Enemy (2013) Revisited (with Google AI) [SPOILERS]
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Friday, July 24, 2026 02:42
VIEWED: 215
PAGE 1 of 1
I was having a chat with Google AI about movies the other day and got some excellent reccomendations. Having been ready to watch them at some point with my dad, I thought I'd better do a "woke" check first. Coherence from (2013) is in the clear and is allegedly completely politics-free. Pure low-budget sci-fi paranoia bliss, from the sounds of it.
But Google AI was VERY clear that we did NOT, in fact, want to watch "Invisible Man" from 2020. 
But somehow, as these conversations always seem to do, we veered off from there and I got some other potentially great recommendations and ended up getting on the topic of a Jake Gyllenhall movie called Enemy from 2013 that I had posted about several times in the Low Budget and Independent Movie thread several times before and after watching it the 2nd time that very day.
I never got any replies to my original analysis on Enemy back in September of last year from anyone, but I found the movie to be fascinating.
And I knew full well that if you didn't "get it" or at least get the idea that there were hard wood floors under the carpeting, you wouldn't even know to start peeling away at it.
I wrote a lot that night. A lot.
THIS IS MY FINAL SPOILER WARNING IF YOU READ THIS FAR. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU WATCH THE MOVIE YOURSELF BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER.
Here was my long TL;DR (which I just fed to Google AI, and we'll get to momentarily):
Quote:
TL;DR
"Enemy"...
Yanno what I think...
I think this was a story about a man that got so good at manipulating everyone around him that before the movie started he got it into his head to use manipulation techniques on himself and was experimenting, possibly with a combination of hypnosis and psychedelic drugs like mushrooms or LSD with the goal of either killing off or walling off a part of himself that he rightfully didn't find desirable, and up until that point had no ability to control. Not only the memory and guilt of his infidelity, but the lust and desire for the infidelity itself as well...
And I think when the movie began, he had already somehow accomplished this. For at least long enough to have gotten close enough back in with his wife that it looked like he probably was going to be able to save the marriage if he played his cards right.
But this version of him was really jealous of the idea that the other version had sex with his wife (to the viewer's knowledge at least, this had not happened up to this point). And he used that belief as justification to take the "other" version's mistress out on a date and have his way with her as revenge. (Possibly emphasizing beyond him just kind of being a Dickhead to this point that he had managed to bury his sinful Lust, with equally sinful Wrath). Petty and what amounts to total nonsense if you were still looking at this movie as if both Jakes were two different people as almost everyone certainly was the first time viewing it.
My point is, until there was a rage inside of "Dickhead" and a desire for revenge, it didn't appear that this version of Jake had any real recollection let alone remorse for cheating on his wife. I don't think whatever he did to himself left a great personality behind for his wife to deal with overall, but the guilt of his infidelity as well as the desire for more was successfully gone.
... until it wasn't.
And our mild-mannered "good guy" protagonist comes out of the woodwork of the deep, dark recesses of Jake's suppressed mind. The "good guy" version is actually the "bad guy".
Sure... he was the suppressed guilt. He was the part of Jake that his wife literally sat up and took notice of as she could immediately tell that he had changed and he was genuinely sorry for what he did. The part of Jake that she could believe actually felt sorry for what he did and would do anything to make it up to her.
But at the same time, he was also the suppreNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh.... and one more thing after giving this a proofread... [SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY]
Until I hear confirmation by both the original writer of the book AND the director of the movie that Isabella Rossellini did not kill 3 husbands, I still think I'm right about that angle. 3 dead husbands which are symbolized by the black hanging lights above the dining table in the middle of the web.
Shes rich. She's single. She's not incredibly old, yet she is incredibly well off.
Google AI has said nothing that makes me believe my theory regarding that isn't solid, and to be fair although it does "feel" that was outside of the scope of both the movie and the book and since this wasn't a crime drama she "likely didn't literally poison" them, it did not speak in any definitive terms when giving that answer.
I'd love to get in touch with the both them about it somehow.
This information isn't necessary to make the film great, but I think it improves upon what already is great. I'm hoping that if neither of them actually planned it, they would at least concede it was a good idea and that it just happens to fit with what they already made.
--------------------------------------------------
Those who dance always seem crazy to those who can't hear the music.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME