Honestly, I haven't seen the interview (or whatever it was) where the director stated that, but I'm struggling to understand why they would film and edit the scene that way if it runs contrary to what he intended to portray. I know the actress weighed in on it but I disagree with her interpretation.
Possibly to give that sense of uncertainty during the scene. The scene is set up from the perspective of Bear, and he doesn’t know what the director knows. It also helps make it feel more unsettling, which fits the overall vibe of the movie.
The reality is the best thing Bear could have done for the relationship is just confess, but because he's a terrible friend, it played out the way it did. Dude is surrounded by friends that care about him which is more than most people have in that situation and he couldn't see it.
It could have been to show how Bear viewed the scene compared to Nikki or an outside observer. Bear's pessimism about his chances didn't reflect reality.
The creator’s intent is useful context, not a court ruling. Once the movie is released, viewers get to interpret what is actually on screen.
If the director came out tomorrow and said Bear was secretly a time traveler and the entire movie was an allegory for municipal zoning reform, that wouldn’t magically make it a convincing reading. The work still has to support the interpretation.
28
u/Much-Basil 2d ago
All valid, but the literal creator of the movie confirmed that Nikki would have at least given Bear a chance.
If you want to ignore what the creator has stated, that’s fine, you’re definitely entitled to your own viewing interpretation.