-
Day 4 Assignments
Reply to post your assignment.
-
37 Replies
-
Judith’s Stacking Suspense (Basic Instinct) ASSIGNMENT 1
L4 – Stacking Suspense –
What I learned was Esterhaus really knew his characters. Also, much of the suspense created a curiosity in my mind because it seemed that suspense occurring right in the scene didn’t happen until later scenes. The early scenes hinted that what could happen.
The thriller conventions were there. The characters were interesting. My curiosity held throughout the movie wondering who was doing what and why.
There were life and death situations physically, emotionally, and mentally.
I think Nick wasn’t unwitting, but he was resourceful. And the villain was powerful and devious and unrelenting being Catherine and the red herring, Beth, kept me guessing until the end as to who was the true killer.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Judith Watson.
-
Judith
I agree about not finding Nick unwitting, UNLESS being an addict defines a person as unwitting although clearly he is a sex, alcohol nicotine, coke addict etc. Ironic, but in real life Michael Douglas admitted himself to have been treated as a sex addict. type casting, huh…
I thought the “great” Alfred Hitchcock twist to this movie and the fear it caused, the emotions it elicited as the last hurrah for this film. Having our emotion jiggled is what we remember from films – the ice pick at the end. It was a mind “f—” after having been convinced, or at least the cops were convinced, Beth was the killer and the case was solved (unless I missed something).
The key to drama as I have seen in the great thriller writers seems to the “hope versus fear” see saw they put us on, maintaining the tension which “appears” to me to be the foundation of “intrigue” which is different to different people. I think this film didn’t reach US audiences as well as it could because this film (amazingly reported for US B.O. with advertising equal to the production budget didn’t break even, but that’s the studio system accounting system – cost $49 million, U.S. gross was $117 million, needing $150 million to breakeven without profit. Worldwide Gross later did well BUT distribution profit to the producers for foreign is perhaps 5% of US profit back to the producers. (That’s why stars and above the line is there to guarantee money to stars and writers etc. because no one ever sees profits except studios padding the upfront budgets. My concern about this film is that cop films (having several detective friends over the years and father-in-law who was head detective in Norristown PA) I’ve “found” from their experience in the real world, that without a “motive” usually there isn’t a crime.
Case in point: Catherine’s motive was made to appear was because in order for her to write a murder thriller she had to experience the characters first hand. come on? This was Hollywood in the 90’s. The writer should have made the motive believable like in Silence of the Lambs. I honestly feel if there is to be a believable murder mystery then Beth obviously was the one with a real “believable” “motive”; all her clandestine acts, different name, not being honest about knowing Catherine, having “one” lesbian affair, questionably because she was obviously lying by omission, jealousy and she was a shrink! They’re all screwed up and search the crime files; so many of them end up being perpetrators in sex crimes etc. I have a degree in psychology and had been accepted to med school but because all the shrinks were nuts (first hand experiences during training) right off it made me believe she was in fact the killer, not a red herring. The red herring was Catherine’s lesbian lover. Your form posting just made me think about. I really like your “unwitting” comment. Nice catch!
Thanks
Warren
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by
-
Chris N’s Stacking Suspense (Basic Instinct) ASSIGNMENT 1
What I learned is that Basic Instinct really did work at least two of Mystery, Intrigue, and Suspense into almost every scene.
It kicked off right away with life-or-death stakes, although after that first scene there were fewer of those for a while until they started building back up (in contrast with The Pelican Brief, which I looked at earlier, which front-loaded a lot of the life-or-death scenes).
It was also interesting seeing how much was being done with non-verbals rather than dialogue. Like scene 25 where “Beth is still angry…” comes out of a blink-and-you-miss-it change of expression at the end. I feel like those moments where the reveal is so quick and subtle that it almost has an Easter egg feel can be a good way to draw the viewer in, suggesting they’re picking up on clues others might not, if done judiciously.
-
Chris. Good call on noticing not enough action at the beginning, just the sex thing and then nothing until the car chase. James Bond flix continue to rake it in almost 40 years later and the audiences of this genre expect that. If producers only read at most the first ten pages of a script (now days) we might not have a chance relying on drama or sex and not “thrills”. Just a BTW.
Also, subtext is the key, Gene Hackman having been the master of this without a word spoken sometimes. Good catch!
Warren
-
-
Warren Goldstein – BI Stacking Suspense comments requested. The chart appeared to “not mention” numerous points of intrigue throughout the movie scenes which I personally perceived through GREAT subtext and not through dialogue but “talking heads” would have made it too much of a soap opera to rather listen to while ironing LOL. However, I cannot detail these points here specifically within the time and space constraint of the forum.
However, the mystery aspect in every scene was continuous without any superfluous scenes to distract us from the suspense. So, the mystery was quite clear in each scene which I found succinct.
