The Cable Guy : Chip never reveals his real name

Chip never reveals his real name

I wonder why Chip never reveals his real name. He just uses characters from TV shows. Maybe his name was really embarrassing or he just liked pretending to be other people.

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

Or maybe he'd spent so long watching movies, television, etc he had no identity of his own any more. Perhaps with the name he grew up with losing all meaning when his mother died.

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

Tnx Jenocalypse, your (smart :)) comment is on the level of MovieAddict2014's review.. Stumbled upon the movie by accident today & loved both:


To some people, movies are more than a passion. They are a way of life. For me, movies are not only one of my favorite hobbies, but I feel that all films express a certain reflection of the individual watching them. They say that you can tell a lot from a person by the way they act, talk, walk. I believe you can also tell a lot about a person from the sort of movies they like.

And I think that for Chip Douglas (Jim Carrey), movies and television are more than disposable entertainment. They are his entire life. He is consumed by film to such an extent that he creates multiple personas based on TV personalities. Many critics bashed Carrey's performance for being too sadistic. I think it's perfect because it's daring and hugely different than his other movies, and accurately reflects the mindset of a troubled individual who has grown up on his TV, rather than actually experiencing true life. Not many movies are like "The Cable Guy," and most of them don't have the guts to make a statement so bold and striking.

In "The Cable Guy" Carrey is the title character, his real name supposedly Chip Douglas, but towards the end we're not really sure what's true and false anymore. Chip works for a cable company and offers to hook up new apartment tenant Steven (Matthew Broderick) up with illegal cable. All Douglas asks for in return is a friendship, which Steven reluctantly agrees to. But what he doesn't realize is that Chip is an obsessive monster -- bred on films as a child and unable to separate celluloid from reality, he pursues a "Fatal Attraction" route and begins to stalk Steven. This is one of those movies, like "What About Bob?", where the hero is apparently the only one who realizes how crazy the "bad guy" is. Richard Dreyfuss went nuts trying to convince his family of Bill Murray's insanity in "Bob." In "The Cable Guy," Matthew Broderick has a tough time trying to expose Chip's sadistic side.

I am not Carrey's biggest fan. But I have to admit that over time the comedian has grown on me. And when I see him in "Dumb and Dumber" I can't picture anyone else taking on the role. Here he is in another role where I can see no one else portraying his character, and yet he still hasn't convinced me that he's a great talent. Strange.

I think Carrey's comedy is distinct and the reason his films have become more well-received over the years is because he has invented a certain area of modern-day comedy and thrived in that cubby hole for quite some time. I believe that humor is not existent; it is invented. Different forms of humor come and go. Right now, Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey are two of the highest-paid comedians the world, and yet in fifty years, where will they be?

Comedy is constantly changing. Humor is invented and re-invented to the point that what was once funny no longer is. That is why so many comedies from various eras of American history seem so outdated by today's standards. We are living in a world of Jim Carreys, Adam Sandlers, and Mike Myers. Although they still receive jobs, Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, and especially Dan Aykroyd -- some of the most popular comedians of the '80s -- have found themselves all stuck in ruts, filming kiddie movies for Disney and -- some of them (especially Murray and Aykroyd) -- departing comedy to pursue more serious careers in an area of film that will never become outdated: drama (for Murray, it is "Lost in Translation"; Aykroyd is less lucky with projects such as "Pearl Harbor," which might as well be classified as comedy).

The movie was directed by Ben Stiller, who carefully balances the neurotic against the sweet. The movie has its fair share of cameos, and in a great sequence Owen Wilson stars as a confident jerk who takes out Steven's girlfriend on a date. The Cable Guy finds out and, thinking he's doing Steven a favor, assaults Wilson in the bathroom of a fancy restaurant.

Perhaps the reason so many critics disliked "The Cable Guy" when it was released in 1996 was because they found themselves relating to Carrey's character. Maybe not. All I know is that it is one of the most daring and surprising comedies of the '90s -- not especially great but very unique and entertaining. I relate to its main character because we both love movies. My obsession is much calmer than Chip's. But the film does have a good eye for spotting good areas of satire. Yes, it's often rather dark and absurd. But isn't that the point?

4/5.

^^ Maybe you have to be a movie buff to "get it"?

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

Interesting review. Thank you for sharing.

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

"I wonder why Chip never reveals his real name. He just uses characters from TV shows. Maybe his name was really embarrassing or he just liked pretending to be other people."

