Talk:The Congress (2013 film)

Plot like the book?
the plot does not sound like the book "The Futurological Congress" written by lem. can someone verify the connection? (the sources also only mention a story written by lem with the name "congress")87.152.185.235 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this movie does not appear to be based upon “The Futurological Congress” by Stanislaw Lem. I've posted more about this matter in the Talk page for that entry. Timothy Campbell (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't know much about Hollywood adaptions do you? They took an idea and ran it through the mill and came up with something similar in scope. See Total Recall and We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree with Timothy Campbell - I know a lot of Hollywood adaptations, and in most cases the plot at least has some resemblance to the original. I have not seen this film yet, but what I read of the plot has no resemblance to Stanislaw Lem's "Futurological Congress" at all, so it seems misleading even to call it "loosely based on" the novel. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded and edited accordingly. Until this claim comes from a source with sufficient context to corroborate its credibility. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Punters?
"Miramount wants to sell Robin's image to punters" - Punters as in punternet dot com? "PunterNet - UK Escort and Massage Directory and Reviews" - Really?--Soylentyellow (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Punters = the hoi polloi, the people, the consumers, the average Joe.

The Plot Summary is incomplete
The plot summary appears to be incomplete, and after watching the movie I can say that it is missing about 40% of the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topio (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Adaptation?
Judging from the sequence of the events and what was said, I am inclined to believe that Folman's claim of "adaptation" is nothing but a marketing ploy, intended for a piece of reflection of Lem's glory unto him, rather than simple stealing "borrowing" the major idea. Unfortunately for now we have only his words. He claims "adaptation" while actually saying there is nothing in common besides "spirit" (and of course, the borrowed general idea). . Whatever. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Futurological Congress
The 'Culture.pl' article provides more details to the director's claim of a connection to the Lem novel. This should explicate the some of the concerns regarding the extent of the connection between book and movie. "Ari Folman on The Genius of Stanisław Lem": "At 65 years of age, [Robin Wright] has changed physically and no one, no longer recognises her. The actress is unable to cope with this situation. She feels deceived and attempts to find her true identity. She takes part in the congress organized by the futuristic film production studio.

This is the part of the film inspired by the text written by Stanisław Lem, The Futurological Congress. It is set in an enormous hotel with one hundred floors - the heart of the congress. Just as in Lem's book, the action of the film moves to the hotel basement and the entire city. Similarly to Ljon Tichy from Lem's novel, in seeking her identity, the actress is on a hovers between the state of her own mental delusions and the real world. In this imaginary world, hallucinogens are widely available and used to meet human needs. This is a story about the search for truth and one's own personality in the next world."

"There is certainly nothing based on Lem in the first part of the movie. The second part is definitely different, but I used Lem's, The Futurological Congress more as a source of inspiration, rather than the basis of the screenplay. I present my vision of the future, which is, however, heavily influenced by my reading of Lem." Also, adding some independent, scholarly comparison of the two works would be very helpful. JimsMaher (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Plot has errors and lacks critical details
The current plot has errors and lacks critical details, and the quality of structure can be improved.

The disorder that Aaron has is Usher's syndrome, diagnosed by Dr.Baker, and again when Robin asks for a hallucinogenic ampule. This would make a good educational hyperlink.

Robin is scanned in what is called a scanning room, this can be hyperlinked. It would be a good reference if we could find the actual room they used.

The film's timeline is entrophic and does not jump in and out of reality. Robin enters hallucinogenic animated world, exit to real world, then back to animated world. Don't call it "unanimated world", it's simply real world.

There is a great amount of parallelism shared with Al who was her agent for 20 years for her age of 24 to 44, and Dylan who was her cgi animator for 20 years after that. The both say they love her.

Abrahama is never called a city. It's just Abrahama.

Miramount does become Miramount-Nagasaki, and that is mentioned many times in the film. The Futurist Congress stage had taiko drums. This would make a good educational hyperlink.

We already know Abrahama allows its visitors to become her, but the "new technology" allows people everywhere outside to do the same.

The rebels and Sarah should be mentioned.

Another 20 years have passed at the time she is awaken out of being cryogenically frozen. Dylan says this as they are having the lobster dinner, and Dr.Baker says how Aaron waited 19 years and 6 months for Robin's return.

Dylan and Robin do not have enough romantic encounters to "fall in love", they just make love once.

Dylan's hidden tooth capsule was exactly that, not an ampule.

The security guard seen at the start in the real world, is seen once more as she leaves the animated world, exactly as the guard told her.

Aaron's red kite is significant, and referenced again many times in the film: as Robin is frozen and finds Aaron, at the animated airport with Dylan, and again with the skylift ballon, and at the end when Dr. Baker says "I'll call the kite".

Robin asking to be executed, and Dylan begging Robin not to look at him in the real world, are rather insignificant details in the plot, and should be omitted to give space to other more important details that are crucial to the plot.Soyasauce (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office impact?
For a film with such positive sentiment, there should be some discussion about box office impact - it seems to have done very poorly at the box office. I assume that's because of limited release, but there's no discussion around this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.179.160.133 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Release
There were a number of reviews in late August and early September 2014:


 * https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/movies/robin-wright-stars-in-the-congress.html
 * https://www.npr.org/2014/08/28/343475279/in-the-congress-an-animated-future-where-movie-studios-are-villains
 * http://inthesetimes.com/article/17133/the_congress
 * https://film.avclub.com/the-congress-is-a-science-fiction-fiasco-of-southland-t-1798181216
 * https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/congress-movie-review-article-1.1926378

Per https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Congress-The#tab=summary [I don't know if this is a reliable source, hence I didn't use the information in the article]:


 * Domestic Releases: August 29th, 2014 (Limited) by Drafthouse Films
 * International Releases: December 12th, 2013 (Wide) (Serbia and Montenegro)
 * Video Release: December 2nd, 2014 by Cinedigm

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary has nonsensical sentence
“ One doctor reveals that Robin's execution her hallucinating that her rescuers were from Miramax.”

??? also using, “Miramax” rather than “Miramount”… 2601:200:8100:4E20:D039:E7BC:5C79:916C (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)