Conspicuously, I noticed each scene’s intrigue to appear and stand out perhaps rather as “goals” for our hero to digest on and which because we were sucked into Nick’s psyche took us along with him on this ride. This left us at the end of each scene with the suspense which keeps us tuned in for more. I discovered in each scene (mostly) a dependence on adhering to a hope versus fear paradigm to qualify the moments of intrigue. I was “hoping” all along Nick would get the girl in the end and love would triumph (the American audience requirement). This fulfilled this requirement of most successful films counting the B.O. After all, it’s all about break-even of budget to gross which is 3 to 1. (See question at end of this commentary) *
It was too obvious the film was trying to make Sharon Stone appear as the killer from the onset which I can live with. Seems when the actress is “too” beautiful the writer has to put in some conflict in her personality to distract from the pretty face on the screen. Having Beth come in looking like a stable forlorned abandoned love interest was very effective and did not cast any dispersions on the intrigue and the mystery as to “who done it” being “stacked” up on us. I would have liked more clues to substantiate the mystery aspect of each scene. Cops depend on working on clues and motives, for the record and I found this area weak for a cop movie and could have been increased to make the mystery more mysterious. Once again, having such a big star like Stone play the female lead made me doubt it would have been her as a killer (good try however), making her game playing cause us to think she was just a bitch to Nick, however.
Talk about shock value suspense to take home with you, putting the ice pick under the bed in the last scene was a great chilling recompense for our temporary relief as to have already had the killer subdued. It worked, and it was totally unexpected and a surprise. Worth the price of a ticket other than seeing Sharon Stone’s body double in the sex scenes, from a male perspective, which in this day and age is no big deal anymore. Hitchcock would have been proud of that ice pick “mind f—“put in there as the last “emotion” we would have in our gut for the film. People don’t remember what is said or what is done but only remember how they are made to feel – ask any successful politician. Killing now days for namesake seems to be overdone, just watch the local news if you just want that. It’s the switcheroo’s that make me want to watch more.
FYI Concerning American audiences appeal as to M.I.S., (I can only speak from this perspective on my own)
*Because it’s all about success which is measured in dollars, in reference to the reliance solely on the M.I.S. structural conventions of this film related to this exercise, I noticed this film’s budget at $49 million which was shy of breakeven (3 to 1) in the US with US and Canada B.O. at only $117,727,224. Looks great but no cigar! (I had been an auditor in my past and having training by David Leedy comptroller for Universal) This “might” indicate American thriller genre audiences’ appeal for this type of thriller particularly during the 90’s was shy for “some reason” compared to US audience’s desire for “pure” action thrillers almost 10 to 1 (unfortunately for lower budget productions) Jackie Chan’s martial movies on low budget could make such profits and have instant distribution worldwide, considering most of “us” are shooting for low budget producers or we wouldn’t be taking this class. This should be kept in mind. So, my point is this example as a “money maker” cannot be substantiated as one might want to believe. US versus worldwide gross at $352,927,224. This is where the income return to investment was actually seen at 7 to 1 or a profit of theorized return which was 4 to 1, which is outstanding from “just” a thriller with lots of drama with only spurts of action. So,… my question might be is that do “foreign” audiences because worldwide outranked US B.O. have a different perspective of a thriller than US audiences? Is there a missing caveat here?
I would hope Hal might comment to his knowledge on this please to guide us in the decisions “we” make in writing thrillers with action verses lots of drama such as this film that will be to our advantage in scene MIS structure. Thanks!
-
Jennifer Miller’s BI Stacking Suspense
I learned how MIS is woven throughout the story, into the characters, and into each scene. I have long been a model movie breakdown fan. I love looking under the hood to see how everything works. This method/chart makes it easier to follow and track the storylines by focusing on the main 4 characters, which will help me keep track of the mystery, intrigue, and suspense.
-
SOTL Stacking Suspense – Silence of the Lambs
WOW. Great exercise having filled in all the scenes. I did not notice in all scenes particular character MIS notes. Thanks for this 5 hour exercise. I almost can recite the lines back from this flick. Once again I really loved the denouement with Hannibal calling from the Bahamas. Having someone for dinner and seeing Dr. Cheldon there was something I missed the first time I watched the film. Anthony Hopkins was absolutely great and the dialogue I felt kept the MIS going well.
Thanks
Warren
-
Sherri D. Coffee – BI Stacking Suspense
What I learned doing this assignment was to identify the mystery, intrigue, and suspense in each scene.
Basic Instinct illustrates the skill of presenting the MIS in every scene. Tension combines with intrigue to keep the viewer interested. A high level of suspense with the overarching mystery, “did she, do it?” coupled with layers of other potential murders establishes a reason for the viewer to complete the journey.
-
Sherri, I liked that you described the intrigue as “tension”. I found “tension” to be “fear” versus “hope” and that seemed to keep me at least tedder todering upon our emotions; in one way hoping that “love” might actually surface, as contentious as Nick and Catheryn’s relationship might appear, and with “fear” that he might be putting himself into harm’s way by following through on his attraction for her. I like the word “tension” to describe this. Thanks!
Warren
-
-
Patricia’s BI Stacking Suspense – Basic Instinct
I found the MIS of the character and the plot woven into every scene. I thought that the fact that the Beth red herrings were created by the antagonist made it more interesting than if they were unconnected red herrings.
