Comments on: The Invitation Movie Discussed with Phil Hay and Explained

By: Justin Levinsky

Justin Levinsky — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 03:25:54 +0000

I thought of an explanation that I could not find anywhere. After finishing the movie I was thinking back to all of the little scenes I was wondering about and the coyote one right at the beginning of the movie came to mind. I though there has to be some significance to that scene. And then it came to me that this scene opens up the movie to the main idea of the entire film – when one suffers through pain emotionally and physically we should end our misery through death. This is depicted as the main character kills the coyote after he hits it as he feels bad for the coyote and does not want it to suffer further. When the couple arrive at the party and people ask about the coyote the ex wife’s new husband is the only person who says that what he did by killing the coyote was a good thing. This was a hint that he agreed that ending the life of one who is suffering is a good option. This also can be interpreted in that if the main character killed the coyote to end its misery his misery should be ended as well (his son who died). Pretty crazy stuff tho.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 27 Jan 2020 06:14:40 +0000

Well….and I know I’m coming late to “the party” here lol….but, my initial reaction, and I still feel it to be the most plausible in part, is that it affected the affluent community right there. The more I thought about it, I believe it may have affected many affluent communities. First off….unless dude in Mexico has a bottomless pit of money, how are so many people going to get down there to talk to him in the first place? Middle class and lower….uh uh….no matter how much grief or sadness they are suffering, any blue collar worker, or single mom, or member of poor communities, are going to be able to just take off and go to some self help seminar in Mexico. No time…no money. Plus, they wouldn’t be as swayed by “new age” type “science”. Also, communities that have strong religious beliefs already about God and their purpose here on earth wouldn’t be taken in by this guy anyway. So what I believe we’re looking at are communities of affluent people, with no established beliefs in anything beyond what they can see…..or buy perhaps. People who have suffered unimaginable losses; or just found that, in their endless pursuit for success, no amount of money actually brings true purpose or happiness. What better place to find these people than in the setting of the movie? I believe that what we saw in that ending was a concentrated part of a whole, but not one that even affected all of California, but may have affected many areas in the country as well as Mexico, but I don’t necessarily believe it affected the entire world. That’s still a devastating scale, and was a powerful visual. And is something I believe, if one were ambitious (and crazy) enough, could possibly be carried out. But I’ll put my tin foil away for now and just be thankful that I’m not affluent and already have my own set of beliefs

By: Taylor Holmes

Taylor Holmes — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 14:42:52 +0000

In reply to Michele.

What is a “professional bar”?!? I love the sound of it. Do you mean, like a high end pub that’s expensive?!? Hahah. Ie the bar goers are a little more exclusive. Dying to a see a link to their website! I must know more!! Gotta find one like it in my town.

As for the Claire/Pruitt question – did you read my interview with Phil Hay? (https://taylorholmes.com/2016/09/30/the-invitation-interview-with-phil-hay/) Maybe read that first and then decide if his answer makes sense. Then if not we can discuss it more. Phil stakes out two clear options. One that I found in his script. And one that he would like to have happen in his mind… if that isn’t too ambiguous.

By: Taylor Holmes

Taylor Holmes — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 23:35:33 +0000

In reply to Michele. I actually saw the compliment. I did. I do need to ask CY to edit this post. She's done basically the rest. Thanks for commenting Michele, and for putting up with me! hahaha.

By: Michele

Michele — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 22:14:21 +0000

Oh, don’t misread my comment! I was stating that your posts are FINE- just typos. It is MANY other bloggers’ styles that I can’t cope with! Hey, I have typos, too! No problem. I get it! Hey, by the way, we have a professional bar at home; come by anytime for a beer or cocktail :)

So what about Pruitt and the character that left early? Did he kill her?

By: Taylor Holmes

Taylor Holmes — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 15:58:22 +0000

In reply to Michele.

Holy cow!
Didn’t realize how hardcore people could be. Personally love the ideas of film but am impatient with the editing, the SEO, the links, the formatting necessary to make a post happen. I probably spend an hour writing and an hour fiddling with other crap. Not that the reader cares. But at the end of the day I don’t enjoy editing – like even more so than all the rest. It’s nice that CY edits all my posts now, but even that is one more thing to do. And all I really want to do is hang out at the local pub with you guys and chat movie ideas.

But yes, I’m not a very good writer – definitely yield that immediately. So thanks for reading in spite of my inabilities!! Seriously.

By: Michele

Michele — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 14:02:07 +0000

I’m an English professor and often find myself cringing as well. While I noticed Taylor’s snafus, his review didn’t contain any errors that, personally, drive me to drink. If I come across (for example) “. . . anyone can get THEIR . . .” -Or- “ . . . Blah blah blah with ‘him and I,’ ” I cease reading and move on! Taylor’s errors, I believe, are simply a result of typos and not ignorance- makes a huge difference to me- IMHO :)

By the way, the character that left early in The Interview… was she killed by Pruitt (after he moved his car) before actually being permitted to leave? If not, doesn’t this defeat the hosts’ purpose?

By: Taylor Holmes

Taylor Holmes — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 01:54:03 +0000

In reply to Georgette.

I didn’t take it personally at all. I actually appreciate it very much.
If I would reread my posts even once they’d be infinitely better. But I totally hate reading my own writing. Which is why it was so nice for you to do it for me!! As soon as I get off this plane and get access to my computer again I’ll make the changes you so kindly found for me!

Thanks a ton!
Taylor

By: Georgette

Georgette — Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:00:26 +0000

I enjoyed a good portion of your post dissecting The Invitation’s mechanics and layers (although there are some points where you find yourself at a loss or amply ambivalent and with more questions than is fair to pile onto the reader who, presumably, is here for answers) but for the love of all that is confusing, I beseech you to use a proofreader! A spell-checker wouldn’t do; it should be someone who can infer meaning and catch malapropisms, phonetic flaws, honest confusions, and simple oversights. A debugger, so to speak.

To be specific: laden, the word you mean to use (I’m almost certain) is laden, not “latent with potential energy,” and you “voraciously read through” the script, not veraciously. Also, “Pruitt kills Choi by shooting HIM,” not her. Choi is a boy.

In the last paragraph you write, “we’ve talked through the big themes and the begin reveals,” but something is off… do you mean the beginning’s reveals/revelations during the film’s beginning?

Please, none of this is meant as a put-down nor does it take away from the enjoyment of reading your casual and somewhat stream-of-consciousness styled analysis. I apologize if it comes across as such. I’m a copywriter, proofreader and translator myself and it appears I am never off the clock… For what it’s worth, I’m aware that grammar Nazis are annoying. I’m only pointing it out because everything else flowed well (garnished with a side of perplexing as it was, you set and followed a course); clearly your output is high-volume (can identify) and I figured that, if this comment is taken in the spirit it is given, you’d appreciate the suggestion. :-)