bnorthup
01-05-2002, 10:24 PM
Vanilla Sky (R)
At the Gaslight
Cruisin’ out of Control
By Brent Northup
Welcome to Scriptwriting 101. Today's special eight-hour class will consist in the study of how to incorporate dreams into a script. The assignment for this week was to write a script involving three elements: dreams, murder and memory.
Before we share each other's stories, we're going to see how other writers handled this assignment by watching two movies. First we're going to see an example of the wrong way to handle such an assignment by watching Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky." Then, after enjoying our hearty laugh at Crowe's expense, we'll finish class by seeing how a master handles the same project by viewing David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive."
Now that we've seen both movies, let's reflect on what they have in common. Clearly both films are both intentionally confusing. Both are "misdirection plots" that tempt us to draw false conclusions. Like good magicians, both scriptwriters are setting us up for major surprises and twists later on.
Both movies have murder mysteries buried inside them - mysteries in which both the victim and the villain are elusive. It's not entirely clear who was killed, who was the killer or even if there was a crime. Both movies are clearly structured with the illogic of a dream rather with the logic of a conventional three-act play. The dream sequences remind us of how unreliable our memory can be, often fooling us into thinking we've experienced something that never happened. The interconnectedness of dreams and memory is a subplot to both stories.
Now that we've seen the similarities, let's focus on the differences. In "Mulholland" the script retains its dreamlike elusiveness right up to the final ambiguous moments. It seems to suggest that only by going home and continuing the dream can we hope to make sense of it all. Lynch trusts us to unravel the mystery.
By contrast Crowe prefers to bludgeon us with the intended meaning, even offering a Mother-Superior-ex-plains-it-all ending to clear things up. The final hour of "Vanilla" plays like a preposterous science fiction script that reduces the mysteries of memory to a scientology seminar. Corporate marketing is ultimately offered as The Answer.
Lynch, on the other hand, is content simply to pose The Question. No answers in the back of the book. And the acting? Lynch chose to work with relatively unknown actors like Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring. Lynch's casting insured that the cast would not upstage the dream. Additionally, he directed them into puzzling, open-ended performances.
By contrast, Crowe chose a beautiful-people cast of Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz. He then allowed Cruise to shamelessly overact in some painfully melodramatic moments that scream, "Oscar, pay attention!" Cruz is reduced to a woman who apparently can't love a man without a pretty face. Diaz is the best of the three, bringing a psychotic scariness to her character that we never fully translate.
"Vanilla's" cast upstages the story. The obvious "prettiness" of these faces suggests that the film is marketing an offbeat story in the oldest of ways - by letting handsome actors wink and beautiful females flash a breast or two. Such tactics undercut any serious philosophical intent.
Crowe puts our brains on Cruise-control and makes thinking optional. When the ride is over, Crowe puts a map in our laps showing us where we've been. Lynch takes us on a drive as well, down a road filled with potholes, sharp turns and dead ends. But Lynch sends us home to draw our own maps to figure out where we've been.
END
At the Gaslight
Cruisin’ out of Control
By Brent Northup
Welcome to Scriptwriting 101. Today's special eight-hour class will consist in the study of how to incorporate dreams into a script. The assignment for this week was to write a script involving three elements: dreams, murder and memory.
Before we share each other's stories, we're going to see how other writers handled this assignment by watching two movies. First we're going to see an example of the wrong way to handle such an assignment by watching Cameron Crowe's "Vanilla Sky." Then, after enjoying our hearty laugh at Crowe's expense, we'll finish class by seeing how a master handles the same project by viewing David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive."
Now that we've seen both movies, let's reflect on what they have in common. Clearly both films are both intentionally confusing. Both are "misdirection plots" that tempt us to draw false conclusions. Like good magicians, both scriptwriters are setting us up for major surprises and twists later on.
Both movies have murder mysteries buried inside them - mysteries in which both the victim and the villain are elusive. It's not entirely clear who was killed, who was the killer or even if there was a crime. Both movies are clearly structured with the illogic of a dream rather with the logic of a conventional three-act play. The dream sequences remind us of how unreliable our memory can be, often fooling us into thinking we've experienced something that never happened. The interconnectedness of dreams and memory is a subplot to both stories.
Now that we've seen the similarities, let's focus on the differences. In "Mulholland" the script retains its dreamlike elusiveness right up to the final ambiguous moments. It seems to suggest that only by going home and continuing the dream can we hope to make sense of it all. Lynch trusts us to unravel the mystery.
By contrast Crowe prefers to bludgeon us with the intended meaning, even offering a Mother-Superior-ex-plains-it-all ending to clear things up. The final hour of "Vanilla" plays like a preposterous science fiction script that reduces the mysteries of memory to a scientology seminar. Corporate marketing is ultimately offered as The Answer.
Lynch, on the other hand, is content simply to pose The Question. No answers in the back of the book. And the acting? Lynch chose to work with relatively unknown actors like Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring. Lynch's casting insured that the cast would not upstage the dream. Additionally, he directed them into puzzling, open-ended performances.
By contrast, Crowe chose a beautiful-people cast of Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz. He then allowed Cruise to shamelessly overact in some painfully melodramatic moments that scream, "Oscar, pay attention!" Cruz is reduced to a woman who apparently can't love a man without a pretty face. Diaz is the best of the three, bringing a psychotic scariness to her character that we never fully translate.
"Vanilla's" cast upstages the story. The obvious "prettiness" of these faces suggests that the film is marketing an offbeat story in the oldest of ways - by letting handsome actors wink and beautiful females flash a breast or two. Such tactics undercut any serious philosophical intent.
Crowe puts our brains on Cruise-control and makes thinking optional. When the ride is over, Crowe puts a map in our laps showing us where we've been. Lynch takes us on a drive as well, down a road filled with potholes, sharp turns and dead ends. But Lynch sends us home to draw our own maps to figure out where we've been.
END