I also thought the plot was SO farfetched and the conclusion so obvious as to make the suspension of disbelief impossible. Perhaps that is the 1972-ness of it? Yikes.
-
Patricia
Good point about the red herrings being created by the antagonist rather than appearing on their own. I see how effective that was now that you mentioned it. Good catch!
Warren
-
-
Eric Humble’s Stacking Suspense Model Assignment 1 – BI
What I learned from this lesson is: how every scene has some combination of MIS for each situation/scene and for the main characters can create a complex viewing experience for the audience without necessarily requiring the story itself to be as complicated as it feels. I was stunned by how the movie constantly worked on multiple levels just from interweaving the MIS of the scenes, the big MIS, or MIS of the characters. I often get lost in my thrillers from trying to think through the story linearly on multiple levels all at once. Watching Basic Instinct with the chart, I was able to see how to break each scene down so that it delivered on the thriller conventions and the thriller experience in a much simpler, non-linear storytelling method. I’m excited to do my own analysis of Silence of the Lambs to really internalize how this process results in a thriller.
-
Ian Patrick’s BI Stacking Suspense
Give us a list of the things you learned about Thrillers as you did this assignment:
Actions can be murder, car chases, physical altercations, interviews, violent sex
Mysteries can be looking for clues, motivations, identities, past histories, hidden agendas
Intrigue can be any questions that keep the action moving forward
Suspense is keeping the audience on edge about what will happen next
-
Judith’s Stacking Suspense Model
L-4 – Assign. 2
What I learned to help me write thrillers:
Fully developed heroes and villains create a good movie.
Clues are scattered throughout the film.
Flashbacks can successfully be used in thrillers.
Keeping the action and suspense going constantly helps the audience keep their interest.
Settings that are interesting make things scarier.
Having characters act covertly makes the movie scarier.
The parts of a thriller are becoming more clear to me.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Judith Watson.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by
-
Jack’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
What I learned from watching SOTL again and reviewing each scene for thriller conventions as well as character MIS is that the chart makes you understand how much subtlety goes into the the script. I intend to use the chart for every screenplay I’ve completed as a rewrite tool.
One thing that hit me in watching the movie again is how well Clarise handles men, of all ages, professions, and obsessions. Each man she encounters presents her with a particular challenge which she always counters cleverly.
-
Jack, You made me think about (now after watching SOTL) that there was a parallel with Clarice like Hannibal, both manipulators (like most shrinks) as to how she worked the room when it came to men. Of course Hannibal was the master. His intellect was overwhelming which made me frightened and distrustful of him as the villain, whereas Clarice’s manipulations of men were obviously innocent and because she needed to do her feigning off sexual advances by older men as a “diplomatic” move which every viewer would accept as being okay.
thanks for pointing that out to me.
Warren
-
-
Michelle Donnelly’s BI Stacking Suspense:
Things I learned about thrillers:
– Every scene should have elements that move the story forward and that bring about questions, suspicion, intrigue.
– Every scene should be connected to what’s happening next and what happened before.
– We learn most about the characters through how they act and react to situations.
– Planting a question/mystery and subsequently revealing the answer later (and even planting another question). For example – who is Hazel Dobkins? Then finding out two scenes later that she killed her own family, which only adds another question/mystery about whether she is somehow involved and whether that is pertinent to our story.
– The character’s moral flaws make them susceptible in a particular story – Nick relapsing into his addictions make him reckless and more readily available to be manipulated by Catherine and Beth.
– A multidimensional villain – even as sociopathic as Catherine seems, she appears to breakdown over Roxy’s death; she also seems to have a genuine relationship with Hazel Dobkins. If Beth is doing this, is it over anguish from being a jilted lover? We get the sense that both Catherine and Beth have been through life altering events that have lead them to how they are now.
– The stakes are high for more than just the main character.
– While some losses seem to be karmic (Nilsan), there are also tragic losses along the way (Gus).
– Everyone is a suspect.
-
Michele, thanks for reminding me that Hazel Dobkins was a great Red Herring in the story along with the other one, Catherine’s lesbian lover although she didn’t have a criminal record like Hazel. I didn’t find Hazel subtext to make her creepy enough to do something and the screenwriter instead relied on using the police recorders but that didn’t grab my emotions, nor did Hazel have a motive, despondent lover etc., whereas the lesbian lover’s actions and great subtext made her believable to me.
thanks for making me think harder. that’s why a forum is so good.
Warren
-
-
Chris N’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
Things I learned:
– The serious suspense/stakes tension kicked in with the first Lecter interview, but again this was a case where the frequency of that sort of tension ramped as the film went, especially going into the third act
– We did dip into flashbacks for Clarice’s character MIS, but I think part of getting away with that was setting up mind games and the rule that she shouldn’t be revealing this to Lecter as a big part of the conflict.
– There were several good examples of the “good” character using intrigue: the back-and-forth with Lecter, telling Dr. Chilton she was expected back that afternoon which may not have been true given how long she was given to have the report together, and of course scamming her way past the guards to get the last interview in with Lecter during the transfer.