What is real? How do you define "real"?

If you are talking about a LABEL some strangers schlap on you before you are old enough to have an opinion, vote or even consent about whether that should be your identity or not, then "real" is simply a conditioned programming done at an early age, using brainwashing tactics, repetition, and having everyone around you use it as your 'identity' so that you fit better the man-made, artificial system that uses a version of that 'identity' to create an 'artificial person' (a legal fiction, a corporation) so that you can be burdened with obligations that do not really belong to you (humans do not have the obligations that an 'artificial person' does, but if you (and your so-called 'parents') perform a joinder (right at your birth, too, isn't that handy?) between you and 'artificial person', then you also have those obligations - remember to thank your parents for participating in this scam), and to make you an obedient sheeple that doesn't really HAVE a true identity.

However, if you are talking about your ACTUAL identity, then we have to redefine the word 'real' here.

What is an identity? Where does it come from? How long does it last? Who can create an identity for YOU? And why do they have that authority, and where does that authority come from, and why does it work that way?

Before the reader answers these questions, they're not going to understand what 'real identity' even is, or means.

Can someone else give you an identity? Sure, but only if you consent to it - and even then, it'd be a false identity.

A superficial 'identity' at best, a temporary thing.

A real identity does not come from some stranger, who decides "You shall be called Flarb Guckenstein!", but from ... where?

Please remember, humans are eternal beings, that change all the time. For life to be eternal, it has to constantly renew itself.

Thus, the identity also has to be flexible, able to adapt to you and change with you. At the same time, since you are eternal, the identity also has to be eternal, to be true. Otherwise, it's just a temporary LABEL, and not your true identity.

What and who were you 128 years ago? Is this the same entity that you are now?

Let's say you were called 'Bob Smith', and were a farmer's apprentice in Texas.

So, now you are, for example, 'Amanda Bearing', a consultant's assistant in a small company in Japan.

Which is your true identity, and why?

What about 219 years from now, will you still be 'Amanda Bearing'? Or 'Bob Smith'? Why would 'Bob Smith' be any less your true identity than 'Amanda Bearing'?

No artificial, superficial, human-made identity or name is any more 'real' than any other. It's not any more 'true' identity than any other. Especially, if it comes from 'outside'. If some stranger on the street says your name is 'Kei Barber', would you accept that as your identity? If not, then why would you accept that exact same situation, just because it happens before you are old enough to say 'no'? Because that's how these so-called "real names" are just slapped on people. "You will be Jack Amadeus Smith, and there's nothing you can do about it" .. well, what if I don't agree or consent? "That doesn't matter, because you are 0 years old, so you can't yet voice your objection!"

Does this sound fair and 'real' process for getting a 'true identity' or 'real name'? It doesn't, to me. It sounds arbitrary and ludicrous.

Just because some people rubbed their genitals together, and you decided to use the end product of that small moment of lust-based party as the physical body for an incarnation, doesn't mean that any name they just decide FOR YOU, is somehow "your real name" or "your true identity". They're still STRANGERS to you, because you probably didn't know them before you incarnated.

Even if you GROW to 'love and respect' them as 'your parents' (although they really only provided you with the physical, biological vehicle you are using, in a very raw form that YOU had to then cultivate - possibly together with other things, like food, shelter and complete lack of discipline) later on, they WERE strangers at the moment when the 'naming' was done.

Why don't they give kids a temporary name until they are old enough to name themselves? Why are these things so rigid and so widely accepted anyway? Can't everyone just change their name every year, every month, every day, or friggin' every MINUTE, if they feel like it? Why do people automatically assume that something done by this, superficial and artificial process produces something more "REAL" than a deep introspection that ends with the result of actual self-knowledge, and a descriptive and fitting name that reflects that?

For THESE (and even possibly some other) reasons, _ANY_ name "Chip" gives in the movie, is JUST AS REAL as the 'real name' you are talking about.

Stop being so obsessed with 'names' and stop thinking there's only one 'real' one. Any name you give yourself is more real than some name some strangers decide to IMPOSE upon you WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

Think about that before answering.

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex


~
Once you choose hope, anything's possible -Christopher Reeve

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

lololol.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Chip never reveals his real name

I think it's testament to how unstable he was. He'd rather always live in his imagination, the wild, chaotic, creative way. Having a real name was just boring to him, and he wanted to always keep a part of mystery; and also because of his paranoia.

Harry !!....your hands are freezing !!...
Top