilet. The scene cuts back to Lila, lit with a bright white light coming from the tub, water still running. Then it's back to Sam, but now Lila has barely shifted and we see his face in a mirror across from him. Lila enters the bathroom, but instead of approaching Sam directly, she moves to his reflection in the mirror, and then a close-up as she closes the cabinet he'd been snooping through just moments before. Sam moves to dry his hands at the sink next to here; Lila, now bathed in light from the sink, finally says what they're both thinking: "he wants to kill himself. That's it, isn't it?" Now we see a tight shot of Sam and Lila, both full face and brightly lit, although the wall behind them seems spattered with blood. Sam retreats one last time, with a jarring transition from the angelic radiance of Lila in the smooth, porcelain lines of the bathroom, to his dark study with scores of even darker, academic looking books, tightly stacked to cover the walls, neat and angular. He has nowhere left to go and finally gives in as stands Lila framed by the doorway and light of her peace with the world. Only now, when Sam lets down, are we shown the full absurdity of his attire: an outfit he long ago outgrew with a sweater that recalls college days, a privileged upbringing, or both -- he looks like a scared teenager. Then Lila crosses over and they finally meet on the same emotional level. And yet behind them, in an almost cartoon-like window is Henry's painting of the bridge, and we once again feel as if someone is watching from outside. The painting ripples like water, and the scene cuts abruptly back to the tub, where the water is still running.
All in 90 seconds. Brilliant stuff, really. Thanks for sharing your work with us. Todd Johnston 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Much 

message: Interpretation, speculation, and theorising, while perhaps fascinating, are strictly against Wikipedia policy.  For this section to survive, each opinion must have a verifiable and reliable source, ie. a critic/writer who has suggested this interpretation of the film.  The section cannot simply be a repository for any ideas Wikipedia editors may have on the subject, no matter how interesting they may be.--Nalvage 12:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations & Speculations 

message: This is inherently more difficult for a work of art not broadly popular or critically acclaimed in its time. That, of course, doesn't mean the work is not important (see The Wizard of Oz). Furthermore, given the complex and open-ended nature of this film, detailed discussion is an integral part of writing a cohesive and concise article.
As far as so-called reliable sources, many are included in this discussion, not the least of which are comments from the film's editor that support some of our speculation. And while there is no way I can be absolutely certain WP user "Matt Chessé" is film editor "Matt Chessé," I did verify that name and connection to "Stay" before responding. Furthermore, though admittedly verbose, we've been expanding on featurettes and commentary tracks from the movie's DVD, and the review by iconic film critic Roger Ebert, which provides much insight and an opinion that differs significantly from the mainstream. Todd Johnston 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpretations section does not currently contain a single reference.  If material in that section is from Ebert's review, or a featurette, or a commentary track, then it should be clearly sourced as such, otherwise it gives the impression that Wikipedia itself has these opinions, which is not appropriate.  We should be reporting on notable commentary that has taken place, not creating our own. This isn't a critique on the content, it would make excellent material for an essay.  Wikipedia isn't an essay site. --Nalvage 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nalvage is absolutely correct. I think the interpretation currently  in the article is good (in fact I have printed it out for myself), but it just is not encyclopedic. There may be other sites on the Internet for which that content is appropriate. As for Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Unfortunately, one of the filmmakers posting on an article’s talk page is not a source that a Wikipedia article can properly rely on. --Mathew5000 12:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable interpretations of art? 

message: This page doesn't mention that this big budget film was drop kicked and all but abandoned and hidden by Fox on release? JayKeaton 11:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped by fox 

message: For me the soundtrack was the best thing about this movie, and I was wonder why isn't there any info about it here? Asche & Spencer wrote and performed the tracks. --212.200.219.21 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soundtrack 

message: Having both seen the movie and read Slaughterhouse Five, I see no strong connection between the two. Perhaps the "see also" section could explain why Slaughterhouse Five is considered relevant? 84.190.148.59 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also Slaughterhouse Five". Why? 

message: Without some kind of section that tries to interpret what the hell is going on in this movie, this article makes no sense.  Obviously, such  a section ought to be based on reliable sources, but surely these can be found (DVD commentary, for instance?  Potentially comments by reviewers, although these can be hard to come by in "twist" movies since the studios try to get reviewers not to spoil the twist.)   Nonetheless, the plot summary on its own is basically nonsensical, and this article is useless. john k 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So write it. It's likely that no one else will. –Pomte 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A completely useless a rticle 

message: :Image:Stay film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stay film.jpg

message: I'm not sure how to work this in, but Sam and Lila seem to be an allusion to the same-named characters from "Psycho".
Skyraider (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was to move the page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Allusions to Psycho

message: Hey, I was just thinking that maybe one should add a couple of lines on Tristan Reveur, whom Henry quotes a couple of times. It's not like it's unimportant or useless or anything. And people have been questioning about who he is and what the deal is with Tristan Reveur. I know the French wikipedia actually does have a paragraph on him. You know, something along the lines of: fictional artist, who killed himself at his 21st birthday. Reveur being French for "dreamer". And maybe Henry's quotes by him?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.42.81 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tristan Reveur