– There were several points that underscored a woman (and a young one) working to get respect in this environment – high-fiving another female recruit at the beginning while largely being ignored by all the guys, bristling at not being in the interview with the sheriff, Dr. Chilton being being slimy on their first meeting (and really in general), talking with her roommate Ardelia. I debated a lot whether this fit into the character MIS, or if it could just be a theme through the film without having to be part of the MIS model.
-
Christopher, Hi. thanks, I forgot about Clarice’s roommate Ardelia. This was probably because now I think of it, she appeared to be less needed as some sort of “agent of change” for Clarice, meaning, she didn’t do anything to invoke any sort of change in Clarice I could perceive, the purpose of “supporting” characters. Perhaps, however, I now think was a band-aide so we could “hear” Clarice actually bring out certain feelings to remind us that Clarice was just a young girl although respectively in her capacity credentialed in psychology and forensics as brought out in her explanations of the murdered girl’s corpse, while taking on a big responsible and dangerous job, the FBI.
The fact I forgot about Ardelia having nothing to “risk” with her in those scenes or for Clarice to risk with “her” didn’t add any intrigue or suspense (for me anyway) to those scenes, dropping the ball to add on to suspense and or move the mystery forward bordering on an unnecessary chick flick movement which diverted the moment. I “paid” for a ticket, as Hal said, to get scared, intrigued, and for me to hone my own Sherlock Holmes mystery acumen, but these scenes fell short. These scenes didn’t put me “on the edge of my seat” as so many of the other scenes did extremely well in fact. Hal seemed to infer the goal of the writer in a thriller is to “keep” the viewer on the edge of their seat for “every” scene and the Ardelia scenes did none of that for me and I interpret not well for you.
to the screenwriter’s kudo’s from me is because I have written a serial killer script already and I have found Clarice’s description of serial killers action and characteristics very on the mark. This reassured me of credibility in her acumen in her character’s capacity in the story in contrast to her sweet and darling girl next door politeness.
Thanks again for your comment that made me think more about this supporting character’s MIS aspect and as well for her purpose.
Warren
-
-
Patricia’s SOTL assignment.
The MIS of the character and the plot were again integrated into every scene. I noticed the selective use of exposition in the first few scenes upped the suspense. This is interesting to me as many times exposition is clunky or boring, but here it was establishing “rules,” and danger that heightened the suspense. In a thriller we assume the rules will be broken.
The backstory of Clarice also was doled out so we could be intrigued as to how Lechter would use it against her.
Obviously stakes were incredibly high throughout.
-
Jennifer Miller’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
I learned how each scene flows into the next and are not subtle, but obvious cause and effects. Clarice gets a riddle from Hannibal and she unravels it and follows the lead, step by step the risks and stakes get higher and higher. I look forward to learning more advanced skills as we move ahead, but I see the benefit of Stacking MIS.
-
What I learned from Basic Instinct – Even though I had seen this movie several times before, this viewing was like I’d never seen it with this M.I.S. depth. The layers and layers of setups and payoffs were exciting to watch. Writing a great thriller is complicated but simple if knowing all the processes that make it work for the audience’s thrills.
I loved the several “red herrings” – Roxy and Hazel, then you always had Catherine and later, is it Catherine or Beth? Nick seemed confident in one scene and in the next he sells his soul and character for all his addictions from alcohol to sex satisfactions. Typical of addictions not controlled, so who was the hero, I asked? Who is the winner? Catherine? Nick? I figured that it’s the one who survives. All the M.I.S. kept you wondering. Also the sex scenes were pornographic. Nothing was left to the imagination in that department, except was Catherine going to ice pick him at the finish. Scary, complicated people all around with volatile personalities that killed off anyone who was in their way of getting to handsome, vulnerable and sexy Nick. Even at the end, will he survive in the future after making love to Catherine. Unnerving film to the end.
-
I thoroughly enjoyed figuring out the various levels of M.I.S. stacking in both assigned films. From watching Silence of the Lambs several times, I realized that this creepy film is a study in layered psychological disfunction – who is the most creepy sociopath, Lecter or Buffalo Bill? Why, how and when will they strike? Who is weaker – The victim in the well? Clarice? The FBI and police, who keep getting murdered? Who is stronger?
The big Mystery of who is the skinner, combined with will Lecter do more cannibalism and escape is riveting to the end – and we know that he will eventually, but how, because we learn Lecter is more than brilliant – he’s a force of unstoppable evil.
The Intrigue of watching the unexperienced heroine, Clarice, learn more as she goes along, studying Lecter and BBill, while improving her fighting and psychological skills. Will she catch the bad guy before more evil happens? Will she survive the fighting needed, emotional, mental and physical poured upon her from all the men?
The Suspense was non-stop. I found it interesting how the writer layered Clarice’s character to always be competing with men, all much larger than her in size, not smarts – the film showed her surrounded by men, questioning her capabilities. Her confidence grew. She was constantly challenged, except for Crawford, her supporter. Lecter continually taunted her, so would she survive his strong force. Strangely he grew to admire her, and was her weird fan at the end. Plus, in the end – leaving the door open to Lecter stalking his next dinner victim on the unknown island. Again, Lecter being unstoppable evil.
-
Eric Humble’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
What I learned from watching Silence of the Lambs and listing the stacking suspense is how each scene gives the emotional thrill ride from the combination of MIS and thriller conventions, and that the real power in this model is that it gives the impression of a multi-layered, complex storyline without becoming a thicket of plotlines and characters. It was astonishing to me how simple the action of each scene was, and how the slowly-revealed intrigues of Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter “feel” more complex and intellectual than the actual writing is. The storyline is simple but written with great depth, having each of the MIS techniques present in both story and character in every scene, and the constant layering of all of these give the movie that feeling of complexity which I, for one, have always loved in this genre. But in analyzing this movie beat by beat, as well as Basic Instinct, I’m starting to see how plotting a thriller is much clearer and, indeed, simpler than I’ve ever made it. Analyzing these two movies was an eye-opening experience for me and as I process what I’ve learned, I’m sure I’m going to be having even more breakthroughs just from this lesson alone. I can’t wait to see where we go from here!
-
Sherri D. Coffee – SOTL Stacking Suspense
What I learned doing this assignment is to utilize the chart to tease out the MIS for each character and each scene. The stakes increase as the movie progresses to create a high level of anticipation, intrigue, and fear.
-
Michelle’s SOTL Stacking Suspense:
Things I learned about writing stronger thrillers:
The value of getting the audience invested – this film does an amazing job at respecting the audience and inviting us along to solve the crime. The FBI hasn’t figured out who Buffalo Bill is and are bringing in a FBI agent in trainee (someone who we feel we can relate to and root for more than an experienced FBI agent).
Having a villain who we feel conflicted about –
Hannibal is pure evil, yet he becomes more human because of his connection to Clarice. In a twisted way he becomes her teacher and protective over her.
There is also some feeling of karmic eventuality that we find some twisted satisfaction about how the movie ends with Chilton most likely being Hannibal’s his next victim.<div>Having the main character’s need make them vulnerable to this particular situation – Clarice’s desire to stop her nightmare’s by saving someone since she wasn’t able to save the lamb puts in a vulnerable situation as she becomes invested emotionally in saving Catherine.
Side note: While watching Basic Instinct and reading the breakdown, I also followed along with the script as I find it helpful to see the stage directions and visualize. It is fascinating to (attempt) to follow along to the script for SOTL. The version I was able to find on the internet is radically different, but in ways that make the film the classic that it is today. From a screenwriting perspective, it feels like everything we are learning now. In learning how less is more – how holding back information can build suspense. The script reads more like a novel with much more being handed to the audience instead of pieces of information being held back.
</div>
-
Day 4 – Stacking Suspense Model, Assignment 1
Mona Miller’s BI Stacking Suspense [What I learned]
There is very little dialogue. Every line or almost every line is a zinger – it’s memorable, original, concise, and moves the scene forward. Comment on Dr. Beth by Gus: “When that girl mates, it’s for life.” Great line! When asked after smashing her ice with an ice pick why Catherine doesn’t just use a tray [to make ice cubes], she says “I like rough edges.” Great line!
The world of the hero was quickly established. Just the way the others looked at Nick, spoke to him, conveyed everything we needed to know. When they kept calling Nick “shooter” in the early bar scene, which he hated, that told us a lot.
The deception, when the detectives think the woman responding to them is Catherine, is not done through dialogue at all. They ask the maid who answers the door for Catherine Trammel, and this other woman comes down and talks to them. Either the maid knows better than to cross Catherine’s friend, or Catherine told her to let her friend deal with the police – either way, it leaves you with a feeling that people are willing to lie and mislead at this house (which is absolutely incredible-looking).
All the visuals served to deepen our sense of the character. The retired rock singer who’s killed in the beginning of the movie has an incredibly eclectic visual environment, with African and Caribbean art, voodoo-ish stuff, really varied, suggesting a kind of feverish, disordered passion along with great wealth. Catherine’s seaside mansion is full of stone, glass, light wood and cool colors, very sleek, clean lines – just like Catherine.
The comments of people around the main characters have a strong influence on our perception of the main characters. In Scene 14 someone says “Sometimes I think he started banging her just to get off the hook with Internal Affairs.” It makes us see Nick in a very negative light – manipulative, untrustworthy, determined to get what he wants. Gus’s loyalty towards and concern for Nick buoy up our expectations for goodness in Nick.
I was struck by the similarities in character between Nick and Catherine – they want what they want, and will do anything to get it; they are each powerful, confident, sexy, highly successful and charismatic; they each control their feelings [until they can’t]. Beth is not only physically different, she’s completely different emotionally – much more vulnerable, much messier.
The old murder of Catherine’s professor at Berkeley was done with an ice pick. There’s a consistent, repetitive use of certain physical clues that repeats throughout the movie. The car chases are also a repeated device throughout the movie.
The repetition of lines from the interrogation of Catherine that takes place when Nick is interrogated sets up a world of who’s in the know and who isn’t up to speed very neatly, while showing us how similar Catherine and Nick can be.
The intrigue seems to creep in later. Nick doesn’t know that Roxy was watching him have sex with Catherine until later when he meets Roxy in the bathroom, and she tells him “She likes me to watch.” So we’ve seen something, and later we realize that we might not have seen it the way it was intended to be seen.
Even if Nick is just waking up, he does it in a dramatic way that makes us scared! In Scene 29, he wakes up alone with an awful start, as if he were suffering from a terrible nightmare. That alone gets our hearts racing.
Another parallel between Nick and Catherine – they each warn the other that they will stick with what’s most important to them. (Sc. 29.)
Absolutely no repetition! Nick doesn’t tell the police department that the car driven by Roxy tried to run him down and that’s why he followed her. We viewers know that already.
Catherine doesn’t show real vulnerability until close to the very end, when she says “I lose everybody I love – I don’t want to lose you.”
This whole movie is thoroughly dominated by “male gaze” in how it views all the younger women characters. Most of the women are seemingly invulnerable to any real feeling – they’re just there, looking gorgeous, dancing, having sex – do they think or feel anything? I appreciated that Catherine Trammell is actually quite intelligent and independent. I actually thought the addition of beautiful Dorothy Malone as the mysterious wife who murdered her husband and kids (Hazel?) and confessed was quite interesting. It certainly kept me guessing.
-
Mona Miller’s SOTL Stacking Suspense (Assignment 2)
Seeing the movie frame by frame took away my fear (this is not a movie I wanted to see again – once was enough for me) and gave me much more respect for the script, the direction and the actors.
Sheer simplicity is really hard to achieve. I was struck by how simple and direct some of the movie is. I was also struck by how each character, even the very minor ones, has his own life, his own way of speaking and moving – there was a feeling of reality throughout the movie that helped make it really scary.
Very early in the movie, as Clarice is running on a training course, we pass a sign that says something like “PAIN HURT” and a few other words. It disappears quickly, it’s just something that’s there in the environment, and it’s amazingly effective.
“Do you spook easily?” Crawford asks Clarice. Some of the dialogue is so simple. Clarice is warned, don’t get Hannibal Lecter in your head, he’s a monster.
The prisoners locked up with HL – whatever these guys are in there for, it’s bad.
Clarice related to ordinary people. She loosened up when the Black orderly said to her “you’ll do fine” before going in to see HL for the first time.
Clarice was so well-prepared and respectful with HL. “I’m here to learn from you.” A great way to start. Early on we see that Clarice’s own peace of mind as well as possibly her life is at stake.
There was a great deal of attention paid to each character, even minor characters. The disgusting prisoner who spits something out at Clarice and hits her face is later frightened by HL into swallowing his own tongue. (I don’t think that’s possible.) HL seems to have his own code – he appreciates Clarice’s politeness, her respectfulness, her diligence.
The mystery of what happened to Clarice’s father, the sheriff, stays with us for a long time. We feel connected to Clarice’s own hunger to solve the BB murders.
The training exercise where the instructor tells Clarice, “you’re dead,” highlights the tremendous stakes in the agents’ lives. Everything is life or death when they go into the field. We’re anticipating this kind of danger in the scene where Clarice is in the dark under the house where Kathryn is kept prisoner, and she’s standing super close to Buffalo Bill without knowing it.
Clarice’s determination to succeed is shown physically in the scene where she visits the storage locker at night, and the driver for the elderly owner doesn’t do any physical labor – so she has to struggle inside, alone. The owner of the storage unit was a very specific character. He has very few lines, only appears in that scene, but he seemed real, interesting, complex.
The cat waiting in the window for the “size 14 girl” who made the mistake of helping the stranger load his couch into his van (and then was trapped and knocked out by him) makes clear that she lives alone, and may not be missed right away. We know she is a nice person from riding in the car with her singing. We already like her, having been with her on her drive.
Starling is called out of class over and over to take on this special work. Obviously, she’s a star. She’s quite modest about it, always respectful with her superiors, all work.
Starling is manipulated by Crawford – he tells her that HL “would have toyed with you, then turned to stone.” He excuses himself very readily for fooling Clarice about exactly what was going on.
Crawford won’t let them discuss this sex crime in front of Clarice, leaving her alone with a crowd of redneck cops who all stare at her. Clarice is quite adept at disarming these officers and ingratiating herself with them in a professional, distanced way. She makes the boss see that the way he treats her in front of other officers has an impact.
In the scene with the two weird bug afficianados, Clarice has a sense of humor – “are you hitting on me, Dr. Pitcher?” She becomes even more likable.
Dr. Frank Childs (Chilton?) is such a creepy toad! He’s sexist, condescending, insecure – a real jerk. Actor does a great job.
I couldn’t believe Buffalo Bill was played by Ted Levine! This was a really different role and look for him! He was awesome! (I loved him on Monk as Capt. Stottlemeyer.)
Hannibal Lecter (whom Clarice addresses as “Dr. Lecter”) reassures Clarice “I have no plans to call on you.” He speaks in this distant, formal way – it’s all truly creepy and effective.
-
[This is like the 3rd time I’ve posted this! The program thinks I haven’t completed stuff and won’t let me move on. Very annoying!]
Day 4 – Stacking Suspense Model, Assignment 1
Mona Miller’s BI Stacking Suspense
There is very little dialogue. Every line or almost every line is a zinger – it’s memorable, original, concise, and moves the scene forward. Comment on Dr. Beth by Gus: “When that girl mates, it’s for life.” Great line! When asked after smashing her ice with an ice pick why Catherine doesn’t just use a tray [to make ice cubes], she says “I like rough edges.” Great line!
The world of the hero was quickly established. Just the way the others looked at Nick, spoke to him, conveyed everything we needed to know. When they kept calling Nick “shooter” in the early bar scene, which he hated, that told us a lot.
The deception, when the detectives think the woman responding to them is Catherine, is not done through dialogue at all. They ask the maid who answers the door for Catherine Trammel, and this other woman comes down and talks to them. Either the maid knows better than to cross Catherine’s friend, or Catherine told her to let her friend deal with the police – either way, it leaves you with a feeling that people are willing to lie and mislead at this house (which is absolutely incredible-looking).
All the visuals served to deepen our sense of the character. The retired rock singer who’s killed in the beginning of the movie has an incredibly eclectic visual environment, with African and Caribbean art, voodoo-ish stuff, really varied, suggesting a kind of feverish, disordered passion along with great wealth. Catherine’s seaside mansion is full of stone, wood and cool colors, very sleek, clean lines – just like Catherine.
The comments of people around the main characters have a strong influence on our perception of the main characters. In Scene 14 someone says “Sometimes I think he started banging her just to get off the hook with Internal Affairs.” It makes us see Nick in a very negative light – manipulative, untrustworthy, determined to get what he wants.
I was struck by the similarities in character between Nick and Catherine – they want what they want, and will do anything to get it; they are each powerful, confident, sexy, highly successful and charismatic; they each control their feelings [until they can’t]. Beth is not only physically different, she’s completely different emotionally – much more vulnerable, much messier.
The old murder of Catherine’s professor at Berkeley was done with an ice pick. There’s a consistent, repetitive use of certain physical clues that repeats throughout the movie. The car chases are also a repeated device throughout the movie.
The repetition of lines from the interrogation of Catherine that takes place when Nick is interrogated sets up a world of who’s in the know and who isn’t up to speed very neatly, while showing us how similar Catherine and Nick can be.
The intrigue seems to creep in later. Nick doesn’t know that Roxy was watching him have sex with Catherine until later when he meets Roxy in the bathroom, and she tells him “She likes me to watch.” So we’ve seen something, and later we realize that we might not have seen it the way it was intended to be seen.
Even if Nick is just waking up, he does it in a dramatic way that makes us scared! In Scene 29, he wakes up alone with an awful start, as if he were suffering from a terrible nightmare. That alone gets our hearts racing.
Another parallel between Nick and Catherine – they each warn the other that they will stick with what’s most important to them. (Sc. 29.)
Absolutely no repetition! Nick doesn’t tell the police department that the car driven by Roxy tried to run him down and that’s why he followed her. We viewers know that already.
Catherine doesn’t show real vulnerability until close to the very end, when she says “I lose everybody I love – I don’t want to lose you.”
This whole movie is thoroughly dominated by “male gaze” in how it views all the younger women characters. Most of the women are seemingly invulnerable to any real feeling – they’re just there, looking gorgeous, dancing, having sex – do they think or feel anything? I appreciated that Catherine Trammell is actually quite intelligent and independent. I actually thought the addition of beautiful Dorothy Malone as the mysterious wife who murdered her husband and kids (Hazel?) and confessed was quite interesting. It certainly kept me guessing.
1
-
Subject Line: Mona Miller’s SOTL Stacking Suspense (Assignment 2) [I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time I’m posting this, but the program keeps acting as if I’ve never posted. Don’t know why.]
Seeing the movie frame by frame took away my fear (this is not a movie I wanted to see again – once was enough for me) and gave me much more respect for the script, the direction and the actors.
Sheer simplicity is really hard to achieve. I was struck by how simple and direct some of the movie is. I was also struck by how each character, even the very minor ones, has his own life, his own way of speaking and moving – there was a feeling of reality throughout the movie that helped make it really scary.
Very early in the movie, as Clarice is running on a training course, we pass a sign that says something like “PAIN HURT” and a few other words. It disappears quickly, it’s just something that’s there in the environment, and it’s amazingly effective.
“Do you spook easily?” Crawford asks Clarice. Some of the dialogue is so simple. Clarice is warned, don’t get Hannibal Lecter in your head, he’s a monster.
The prisoners locked up with HL – whatever these guys are in there for, it’s bad.
Clarice related to ordinary people. She loosened up when the Black orderly said to her “you’ll do fine” before going in to see HL for the first time.
Clarice was so well-prepared and respectful with HL. “I’m here to learn from you.” A great way to start. Early on we see that Clarice’s own peace of mind as well as possibly her life is at stake.
There was a great deal of attention paid to each character, even minor characters. The disgusting prisoner who spits something out at Clarice and hits her face is later frightened by HL into swallowing his own tongue. (I don’t think that’s possible.) HL seems to have his own code – he appreciates Clarice’s politeness, her respectfulness, her diligence.
The mystery of what happened to Clarice’s father, the sheriff, stays with us for a long time. We feel connected to Clarice’s own hunger to solve the BB murders.
The training exercise where the instructor tells Clarice, “you’re dead,” highlights the tremendous stakes in the agents’ lives. Everything is life or death when they go into the field. We’re anticipating this kind of danger in the scene where Clarice is in the dark under the house where Kathryn is kept prisoner, and she’s standing super close to Buffalo Bill without knowing it.
Clarice’s determination to succeed is shown physically in the scene where she visits the storage locker at night, and the driver for the elderly owner doesn’t do any physical labor – so she has to struggle inside, alone. The owner of the storage unit was a very specific character. He has very few lines, only appears in that scene, but he seemed real, interesting, complex.
The cat waiting in the window for the “size 14 girl” who made the mistake of helping the stranger load his couch into his van (and then was trapped and knocked out by him) makes clear that she lives alone, and may not be missed right away. We know she is a nice person from riding in the car with her singing. We already like her, having been with her on her drive.
Starling is called out of class over and over to take on this special work. Obviously, she’s a star. She’s quite modest about it, always respectful with her superiors, all work.
Starling is manipulated by Crawford – he tells her that HL “would have toyed with you, then turned to stone.” He excuses himself very readily for fooling Clarice about exactly what was going on.
Crawford won’t let them discuss this sex crime in front of Clarice, leaving her alone with a crowd of redneck cops who all stare at her. Clarice is quite adept at disarming these officers and ingratiating herself with them in a professional, distanced way. She makes the boss see that the way he treats her in front of other officers has an impact.
In the scene with the two weird bug afficianados, Clarice has a sense of humor – “are you hitting on me, Dr. Pitcher?” She becomes even more likable.
Dr. Frank Childs (Chilton?) is such a creepy toad! He’s sexist, condescending, insecure – a real jerk. Actor does a great job.
I couldn’t believe Buffalo Bill was played by Ted Levine! This was a really different role and look for him! He was awesome! (I loved him on Monk as Capt. Stottlemeyer.)
Hannibal Lecter (whom Clarice addresses as “Dr. Lecter”) reassures Clarice “I have no plans to call on you.” He speaks in this distant, formal way – it’s all truly creepy and effective.
-
I posted my assignments for Stacking Suspense, Parts 1 and 2 multiple times.
-
Jeff Hall’s BI Stacking Suspense
1. Keep the audience guessing
2. Create the question/mystery and do not answer until much later.
3. If a question is answered, do not answer it definitively. Create doubt.
4. Build Character’s back story beforehand and slowly reveal.
5. Each scene has multiple layers of questions and questionable intent.
6. Keep the antagonist’s intent a mystery.
7. Start the MIS from the very first frame.
8. Keep layering the MIS. When redrafting, add layers.
-
Jeff Hall’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
I learned from scene stacking SOTL that every scene has layers of complexity. There is never just ONE thing happening. There are multiple intentions, actions, questions, etc. The one important thing I learned is to be PURPOSEFUL with this. Approach each scene with the intent of asking questions and deepening the mystery and plot. PLAN each scene by writing it down. In the future I will chart out my scenes and sequences to purposefully layer the MIS.
-
ASSIGNMENT 1: Stacking Suspense Chart for BASIC INSTINCT
Julio Tumbaco’s BI Stacking Suspense
List of everything I learned in the process that can help me write stronger thrillers:
– reaction is character driven
– flawed characters are organic ways to create MIS
– arrogance, stubbornness, self-centeredness, avarice, jealousy, greed, etc.. are key
List of the things I learned about Thrillers as I did this assignment:
– creating a solid ordinary world/hero is key to taking the viewer on the suspension of disbelief journey
ASSIGNMENT 2: watched THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and filled in the Stacking Suspense Chart.
Julio Tumbaco’s SOTL Stacking Suspense
Detailed list of the things I learned from doing this process that can help me write stronger thrillers.
– analyzing each scene is pivotal to mastering the skillset to write a strong Thriller
– the elements in each scene not only provided extreme MIS- it also built the movie to it’s MIS ending.
-
Daniel’s Stacking Suspense BI Assignment 1
What I really learned doing this exercise is that to keep people guessing, which keeps them interested and involved, you need to give them possibilities. Give them possible options of what might happen and you can keep their attention. And with the stakes high enough to make them care you can get and hold the interest and take them on a journey.
-
Daniel’s Stacking Suspense BI Assignment 2
Once again it just shows how important putting more than just one element of MIS in each scene makes the movie so much more engaging. I had always felt this subconsciously but now that I am actually aware of it, it is even more obvious now.
Log in to reply.